text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
author:
- |
Stefano Moretti\
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,\
Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom\
E-mail:
- |
Rui Santos\
Centro de Física Teórica e Computacional, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa,\
Campo Grande, Edifício C8 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal\
E-mail:
- |
\
ARC Center of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale,\
Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, 5005 Adelaide, South Australia\
E-mail:
title: 'Charged Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC via Multiple $b\bar bW^\pm$ Final States'
---
Introduction
============
Anticipated in the current and future runs of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the discovery of a (singly-)charged Higgs boson which would be a monumental evidence of new physics Beyond the Standard Model (BSM). Among many BSM scenarios which motivate the existence of charged scalars, 2-Higgs Doublet Models (2HDMs) are highly motivated from the perspective of Supersymmetry (SUSY) where two Higgs doublets are essential. 2HDMs provide a greater insight of the SUSY Higgs sector without including the plethora of new particles which SUSY predicts. Apart from the 2HDM Type-II (2HDM-II), which has the SUSY Yukawa structure, there can be other 2HDMS, namely, Type-I, -Y and -X depending upon how the two doublets couple to the SM fermions. In addition to a charged Higgs $H^\pm$, 2HDMs also predicts new neutral scalars,[*viz.*]{} the light CP-even scalar $h$, the heavy CP-even scalar $H$ and the CP-odd scalar $A$. In this work, we focus on the 2HDM-II wherein the constraints coming from $b\to s\gamma$ decays dictate the charged Higgs boson mass $M_{H^\pm}$ be larger than 480 GeV [@Misiak:2015xwa].
The LHC production of such a heavy charged Higgs state is in association with a single top quark [@bg]. In this work, we study charged Higgs decaying to $W^\pm W^\mp b \bar b b$ final state originating from all bosonic decays and the top-bottom quark mode [@Moretti:2016jkp]. The search for charged Higgses in bosonic decays has been studied recently in [@Arhrib:2016wpw] and with jet substructure in [@Li:2016umm; @Patrick:2016rtw]. Finally, charged Higgs search prospects at the LHC in a variety of channels have been detailed in [@Akeroyd:2016ymd].
Analysis
========
Allowed Parameter Space
-----------------------
In this study, we mainly focus on the inverse alignment scenario where the heavy CP-even Higgs $H$ is the SM-like Higgs boson. The charged Higgs mass is chosen to be 500 GeV and $M_h$ to be 100 GeV. The pseudoscalar is also considered to be light with three values of its mass, namely, 100 GeV, 130 GeV and 150 GeV. This choice of masses leads to maximize the number of intermediate channels which yield a $b\bar bW^\pm$ final state via $H^\pm\to W^\pm h/H/A$ followed by the decay $h/H/A\to b\bar b$. The $H^\pm \to tb$ decay is also included in the analysis.
To obtain the allowed parameter space in the $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ vs $\tan\beta$ plane, we fix all the masses of new scalars and make use of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ScannerS</span> [@Coimbra:2013qq] in order to take into account theoretical and experimental constraints. We interface <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ScannerS</span> with 2HDMC [@Eriksson:2009ws] to evaluate the decay Branching Ratios (BRs), <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HiggsBounds</span> [@Bechtle:2013wla] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HiggsSignals</span> [@Bechtle:2013xfa] to obtain all the constraints from collider analyses including the ones coming from LHC7 and LHC8 data.
![\[fig:points\_2hdm\] Allowed points on the $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ versus $\tan\beta$ plane after the LHC Run 1.](figs/sba-tb-type2.pdf)
In Fig. \[fig:points\_2hdm\], we display the points in the $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ vs $\tan\beta$ plane allowed after LHC Run 1 and including all theoretical constraints. From the figure, we find that only the low $\tan\beta\lesssim 2$ and $|\sin(\beta-\alpha)|\sim 0.2$ region is favored by current constraints. Thus, in the remainder, we fix $\tan\beta=1$ and $\sin\beta=0.1$ for our collider simulation.
Decays of Charged Higgs Bosons
------------------------------
![\[fig:br\_2hdmII\] BRs for a 2HDM-II charged Higgs boson with and $M_A = 100$ GeV (left), and $M_A = 150$ GeV (right). The remaining parameters are fixed to $M_H = 125$ GeV, $M_h = 80$ GeV, $\tan\beta=1$ and $\sin (\beta-\alpha) = 0.1$.](figs/BR-MA-100-II-tb-1.pdf "fig:") ![\[fig:br\_2hdmII\] BRs for a 2HDM-II charged Higgs boson with and $M_A = 100$ GeV (left), and $M_A = 150$ GeV (right). The remaining parameters are fixed to $M_H = 125$ GeV, $M_h = 80$ GeV, $\tan\beta=1$ and $\sin (\beta-\alpha) = 0.1$.](figs/BR-MA-150-II-tb-1.pdf "fig:")
In the previous section, we discussed the constraints on the parameter space from current LHC data and fixed parameters such as $\tan\beta$, $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ and other masses of scalars. For such a parameter space and chosen masses, several decay channels open up. In Fig. \[fig:br\_2hdmII\], we present the BRs of various decay channels of the charged Higgs state for two values of pseudoscalar mass, $M_A=100$ GeV (left) and 150 GeV (right), respectively. We find that, for a chosen benchmark point with $M_{H^\pm}=500$ GeV, the BRs of the decay modes $W^\pm h$ and $W^\pm A$ are about 38%-40%, respectively, while for the $tb$ mode is around 8%-10%. We find, in general, that, as soon as the $H^\pm$ bosonic decays are allowed, they become dominant over the entire parameter space. In the following, we consider all decay channels and their possible interference effects in numerical simulation.
Signal and Backgrounds
----------------------
The dominant production of a heavy charged Higgs boson is in associated production with a single top quark, i.e., $pp\to t H^- + c.c.$, at the LHC with total cross section at around 900 fb for $M_{H^\pm}=500$ GeV in the 2HDM-II at leading order. The charged Higgs decays to the $W^\pm b\bar b$ final state originate from four decay channels, the $W^\pm h/H/A$ and the $tb$ modes. Thus the final signal includes two $W^\pm$ bosons and 3 $b$-jets. We consider one of the $W^\pm$ bosons to decay leptonically and other hadronically.
The irreducible background to our signal process comes from $W^+W^- b\bar b b$ processes which include SM single top production as well as $t\bar t b$ processes with a total cross section of about 9 pb. The dominant contribution to background originates from $W^+W^- b\bar b j$ processes that include top pair production and decay. Another background considered is the $W^+W^- b j j$ process, which can be suppressed efficiently with the requirement of 3 $b$-jets in the event sample.
Simulation Setup
----------------
We generate the parton level signal and background events at leading order and then pass these events through parton showering and hadronization, then, they are passed through a fast detector simulation (see Ref. [@Moretti:2016jkp]). Below we briefly discuss our identification and selection criteria.
- [**Identification cuts**]{}
1. Events must have at least 1 lepton ($e$ or $\mu$), 3 $b$-jets and at least 2 light jets,
2. All leptons and jets must satisfy: $p_{Tj,\ell}>20~ \mbox{GeV},~ |\eta_{j,\ell}|<2.5,$
3. All pairs of objects must be well separated from each other, $$\Delta R_{jj,jb,bb,\ell j,\ell b}\geq 0.4~~ \mbox{where}~~\Delta R=\sqrt{(\Delta \phi)^2+(\Delta \eta)^2}.$$
- [**Selection requirements**]{}
When an event satisfies all above requirements, it is further processed for signal reconstruction and background reduction as follows.
![\[fig:HT\] Scalar sum of $p_T$’s ($H_T$) distribution (left) and invariant mass $M_{j_1 j_2}$ of two light jets with minimum $\Delta_R$ (right) for signal and backgrounds.](figs/HT.pdf "fig:") ![\[fig:HT\] Scalar sum of $p_T$’s ($H_T$) distribution (left) and invariant mass $M_{j_1 j_2}$ of two light jets with minimum $\Delta_R$ (right) for signal and backgrounds.](figs/INV_Mjj.pdf "fig:")
1. [**$b$ tagging efficiency**]{}: the $b$ tagging efficiency is chosen according to following rule: $\epsilon_{\eta}\tanh(0.03\;p_T-0.4),$ where $\epsilon_\eta=0.7$ for $|\eta|\leq 1.2$ and 0.6 for $1.2\leq|\eta|\leq 2.5$. The $c$-jet faking probability as a $b$-jet is obtained from the same expression but now with $\epsilon_\eta=0.2$ for $|\eta|\leq 1.2$ and $\epsilon_\eta=0.1$ for $1.2\leq|\eta|\leq 2.5$.
2. [**Cut on $H_T$**]{}: a useful variable is the scalar sum of the $p_T$’s of all the visible particles in the final state, $H_T=p_T^{\ell^\pm}+\sum_j p_T^j$. Fig. \[fig:HT\] (left panel) shows the $H_T$ distributions for the signal and backgrounds. The signal events include a heavy particle which produces high-$p_T$ decay products and thus has a peak at large $H_T$. A cut on $H_T > 500$ GeV reduces the $WWbbj$ and $WWbbb$ backgrounds to 36% and 27% of their initial values, respectively, while the signal events are only decreased to 87% of their initial values.
3. [**Hadronic $W^\pm$ candidate**]{}: a heavy charged Higgs state leads to a highly boosted $W^\pm$ and $b\bar b$ pairs leading to their decay products to be closely spaced. We reconstruct the hadronic $W^{\pm}$ from the jets with $\Delta R_{\mathrm{min}}$ as shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:HT\].
4. [**Leptonic $W^\pm$:**]{} a leptonically decaying $W^\pm$ is reconstructed using the information about the missing transverse momentum and imposing the invariant mass constraint $M_{l\nu}^2 = M_{W^\pm}^2$. Using the momenta of the reconstructed neutrino and lepton, the momentum of the leptonic $W^\pm$ can be obtained.
![\[fig:INV\_Mbb\] Invariant mass ($M_{bb}$) of 2 $b$-jets with $\Delta R_{\rm min}$ for $M_A=$ 100 GeV (left), 130 GeV (middle) and 150 GeV (right) for the signal and backgrounds. As discussed in the text, the 2 $b$-jets with minimum $\Delta R$ are chosen to reconstruct $h$ and $A$.](figs/INV_Mh_100.pdf "fig:") ![\[fig:INV\_Mbb\] Invariant mass ($M_{bb}$) of 2 $b$-jets with $\Delta R_{\rm min}$ for $M_A=$ 100 GeV (left), 130 GeV (middle) and 150 GeV (right) for the signal and backgrounds. As discussed in the text, the 2 $b$-jets with minimum $\Delta R$ are chosen to reconstruct $h$ and $A$.](figs/INV_Mh_150.pdf "fig:")
After reconstructing the $W^\pm W^\mp b\bar b b$ final state, we now proceed to extract individual signal channels by applying additional sets of cuts. For the case of the $W^\pm h$ and $W^\pm A$ models, we first reconstruct the neutral Higgs mass by finding the pairs of $b$-jets with minimum $\Delta_R$ which have been shown in Fig. \[fig:INV\_Mbb\] for $M_A=100$ GeV and $M_A=150$ GeV. One can see two peak in right panel corresponding to $h$ and $A$ while in the left panel the two peaks are joined together displaying a large width in $M_{b\bar b}$ distribution. Finally, we combine the $h$ or $A$ momentum with the $W^\pm$ boson one to reconstruct the charged Higgs mass as shown Fig. \[fig:INV\_MWh\] (left panel).
![\[fig:INV\_MWh\] Invariant mass ($M_{WX}$) of the other $W^\pm$ and of the reconstructed $h,~A$ state (left) and of the reconstructed top and the remaining $b$-jet $M_{tb}$ for the signal and backgrounds. ](figs/INV_MWh.pdf "fig:") ![\[fig:INV\_MWh\] Invariant mass ($M_{WX}$) of the other $W^\pm$ and of the reconstructed $h,~A$ state (left) and of the reconstructed top and the remaining $b$-jet $M_{tb}$ for the signal and backgrounds. ](figs/INV_Mtb.pdf "fig:")
From the remaining events, we first reconstruct the other top from thethe reconstructed $W^\pm$ and remaining $b$-jets which give the best fit to the top quark mass. Then we combine one of the reconstructed top’s with the remaining $b$-jets to reconstruct the charged Higgs mass. The one which gives a better reconstruction is kept. We display the invariant mass $M_{tb}$ in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:INV\_MWh\] for signal and backgrounds.
Conclusions
===========
We have chosen a heavy charged Higgs scenario where all possible decay channels are kept open. Since they all contribute to the most relevant signature, which is $W^\pm W^\mp b\bar b$, we have considered the simultaneous contribution of the different intermediate states $W^\pm h$, $W^\pm A$, $W^\pm H$ (which is however subleading as we have taken $H$ to be SM-like) and $tb$. The signal mode is associated production of a top-quark and a charged Higgs boson. We also evaluate the efficiency through which each signal can be extracted from the LHC data. From the final number of signal and background events after applying all set of cuts, we evaluate the signal-to-background significance for the global $W^\pm X$ signal to be over 5$\sigma$ with just 100 fb $^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. In constrast, to attain a similar significance in the $tb$ mode, we find that we will need a full 3000 fb$^{-1}$ of data set which is projected to be accumulated after the LHC14 run is completed [@Gianotti:2002xx].0.35cm
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} SM is supported in part through the NExT Institute. SM and RS are supported by the grant H2020-MSCA-RISE-2014 no. 645722 (NonMinimalHiggs). PS is supported by the University of Adelaide and the Australian Research Council through the ARC Center of Excellence for Particle Physics (CoEPP) (grant no. CE110001004).
[99]{} M. Misiak [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 221801 (2015).
J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys [B]{} [**294**]{}, 621 (1987).
S. Moretti, R. Santos and P. Sharma, Phys. Lett. B [**760**]{}, 697 (2016).
A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik and S. Moretti, arXiv:1607.02402 \[hep-ph\].
J. Li, R. Patrick, P. Sharma and A. G. Williams, arXiv:1609.02645 \[hep-ph\].
R. Patrick, P. Sharma and A. G. Williams, arXiv:1610.05917 \[hep-ph\].
A. G. Akeroyd [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1607.01320 \[hep-ph\].
R. Coimbra, M. O. P. Sampaio and R. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{}, 2428 (2013).
D. Eriksson, J. Rathsman and O. St[å]{}l, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**181**]{}, 189 (2010).
P. Bechtle, O. Brein [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{}, 2693 (2014).
P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{}, 2711 (2014).
S. Moretti, R. Santos and P. Sharma, Phys. Lett. B [**760**]{}, 697 (2016).
F. Gianotti [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**39**]{}, 293 (2005).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ability to store information is of fundamental importance to any computer, be it classical or quantum. To identify systems for quantum memories which rely, analogously to classical memories, on passive error protection (‘self-correction’) is of greatest interest in quantum information science. While systems with topological ground states have been considered to be promising candidates, a large class of them was recently proven unstable against thermal fluctuations. Here, we propose two-dimensional (2D) spin models unaffected by this result. Specifically, we introduce repulsive long-range interactions in the toric code and establish a memory lifetime polynomially increasing with the system size. This remarkable stability is shown to originate directly from the repulsive long-range nature of the interactions. We study the time dynamics of the quantum memory in terms of diffusing anyons and support our analytical results with extensive numerical simulations. Our findings demonstrate that self-correcting quantum memories can exist in 2D at finite temperatures.'
author:
- 'Stefano Chesi, Beat Röthlisberger, and Daniel Loss'
title: 'Self-Correcting Quantum Memory in a Thermal Environment'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum computers cannot be realized without the help of error correction [@Nielsen2000]. By encoding quantum information into logical states and designing correction circuits working on them, computations and information can in principle be protected from decoherence. However, the need for such an active control mechanism poses a major challenge for any physical implementation. It is therefore of greatest interest to look for passively protected systems which are intrinsically stable against the destructive influence of a thermal environment. For this reason, the idea to encode quantum information in a topologically ordered ground state $|\Psi_0\rangle$ of a suitable Hamiltonian has attracted a lot of interest [@Kitaev2003; @Dennis2002; @Kitaev2006; @Bacon2006; @Trebst2007; @Tupitsyn2008; @Vidal2009a; @Vidal2009b; @Nussinov2008; @Alicki2009; @Iblisdir2009; @Iblisdir2010; @Bravyi2009; @Kay2008; @Pastawski2009; @Pastawski2009b; @Hamma2009; @Chesi2009a].
Important candidates among such topological models are stabilizer Hamiltonians [@Nielsen2000; @Gottesman1997], which are given by a sum of mutually commuting many-body Pauli operators. The advantage of such Hamiltonians is that the full energy spectrum is known and error correction schemes are readily derived [@Nielsen2000; @Gottesman1997]. A prototypical example of such models is the toric code proposed in Ref. [@Kitaev2003], for which the stability against Hamiltonian perturbations [@Trebst2007; @Tupitsyn2008; @Vidal2009a; @Vidal2009b; @Pastawski2009b] and thermal fluctuations [@Dennis2002; @Nussinov2008; @Alicki2009; @Iblisdir2009; @Iblisdir2010] was studied extensively. However, recent results [@Bravyi2009; @Kay2008] show that in one and two spatial dimensions no stabilizer Hamiltonian with finite-range interactions (including the toric code model) can serve as a self-correcting quantum memory due to the errors induced by a thermal environment.
In other words, increasing the size of such a system does not prolong the protection of its ground-state space from decoherence. These negative results point toward the fundamental question whether topologically ordered quantum states, and hence self-correcting quantum memories, can exist at all on a macroscopic scale. In the following, we will demonstrate that self-correcting properties of two-dimensional (2D) stabilizer Hamiltonians can indeed be established when we allow for long-range repulsive interactions between the elementary excitations (anyons). While the purpose of the present work is of principal nature, we note that such interacting models can be expected to be realized in physical systems. We discuss this issue in greater detail at the end, where we also show how tunable repulsive long-range interactions could be mediated via photons in an optical cavity.
The outline of the paper is as follows: In Sec. \[sec:model\] we introduce a toric code model with repulsive long-range interactions between anyons. In Sec. \[app:simulation\] we describe how to simulate the dynamics of the model in contact with Ohmic or super-Ohmic thermal baths. A discussion of the decoherence caused by anyon diffusion and an expression of the memory lifetime as a function of system parameters is provided in Sec. \[sec:lifetime\]. The main results of our paper are in Secs. \[sec:mf\] and \[sec:lifetime\_interacting\] where, first by an analytical mean-field treatment and then by direct numerical simulation, we demonstrate the self-correcting properties of our model. Section \[sec:long\_range\] contains a discussion of the possible implementations of the long-range anyon interaction and Sec. \[sec:conclusion\] concludes the paper with our final remarks.
![(Color online.) Quantum memory based on the toric code. Illustrated is an $8 \times 8$ lattice (periodic boundary conditions) with a total of 128 spins-$\frac{1}{2}$ \[gray (smaller) circles\] on its edges. The four-body plaquette and star operators are indicated in the background. A particular choice for all logical operators $X_1$, $Z_1$, $X_2$, and $Z_2$ is shown, although we will focus only on the decay of $Z_1 \equiv Z$ (see main text). A number of spins is affected by $\sigma_x$-errors (solid dots), leading to excited plaquettes, or ‘plaquette anyons’ (striped plaquettes). Measuring the plaquette operators yields the positions of the excited plaquettes, but reveals no information about how they were originally paired or which path (indicated by the framed plaquettes) they took. A minimum-weight error correction procedure (see Sec. \[app:simulation\_details\]) applies $\sigma_x$-operators to the spins marked by the larger orange circles. While the vertically striped green anyons are annihilated ‘properly’ (with a trivial loop of errors remaining from the top pair and no error from the bottom pair), the horizontally striped red pair is connected around a topologically non-trivial loop on the torus. Although this last pair is annihilated as well, an uncorrected $\sigma_x$-error remains on the logical $Z$ string, having thereby introduced a logical error in the state stored in the memory.[]{data-label="fig:toric code"}](toric_code.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Repulsive long range interactions in the Kitaev model {#sec:model}
=====================================================
The model under study is defined on a $L\times L$ square lattice with periodic boundary conditions (a ‘torus’), and a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ is placed on each of its $2L^2$ edges. Starting from the toric code model [@Kitaev2003], we consider the more general stabilizer Hamiltonian $$\label{H0}
H_0= \frac12 \sum_{p p'} U_{pp'} n_p n_{p'} + \frac12 \sum_{s s'} V_{ss'} n_s n_{s'},$$ where $n_p=(1-\prod_{i\in p} \sigma_{z,i})/2$, $n_s=(1-\prod_{i\in s} \sigma_{x,i})/2$, and $\sigma_{x, i}, \sigma_{z, i}$ denote the usual single-spin $x$ and $z$ Pauli operators applied to spin $i$. The indices $p$ and $p'$ run over all ‘plaquettes’ (involving the four spins on the edges of a unit cell), whereas $s$ and $s'$ run over all ‘stars’ (involving the four spins around a corner of a unit cell), see Fig. \[fig:toric code\]. The operator $n_p$ ($n_s$) has eigenvalues $0, 1$ and counts the number of plaquette- (star-) anyons at site $p$ ($s$). The fourfold degenerate energy levels encode two qubits with logical operators given by $Z_i = \prod_{k\in \ell_i} \sigma_{z,k}$ and $X_i = \prod_{k\in \ell'_i} \sigma_{x,k}$, $i = 1, 2$, where $\ell_i$ and $\ell'_i$ are strings of spins topologically equivalent to single loops around the torus (see Fig. \[fig:toric code\] for an example). These operators commute with all $n_p$ and $n_s$ and obey themselves the usual spin commutation relations.
Note that by specializing to $U_{p p'} = 2J\delta_{p p'}$ and $V_{s s'} = 2J\delta_{s s'}$, where $J > 0$ is the single-anyon excitation energy, the Kitaev original toric code model is recovered. Except for the boundary conditions, the structure of the toric code is very similar to an earlier model by Wegner [@Wegner1971; @Kogut1979]. Wegner’s Ising lattice gauge theory involves only plaquette operators in the Hamiltonian ($U_{p p'} = 2J\delta_{p p'}$ and $V_{s s'} = 0$), while the stars play the role of a gauge symmetry group. Both the Kitev Hamiltonian and the two-dimensional Wegner model have no finite-temperature phase transition, as can be obtained by mapping them to one-dimensional Ising chains [@Wegner1971; @Kogut1979; @Dennis2002; @Nussinov2008]. Finally, the Kitaev model is also equivalent to a model proposed later by Wen [@Wen2003; @Nussinov2007].
Since all $n_p$ and $n_s$ are mutually commuting, the Hamiltonian Eq. describes two independent lattice gases of plaquettes and stars, respectively. Without loss of generality, we can thus restrict our analysis to the dynamics of plaquettes and their influence on one of the $Z_i$ operators, say $Z_1 \equiv Z$. A corresponding logical operator $Z_{\rm ec}$ is defined by the error correction procedure (see Fig. \[fig:toric code\] and Sec. \[app:simulation\_details\]). Consequently, we set $V_{ss'}=0$ for all stars while assuming the plaquette interactions $U_{p p'}$ to be of the generic form $$\label{Upp_long_range}
U_{pp'}=2J \delta_{pp'}+\frac{A}{(r_{pp'})^\alpha} (1-\delta_{pp'}),$$ where $r_{pp'}$ denotes the shortest distance on the torus between the centers of plaquettes $p$ and $p'$, see Fig. \[fig:toric code\]. The strength of the repulsive plaquette interaction is given by the energy $A \geq 0$, and the interaction is long-range for $0 \leq \alpha <
2$ (see below). The model is also equivalent to a long-range Ising model, see Appendix \[app:ising\_chain\]. The case of a positive logarithmically diverging interaction (which results in attractive forces between the anyons [@Dennis2002]) was recently discussed in Ref. [@Hamma2009].
Error models and simulations {#app:simulation}
============================
Error models
------------
We model the interaction of the system with a thermal environment by coupling each spin to a bath which can introduce $\sigma_x$-errors [@footnote01] in the initial state $|\Psi_0 \rangle$, assumed to be a ground state of Eq. (\[H0\]). From a standard master equation approach in the weak coupling limit [@Davies1974; @Alicki2009], we derive a rate equation for the probabilities $p_m$ of the system to be in state $|\Psi_m\rangle = \prod_{i\in m} \sigma_{x, i} |\Psi_0\rangle$, where $\{m\}$ is the set of all possible patterns of $\sigma_x$-errors. This rate equation reads $$\label{rate equation}
\dot p_m = \sum_{i}\left[\gamma(-\omega_i(m)) p_{x_i(m)} - \gamma(\omega_i(m)) p_m\right],$$ where we have defined $x_i(m)$ to be the state $m$ with an additional $\sigma_x$-error applied to spin $i$, and $\omega_i(m) = \epsilon_m - \epsilon_{x_i(m)}$ is the energy difference between the states $m$ and $x_i(m)$. The time evolution of the probabilities $p_{m}$ determines the decay of the expectation values $\langle Z_{(\rm ec)} \rangle = \sum_m p_m \langle \Psi_m |Z_{(\rm ec)}| \Psi_m \rangle$.
The rates $\gamma(\omega)$ describe the transition probabilities between states with energy difference $\omega$. A standard expression for $\gamma(\omega)$ can be obtained from a spin-boson model and reads [@Leggett1987; @DiVincenzo2005] $$\label{gamma_bath_text}
\gamma(\omega)=2 \kappa_n \left|\frac{\omega^n}{1-e^{-\beta\omega}}\right| e^{-|\omega|/\omega_c}.$$ Here, $\beta = 1/T$, with $T$ being the temperature of the bath (we set Boltzmann’s constant to one). For simplicity, we assume in the following a large cut-off energy $\omega_c \to \infty$. For $n = 1$, the bath is called ‘Ohmic’, whereas for $n \geq 2$ it is called ‘super-Ohmic’. We find in this work that $n$ has a strong influence on the decay times of the encoded states, with super-Ohmic baths providing the best scaling of the memory lifetime with $L$. These are not uncommon and emerge, e.g., for quantum dot spins in contact with phonons [@Golovach2004].
Simulations and error correction {#app:simulation_details}
--------------------------------
The eigenstates of Eq. (\[H0\]) are highly entangled, but it is nevertheless possible to perform classical simulations of the quantum memory in the simple framework discussed above. In order to achieve a time evolution in accordance with Eq. (\[rate equation\]), each iteration of a simulation consists of the following steps. (i) We record the relevant parameters of the system. (ii) We calculate the total spin flip rate $R = \sum_i \gamma(\epsilon_s -
\epsilon_{x_i(s)})$, where $s$ is the current state of the system. (iii) We draw the time $\Delta t$ it takes for the next spin to flip from an exponential distribution, $\Delta t \sim {\rm Exp}(1/R)$, and then add this to the current total time. (iv) We calculate all individual spin flip probabilities $p_i = \gamma(\epsilon_s -
\epsilon_{x_i(s)})/R$ and flip a spin at random accordingly. After some initially specified time has been reached, we stop and have obtained a single ‘run’. The final data presented in this work is then generated by averaging over many (typically several thousand) runs.
Although continuous monitoring and error-correction are not required in a passive memory during the storage time, it is still beneficial to apply an error correction scheme once the memory is being read out. By $\langle Z_{\rm ec}\rangle(t)$, we denote in this work the average value of $Z$ we would have obtained if we had performed error correction at time $t$. The goal here is to properly annihilate corresponding anyons (by applying $\sigma_x$-operations), thereby reverting the undesired operations performed by anyon paths crossing the logical operator strings. However, since only the positions of the anyons are known, this correspondence has to be guessed. We do this by choosing the pairing with the minimal sum of connection path lengths using `Blossom V` [@Kolmogorov2009], which is the latest improvement on Edmonds’ minimal-weight perfect matching algorithm [@Edmonds1965]. If many anyons are present, using the complete graph as the input to this algorithm is numerically infeasible. In excellent approximation, we therefore replace the complete graph by a Delaunay triangulation [@footnote03].
As a useful reference, we show in Fig. \[nonint\_fig\] numerical results for the non-interacting system, i.e., $A = 0$. The relevant rates entering Eq. are $\gamma(0)$ (rate for an anyon to hop to a free neighboring site), $\gamma(-2J)$ (rate to create an anyon pair) and $\gamma(2J) = \gamma(-2J)e^{2J\beta}$ (rate to annihilate a pair of adjacent anyons, obtained from the detailed balance condition). Figure \[nonint\_fig\] illustrates the typical behavior of $\langle Z \rangle$ and $\langle Z_{\rm ec} \rangle$, in agreement with previous literature [@Alicki2009; @Nussinov2008; @Hamma2009; @Bravyi2009; @Kay2008]. We refer to Sec. \[sec:lifetime\] for a more detailed discussion.
Diffusion of anyons and memory lifetime {#sec:lifetime}
=======================================
It is the purpose of this section to establish a formula for the lifetime of the quantum memory. A static criterion was discussed in Ref. [@Dennis2002]: assuming independent errors, the toric code can be mapped to a random-bond Ising model, and a threshold probability $f_c = 0.11$ is obtained. In the thermodynamic limit, retrieval of the encoded information is impossible if the relative number of errors is above this value. Below $f_c$, recovery is achieved with probability one. Numerically, we find a similar threshold $f_c\approx 0.1$ for the same error model, see Fig. \[Z\_vs\_f\]. This shows that our implementation of the minimum-weight error correction scheme works close to optimal.
![\[Z\_vs\_f\] (Color online.) Average of the corrected operator $Z_{\rm ec}$ for a model with independent $\sigma_x$-errors occurring with probability $f$ at each spin. The dashed-dotted, dashed, and solid curves refer to our numerical simulations with lattice sizes $L=40, 100, 200$, respectively. The error correction fails at a value $f_c\simeq 0.1$, which is slightly smaller than the value $0.11$ from Ref. [@Dennis2002]. In the inset, we plot the value of $f_c$ from simulations of the non-interacting toric code in contact with a bath at temperature $T$ and $\gamma(0)=\gamma(2J)$. The fraction $f_c$ is extracted at the time $\tau$ when $\langle Z_{\rm ec} \rangle$ decays to zero in the limit of large $L$ (see Fig. \[nonint\_fig\]). This value is always smaller than $f=0.11$ and depends on $T$.](criticalfraction.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Also in the dynamical simulations of the non-interacting model (see Fig. \[nonint\_fig\]), we observe a sharp transition in time similar to Fig. \[Z\_vs\_f\]. Starting from an initial state without errors, the thermal environment introduces a growing number of spin-flips which eventually cause the memory to fail. This occurs again at a certain threshold probability $f_c$ which is for this case, however, different from $0.1$, see the inset of Fig. \[Z\_vs\_f\]. To understand this difference, we note that a main mechanism for the creation of errors is the diffusion of anyons. Clearly, errors created by the anyons in their diffusive motion have strong spatial correlations, rather than being independent and uniformly distributed across the memory. We find that such correlations yield values of $f_c$ strictly smaller than $0.1$ but still of the order of a few percent, see Fig. \[Z\_vs\_f\]. Although the value of $f_c$ is difficult to determine in general, we will assume in the following that such threshold probability exists and derive from it an expression for the memory lifetime.
![\[nonint\_T\] The values of $\tau$ extracted at the sharp transitions of the $\langle Z_{\rm ec} \rangle$ decay (circles). As in Fig. \[nonint\_fig\], we use $\gamma(0)=\gamma(2J)$. Comparison to Eq. (\[T\_estimate\]) (dotted curve) gives good agreement for $f_c\simeq 0.1$.](nonint_lifetime_vs_T.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Direct and indirect diffusion of anyons {#app:indirect}
---------------------------------------
To estimate the error creation rate, we first study the diffusive motion of anyons in the non-interacting model. To determine the diffusion constant $D$, we consider an isolated anyon in the lattice and its probability $p_{i,j}$ to be at site $(i,j)$. In the Ohmic case, we have $\gamma(0)\neq 0$, and direct hopping to neighboring sites is thus allowed. In the continuum limit, a standard diffusion equation $\frac{dp({\bf r})}{dt}=D\nabla^2 p({\bf r})$ with $D=\gamma(0)$ is obtained. The resulting decay of the bare and error-corrected logical operators in the simple case of a single pair is discussed in Appendix \[app:single\_pair\].
For a super-Ohmic bath where $\gamma(0)=0$, diffusion is still possible due to ‘indirect hopping’. We assume $2\beta J \gg 1$, such that, since $\gamma(2J)=e^{2\beta J}\gamma(-2J)$, the recombination of a pair of anyons is essentially instantaneous. Hopping from the site $(i, j)$ to, e.g., $(i,j+2)$ is possible by creation of an anyon pair occupying sites $(i,j+1)$ and $(i,j+2)$. This event occurs with rate $\gamma(-2J)$. Since the intermediate state can decay back to the initial state, the actual rate for the indirect hopping process is $\gamma(-2J)/2$. Similar considerations hold for all other sites. Accounting for all of these, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dp_{i,j}}{dt}=\frac{\gamma(-2J)}{2}(-12 p_{i,j}+p_{i+2,j}+p_{i-2,j}+p_{i,j+2}+p_{i,j-2} \nonumber \\
+2p_{i+1,j+1}+2p_{i+1,j-1}+2p_{i-1,j+1}+2p_{i-1,j-1}), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which, in the continuum limit, yields $D=4\gamma(-2J)$. We can expect that the properties of the memory improve by lowering the value of $\gamma(0)$, but only as long as $\gamma(0)\gtrsim 4\gamma(-2J)$. In the interacting case, $J$ can be replaced by an appropriate excitation energy (e.g., a mean-field gap, see Sec. \[sec:mf\]).
Lifetime of the non-interacting model {#sec:lifetime_formula}
-------------------------------------
We can now express the error creation rate in terms of the diffusion constant. An isolated anyon can have either one or three $\sigma_x$-errors at its plaquette spins. In the first case, the anyon can hop to a neighboring site either by creating an error on one of the initially unaffected spins, or by removing the one pre-existing error. Therefore, such an anyon contributes to the error rate with $2D = 3D-D$. If three $\sigma_x$-errors are present, an opposite rate $-2D$ is obtained from an analogous reasoning. However, three-error plaquettes can be expected to be less likely: they require that an anyon hopped on a plaquette with two pre-existing errors from one of the two directions without errors. From the above discussion, it is justified to estimate the rate at which errors are created to be of order $D$ per anyon.
Finally, assuming $N$ diffusing anyons present in the system, the fraction $f$ of spins affected by a $\sigma_{x}$-error after a time $t$ is estimated as $f \simeq N D t/2 L^2$ and the error correction fails when $f$ is larger than some critical value $f_c$ [@Dennis2002]. This gives a lifetime $\tau$ for the memory $$\label{T_estimate}
\tau \simeq 2 f_{c} \frac{e^{\beta J}+1}{\max\{ \gamma(0),4\gamma(-2J)\}},$$ where we have replaced the factor $N/L^2$ by the equilibrium occupation $\langle n_p \rangle = 1/(e^{\beta J}+1)$.
An analogous result can be obtained based on the following different reasoning [@Alicki2009; @Hamma2009]. The distance between the two anyons of a pair after a time $\tau$ is of order $\Delta\ell=\sqrt{D \tau}$ and is required to be much smaller than the average anyon separation $\sim \sqrt{L^2/N}$. This gives $\tau \ll (e^{\beta J}+1)/\max \{ \gamma(0),4\gamma(-2J)\}$. Interestingly, this upper bound coincides with the right-hand side of Eq. (\[T\_estimate\]) if the probability for each spin to be flipped is $\frac12$ (which is realized at long times).
Equation (\[T\_estimate\]) generally gives reasonable estimates of the memory lifetime. For example, the value $f_c \simeq 0.11$ of [@Dennis2002] yields $\tau\simeq 5.8$ for the same parameters as used in Fig. \[nonint\_fig\], in remarkable agreement with the simulations. However, the real threshold directly obtained by the simulation is smaller (inset of Fig. \[nonint\_fig\]). This seems not surprising considering the approximations introduced when deriving Eq. (\[T\_estimate\]). We generally adopt the practice of using $f_c$ as a single fitting parameter to study the functional dependence of the lifetime, e.g., as a function of $L$ or $T$. An example of the temperature dependence of $\tau$ in the non-interacting case is shown in Fig. \[nonint\_T\] and is also well described by Eq. .
More importantly, Eq. (\[T\_estimate\]) allows one to describe the asymptotic dependence of the lifetime on $L$. For the non-interacting case, $\tau$ is independent of the system size, consistent with previous findings [@Alicki2009; @Nussinov2008; @Hamma2009; @Bravyi2009; @Kay2008]. This fact is confirmed by our simulations, as shown in Fig. \[nonint\_fig\], where $\langle Z_{\rm ec} \rangle$ clearly approaches a step-function with increasing $L$. We also see that the bare expectation value $\langle Z \rangle $ decays even faster with larger $L$. Indeed, at sufficiently short times $t \ll 1/\max\{
\gamma(0),4\gamma(-2J)\}$, when anyon pairs have not yet diffused apart from each other (the ‘nonsplit-pair’ regime, indicated by an asterisk), we obtain $\langle Z \rangle= (1-
1/L)^{N^\ast/2} \simeq e^{-N^\ast/2L}$. By using $N^\ast \simeq 4
L^2 \gamma(-2J) t$, it follows that $\langle Z \rangle$ decays exponentially with $L$.
For the interacting case, we find good agreement of a modified version of Eq. (\[T\_estimate\]) with the simulations \[see Eq. (\[T\_estimate\_int\]) and Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\]\]. Fitting the data always yields values of $f_c$ smaller than $f_c = 0.11$, but still of the order of a few percent. These values are thus consistent with the original meaning of $f_c$. For a more extended discussion, we refer to Secs. \[sec:lifetime\_mf\] and \[sec:lifetime\_interacting\].
Mean-field analysis of the interacting model {#sec:mf}
============================================
We now turn to the interacting case $A > 0$ and perform a mean-field analysis, which becomes accurate in the relevant limit of large $L$.
Mean-field anyon density
------------------------
We first consider the equilibrium number of anyons $N$ within a mean-field treatment (mean-field values will be indexed with a subscript ‘mf’). We obtain the single-particle energy at plaquette $p$ as $\epsilon_p=\delta H_0/\delta n_p= J+ \sum_{p'\neq p} U_{p p'} n_{p'}$. Replacing $n_{p'}$ by the average value $n_{\rm mf}=N_{\rm mf}/L^2$ and taking the continuum limit, we find the mean-field value for $\epsilon_p$ to be $$\label{Nmf}
\epsilon_{\rm mf}=
J+ n_{\rm mf}\int_{L \times L} \frac{A}{r^\alpha} d{\bf r} =
J+ n_{\rm mf} T L_\alpha,$$ where we use the notation $$L_{\alpha}=c_\alpha \beta A L^{2-\alpha}.$$ The constant $c_\alpha$ is a geometrical factor of order 1, given by the integration of $1/r^\alpha$ on a unit square centered at the origin. In particular, $c_0 = 1$. On the other hand, we have $n_{\rm mf}=1/(e^{\beta\epsilon_{\rm mf}}+1)$ since the occupation numbers $n_p$ can only assume the values $0$ or $1$. By using Eq. to calculate $n_{\rm mf}$, we find the self-consistent equation $$\label{meanfield}
n_{\rm mf} = \frac{1}{e^{\beta J+ n_{\rm mf} L_\alpha }+1},$$ with the following expansion at large $L_\alpha$ $$\label{leadingNmf}
n_{\rm mf}=\frac{1}{L_\alpha}\left[\ln L_\alpha - \ln\ln L_\alpha
- \beta J+\dots \right].$$ Higher order terms in the square brackets are small if $\ln L_{\alpha}\gg \beta J, |\ln \ln L_{\alpha}|$. For fixed temperature $T$ and interaction strength $A$, these conditions are always satisfied at sufficiently large $L$ since $L_\alpha \propto L^{2-\alpha}$.
We have confirmed the validity of the mean-field approximation by Monte Carlo simulations. By using the Metropolis algorithm [@Metropolis1953] to sample the probability distribution $\propto e^{-\beta/2 \sum{p,p'}U_{pp'}n_p n_{p'}}$, see Eq. (\[H0\]), the equilibrium number of excited plaquettes can be approximated with arbitrary accuracy. This can be used to study the accuracy of the mean-field value $N_{\rm mf}=n_{\rm mf}L^2$ \[see Eq. (\[meanfield\])\], in particular for values $\alpha \neq 0$. Due to the long-range nature of the interaction, $N_{\rm mf}$ compares very well to the equilibrium value of $N$ obtained from these simulations at generic values of the temperature and interaction exponent $\alpha$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[N\_metropolis\], which further shows a satisfactory agreement already at moderate values of $L$.
![\[N\_metropolis\] (Color online.) Comparison of the equilibrium value of $N$ obtained numerically (crosses) with $N_{\rm mf}$ (curves) for different grid sizes. We have used the interaction exponents $\alpha = 0$ (solid line), $\alpha = 0.5$ (dashed line), and $\alpha = 1.0$ (dotted line), and the temperature $T/J = 0.5$.](N_int_equilibrium.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We also note that, for the case of constant interaction ($\alpha=0$), the average number can be calculated directly from the grand-canonical partition function $$\label{part_funct}
{\sum_{2k\leq L^2}}\left (
\begin{array}{c}
L^2 \\
2k
\end{array}
\right) e^{-\beta E_{2k}},$$ since the energy of a given anyon configuration does not depend on the positions of the anyons, but only on their total number $N=\sum_p n_p$. In the presence of a sufficiently strong anyon interaction or at low temperature, the number of excited plaquettes is much smaller than $L^2$. Therefore, one can restrict the sum (\[part\_funct\]) to the first few relevant terms.
Lifetime of the interacting model {#sec:lifetime_mf}
---------------------------------
From Eq. (\[leadingNmf\]) we obtain that, even though the number of anyons $N_{\rm mf}$ grows with the system size $L$, the anyon density $n_{\rm mf}$ goes to zero for long-range repulsive interactions with $0 \leq \alpha < 2$. Hence, the population of anyons is increasingly diluted and the system is essentially frozen in the ground state at large system size. This remarkable effect can be attributed to the divergence of the excitation energy $\epsilon_{\rm mf}\simeq T \ln L_\alpha$, which is self-consistently determined from the anyon population in the *whole* system due to the long-range nature of the interactions. Note also that, despite the fact that $\epsilon_{\rm mf}$ is diverging, the total excitation energy density $n_{\rm mf}\epsilon_{\rm mf}/2$ goes to zero for large $L$.
Secondly, the divergence of $\epsilon_{\rm mf}$ leads to a vanishing anyon pair creation rate at large $L$, $$\label{gamma_2emf}
\gamma(- 2\epsilon_{\rm mf}) \simeq \kappa_n T^n \frac{(2\ln L_\alpha)^{n+2}}{2 L_\alpha^2}.$$ This fact allows us to revise the lifetime for the non-interacting memory Eq. (\[T\_estimate\]), simply by substituting $J$ with the equilibrium value $\epsilon_{\rm mf}$, yielding $$\label{T_estimate_int}
\tau \simeq \frac{2 f_{c} / n_{\rm mf}}{\max\{ \gamma(0),4\gamma(-2\epsilon_{\rm mf})\}}.$$ From this we obtain the lifetime of an interacting memory in case of an Ohmic ($n=1$) or super-Ohmic ($n > 1$) bath as $$\label{T_estimate_int1}
\tau \simeq
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{f_c L_\alpha}{\kappa_1 T \ln L_\alpha} , & \text{Ohmic}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\\
\dfrac{2 f_{c}L_\alpha^3}{\kappa_n T^n (2\ln L_\alpha)^{n+3}} , &\text{super-Ohmic}
\end{cases}$$ in the limit of large grid size \[see after Eq. (\[leadingNmf\])\]. It is clear from these expressions that the memory lifetime is diverging with $L$, in strong contrast to the non-interacting case where it was bounded by a constant. In the Ohmic case, this divergence of $\tau$ is entirely due to the vanishing density, since $\gamma(0)= 2 \kappa_1 T$ is non-zero. In the super-Ohmic case, however, an additional divergence due to the vanishing of $\gamma(-2\epsilon_{\rm mf})$ is obtained, see Eq. (\[gamma\_2emf\]). Since the energy gap grows logarithmically with $L$, $\tau$ grows polynomially, but with a rather favorable power. For instance, constant interaction ($\alpha=0$, see also below) leads to $\tau \propto L^2/\ln L$ in the Ohmic case and to $\tau \propto L^6/\ln^5 L$ in the super-Ohmic ($n=2$) case.
Effects beyond the mean-field treatment
---------------------------------------
Equation (\[T\_estimate\_int\]) is valid in the mean-field limit and does not include effects of the fluctuations of the number of anyons and their positions. These result in additional errors and correlated spin-flips across the memory, due to the long-range nature of the anyon interactions. Although we expect in general deviations from Eq. (\[T\_estimate\_int\]), the memory remains self-correcting both for an Ohmic and for a super-Ohmic bath.
Indeed, for an Ohmic bath, we can neglect the effect of the repulsive force if the change of energy $\omega$ in a diffusive step is smaller in magnitude than $T$ \[see Eq. (\[gamma\_bath\_text\])\], so that we can approximate $\gamma(\omega)\simeq \gamma(0)$. In particular, for a single pair of anyons at distance $r$, we have $|\omega| \lesssim \alpha A/r^{\alpha+1} $, which defines a critical radius $$r_c =( \alpha A\beta)^{\frac{1}{\alpha+1}},$$ beyond which the fluctuations become negligible. For $\alpha=0$ one has $r_c=0$. For $\alpha >0$, since the average distance $\sim 1/\sqrt{n_{\rm mf}}$ between anyons grows with $L$ while $r_c$ is independent of $L$, the fluctuations also become negligible. The validity of Eq. (\[T\_estimate\_int\]) for the Ohmic case is confirmed by numerical simulations both for $\alpha=0$ (see Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\]) and for $\alpha>0$ (see Fig. \[non\_constant\_interaction\]).
Concerning the super-Ohmic case, Eq. (\[T\_estimate\_int\]) could become inaccurate if the fluctuations of $\omega \simeq 0$ are more effective for the anyon motion than the indirect diffusion mechanism which is proportional to the rate in Eq. (\[gamma\_2emf\]). However, due to the decreasing interaction strength, such fluctuations in $\omega$ become small at large $L$ and still result in a vanishing diffusion coefficient. Therefore, Eq. (\[T\_estimate\_int\]) might overestimate the lifetime in this case, but the asymptotic dependence on $L$ would still be better than in the Ohmic case. Furthermore, at $\alpha=0$ direct hopping is impossible and Eq. (\[T\_estimate\_int\]) is valid (see Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\]).
Dynamics of the interacting model {#sec:lifetime_interacting}
=================================
We turn now to the numerical simulations of our model, Eq. (\[H0\]), and focus first on constant long-range interactions ($\alpha=0$). In this case, the total energy $E_N= N J +\frac{A}{2}N(N-1)$ depends only on the number of anyons $N$, but not on their position. This simplifies the numerical treatment considerably. Our results are displayed in Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\]. The numerical data show a clear increase of the memory lifetime $\tau$ with $L$. Note that this holds already for the *bare* logical $Z$ operator. Like in the non-interacting case (see Fig. \[nonint\_fig\]), the beneficial effect of the error correction at read-out is to prolong the lifetime by maintaining $\langle Z_{\rm ec} \rangle$ close to 1 (see inset of Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\]).
Our analytical results describe the numerical data remarkably well. By fitting $f_c$ in Eq. to the simulation data, excellent agreement is found for an Ohmic bath (top panel of Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\]), while for a super-Ohmic bath (lower panel), analytics and numerics agree well for $L \gtrsim 64$. Furthermore, the fit yields values for $f_c$ of about $0.01 - 0.02$, which is reasonable in comparison to the upper bound $f_c = 0.11$ found for a model of uncorrelated errors (dashed-dotted lines in Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\]) [@Dennis2002]. See also the discussion in Sec. \[sec:lifetime\_formula\].
The lifetime $\tau$ can be compared to the physical time scales of single spin flips, $1/\gamma(0)$ and $1/\gamma(-2J)$. For instance, for the $L=256$ super-Ohmic case in Fig. 3 we obtain $\tau \gamma(-2J)\simeq 5\times 10^5 $, i.e., already for a moderate system size the lifetime $\tau$ of the memory is about a $10^6$ times longer than the single-spin lifetime. For quantum dots, the latter is typically in the range of milliseconds to seconds at about $100\,{\rm mK}$ [@Golovach2004; @Amasha2008].
![\[Zav\_90thresh\_int\] (Color online.) Thermal stability of the interacting memory. The data in the top (bottom) panel were obtained for an Ohmic (super-Ohmic, $n = 2$) bath. Plotted as a function of $L$ are the numerically simulated times at which the expectation values of the bare (squares) and error-corrected (diamonds) logical $Z$ operator have decayed from $1$ to $0.9$. The dotted lines serve as a guide to the eye. The red dashed-dotted curves are calculated from Eq. with $f_c = 0.11$, where we have used the self-consistent values of $n_{\rm mf}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm mf}$ from Eqs. (\[Nmf\]) and (\[meanfield\]). Similarly, the green dashed lines are also due to Eq. , but here $f_c$ is fit to the numerical data of the $90\%$ threshold times, yielding $f_c = 0.022$ for an Ohmic, and $f_c = 0.007$ for a super-Ohmic bath. The inset shows the decay of $\langle Z_{\rm ec}\rangle$ with time for $L=8, \ldots, 128$ (from left to right), and the $90\%$ threshold is illustrated by the dotted line. It is seen that choosing this particular value has no substantial influence on the scaling behavior with $L$. Parameters used in these simulations were $A/J = 0.1$, and $T/J = 0.3$. Times are in units of $(\kappa_1 J)^{-1}$ and $(\kappa_2 J^2)^{-1}$ for the first and second panel, respectively. ](interacting.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The nonsplit pair regime
------------------------
We consider now in greater detail the super-Ohmic case at $\alpha=0$, which has the most favorable scaling. The initial dynamics of the memory can be nicely characterized by a regime of nonsplit pairs. Under this assumption, the rate equation $$\label{rate_eq_pairs_int}
\frac{dN^*_{\rm mf}}{dt}=4 L^2 \gamma(-2\epsilon^*_{\rm mf})-N^*_{\rm mf} \gamma(2\epsilon^*_{\rm mf})$$ describes the initial time-evolution of the system well, since in this non-diffusive regime only pair creation [@footnote02] and annihilation takes place. In Eq. (\[rate\_eq\_pairs\_int\]) we denote with $N_{\rm mf}^*$ the total number of anyons, appearing as $N_{\rm mf}^*/2$ nonsplit pairs.
We confirm Eq. by comparing its solution, obtained by numerical integration, with a direct simulation presented in Fig. \[pair\_creation\]. After a rapid initial ‘build-up’ phase, $N_{\rm mf}^\ast$ saturates to a value determined by the self-consistent condition $N_{\rm mf}^{*} = 4 L^2 e^{-2(J+AN_{\rm mf}^{*})\beta}$, obtained by setting $dN^\ast_{\rm mf}/dt = 0$ in Eq. . In this state, the excitation energy is diverging with $L$, since we have $\epsilon^\ast_{\rm mf} \simeq AN^\ast_{\rm mf} \simeq AN_{\rm mf}/2 \propto \ln L$. This effectively suppresses the indirect diffusion of anyons. Therefore, the system remains in a quasi-stationary state which evolves to the final anyon density on a time scale also diverging with $L$. In this regime of nonsplit pairs, one has $\langle Z \rangle \simeq e^{-N^\ast_{\rm mf}/2L}$. This leads to the quasi-stationary value $\langle Z \rangle \simeq e^{-\frac{\ln L}{2 \beta A L}}$, which approaches 1 for large $L$ (see Fig. \[pair\_creation\]).
![\[pair\_creation\] (Color online.) Short-time dynamics of the interacting memory in a super-Ohmic bath. In this case, the memory is in the nonsplit-pair regime. The curves refer to different values of $L$ increasing in powers of 2 from $L = 64$ (lowest curves in both panels) to $L = 2048$ (highest curves). Upper panel: The time dependence of the anyon number $N$ obtained from the simulations (solid lines) is compared to the solutions of Eq. (\[rate\_eq\_pairs\_int\]) (dashed lines). The crosses are the exact values $N^*$ obtained from the partition function of pairs Eq. (\[Z\_pairs\]). Good agreement with $N^*$ is also obtained for the lower curves at longer times (not shown). Lower panel: The expectation value of the bare $Z$ obtained from the simulations (solid lines) is compared to $e^{-N^*/2L}$ (dashed lines), where $N^\ast(t)$ is obtained from the upper plot. Parameters used are $A/J = 0.1$, and $T/J = 0.3$. The time axes are in units of $(\kappa_2 J^2)^{-1}$.](shorttime.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Similar to the calculation of the total number of anyons \[see Eq. (\[part\_funct\])\], the exact quasi-stationary number of paired anyons $N^*$ (crosses in Fig. Fig. \[pair\_creation\]) can be calculated from a partition function reading $$\label{Z_pairs}
{\sum_{k\leq 2L^2}} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
2L^2 \\
k
\end{array}
\right)e^{-\beta E_{2k}}~.$$ Here we have assumed that $k$ sufficiently diluted errors are present in the memory such that $2k$ anyons are created in the nonsplit-pair regime. The average number of anyons $N^*$ calculated from Eq. (\[Z\_pairs\]) is in very good agreement with the simulations, see Fig. \[pair\_creation\].
Non-constant interaction
------------------------
For non-constant long-range interaction ($0<\alpha<2$), simulating the time dynamics of the memory is numerically more costly due to an $O(L^2)$ overhead coming from recalculating all spin flip rates. Nevertheless, we were able to study the (more tractable) case of an Ohmic bath. The results are presented in Fig. \[non\_constant\_interaction\] for $\alpha=0.5$ and $\alpha=1$. Clearly, the memory lifetime is still increasing with $L$, proving the memory to be self-correcting also for $\alpha \neq 0$. Furthermore, the data are in very good agreement with the analytically calculated lifetime Eq. (\[T\_estimate\_int\]). The super-Ohmic case for $\alpha>0$ is more difficult to simulate due to the increased memory lifetime and will be examined elsewhere.
![\[non\_constant\_interaction\] [(Color online.) Thermal stability of the interacting memory with $\alpha \neq 0$ and an Ohmic bath.]{} Data points refer to the numerically calculated times at which the error-corrected logical $Z$ operator has decayed from $1$ to $0.9$ in the cases $\alpha = 0$ (diamonds), $\alpha = 0.5$ (triangles), and $\alpha = 1$ (squares). Note that we have replotted the data from $\alpha = 0$ merely for comparison. The dashed lines are from Eq. (as in Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\]), with a fit of $f_c$ yielding $f_c = 0.027$ for $\alpha = 0.5$ and $f_c = 0.032$ for $\alpha = 1$. Inset: Decay of $\langle Z_{\rm ec}\rangle$ as a function of time for different grid sizes, $L = 8, 16, \ldots, 256$ (left to right), and $\alpha = 1$. Parameters used in the simulations were $A/J = 0.1$, and $T/J = 0.3$. Times are in units of $(\kappa_1 J)^{-1}$.](a_neq_zero.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Discussion of the long range interaction {#sec:long_range}
========================================
So far we have assumed the presence of long-range anyon interactions. We briefly comment here on their possible realization. Concerning the many-body nature of the interactions involved, general $n$-body couplings can in principle be engineered from two-body interactions [@Kempe2006; @Bravyi2008; @Wolf2008; @Jordan2008]. For example, toric codes with interacting anyons are derived in [@Hamma2009; @Schmidt2008]. A systematic procedure to construct such effective low-energy Hamiltonians can be rigorously founded on the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation [@Bravyi2008; @Wolf2008]. In a similar way, physical long-range interactions of the type considered in this work could also be generated perturbatively. A well-known example is the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) interaction [@Kittel1987], e.g., for a 2D Kondo-lattice of nuclear spins [@Simon2007]. Alternatively, constant interactions ($\alpha=0$) can be realized for qubits coupled to photon modes in QED-cavities [@Dicke1954; @Pellizzari1995; @Imamoglu1999; @Wallraff2004; @Burkard2006; @Trif2008]. The interaction range is determined by the wavelength of the photon and can reach macroscopic distances, in particular in superconducting cavity striplines [@Wallraff2004; @Burkard2006; @Trif2008]. Another promising candidate system to realize topological models are ultracold atoms or molecules in optical lattices [@Jiang2008; @Weimer2010].
As a most elementary example, consider all plaquette operators interacting with a delocalized two-level system (acting as an ancilla qubit), in analogy to the so-called central spin problem. For example, $H_{\rm int}= \Delta \sigma_z + \sum_p g_p n_p \sigma_x$ with eigenvalues $\pm \sqrt{\Delta^2 + (\sum_p g_p n_p)^2}$. A quadratic expansion of the higher eigenvalue $\simeq \Delta + \frac{1}{2\Delta} \left(\sum_p g_p n_p \right)^2 $ (if $\Delta>0$) gives a repulsive interaction between the anyons. Note that in this example the central spin has to be kept in the excited state.
A physically more interesting case is the two-photon coupling described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:two-photon coupling}
H_{\rm int} = \sum_{i = 1}^2 \omega_i a_i^\dag a_i + \sum_p g_p n_p (a_1^\dag a_2 + a_1 a_2^\dag).$$ Here, $\omega_i$ are the photon frequencies, and $g_p$ is the coupling strength of plaquette $p$ to the modes. This type of coupling naturally emerges in the perturbative derivation of the toric code model from the Kitaev honeycomb model [@Kitaev2006] if a quadratic coupling to electric (or magnetic) cavity fields such as $E_xE_y$ is added. We start from the expression of the anyon excitation energy obtained in leading order of perturbation theory, given by $$\label{J0_from_Jk}
J_0 = \frac{J_{x}^2J_{y}^2}{8J_{z}^3},$$ where $J_k$ are the exchange couplings in the honeycomb lattice [@Kitaev2006; @Schmidt2008]. Since the couplings $J_k$ are determined by exchange integrals, they can be modified by electric perturbations: In multiferroic materials, electric fields can couple to the spin (-texture) via a modification of the exchange interaction such as $J_k\rightarrow J_k+\delta_k (a_k + a_k^\dag)$ [@Trif2008a; @Trif2008b] (with $\delta_{x,y,z}$ being some coupling constants and $a_{x,y} \equiv a_{1,2}$). Thus, if, for example, one $J_x$ and one $J_y$ occurring in $ J_{x}^2J_{y}^2/8J_{z}^3$ get modified in this way (by locally modifying the corresponding links), we end up with a coupling of the desired form with $$\label{g_from_Jk}
g_p = \frac{J_x J_y \delta_x \delta_y}{2J_z^3}.$$ A possible concern is that the spin-electric couplings introduce several other interaction terms in addition to Eq. (\[eq:two-photon coupling\]) [@comment_stars]. By imposing the resonance condition $\omega_1 \approx \omega_2$, the quadratic term $(a_1^\dag a_2 + a_2^\dag a_1)$ can be made dominant over the linear ones (which are non-resonant). Furthermore, higher-order terms can be neglected for $\delta_k \ll J_k$ (a more detailed analysis will be presented elsewhere [@PedrocchiUnpublished]).
The Hamiltonian Eq. can be brought to the diagonal form $H_{\rm int}=\sum_{i=1}^2 \Omega_i b_i^\dag b_i$ by making use of a standard Bogoliubov transformation of the boson operators. Since $g_p$ is spatially constant over the photon wavelength $\lambda_{i}$ [@Dicke1954], we assume in the following a constant value $g_p=g$, such that $\sum_p g_p n_p = g N$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
b_1=\cos\theta a_1 + \sin\theta a_2,\\
b_2=\cos\theta a_2 - \sin\theta a_1,\end{aligned}$$ with $\tan 2\theta = 2g N/(\omega_1-\omega_2)$ and $$\label{eq:Omegas}
\Omega_{1,2}=\frac{\omega_1+\omega_2}{2} \pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{\omega_1-\omega_2}{2}\right)^2+ \left(g N \right)^2}.$$ By expanding $H_{\rm int}$ to lowest order in $g$ we obtain the desired constant anyon interaction, $$\label{eq:effective interaction hamiltonian}
H_{\rm int} \simeq \sum_{i = 1}^2 \omega_i b_i^\dag b_i + \frac{b_1^\dag b_1 - b_2^\dag b_2}{\omega_1 - \omega_2}\left(g N \right)^2.$$ The same result can also be derived with the general method of the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation [@Imamoglu1999; @Trif2008] (see also Appendix \[app:SW\_trafo\]). The strength and sign of the interaction are tunable via the difference in frequencies and occupation numbers of the modes, and can consequently be made repulsive in a steady-state regime. We identify the parameters of Eqs. (\[H0\]) and (\[Upp\_long\_range\]) as follows $$\label{Anew}
J=J_0 + \frac{g^2}{\omega_1 - \omega_2}\langle b_1^\dag b_1 \rangle
\quad {\rm and} \quad
A= \frac{2 g^2}{\omega_1 - \omega_2}\langle b_1^\dag b_1 \rangle.$$ The value of $J$ includes a small self-energy correction. For definiteness, we assumed that only the first mode (with $\omega_1> \omega_2$) is populated while $\langle b_2^\dag b_2 \rangle=0$.
Similarly to the first example, the case of repulsive interaction corresponds to a larger occupation of the mode with higher frequency. This condition is never realized in equilibrium and thus requires excitation of the cavity mode, which is easily accomplished by an external laser. Therefore, this specific realization of the long-range interaction corresponds to some sort of optical pumping of the memory into its ground state. It allows to avoid the full machinery of active error-correction, but cannot be considered passive in the strict sense of the term.
Finally, while a non-equilibrium regime is generally needed for interactions obtained in second-order perturbation theory, it might be possible to derive repulsive interactions in the ground state at higher orders by a more elaborate construction.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have discussed a generalization of the Kitaev toric code to include repulsive long-range anyon interactions. The properties of the system have been analyzed within a mean-field treatment, which we find to become accurate at large system size. Additionally, we have numerically studied the system dynamics via direct simulations. This has allowed us to demonstrate robust storage of the information encoded in the ground state manifold at large system size.
A similar model to ours, but with attractive instead of repulsive long-range interactions, was studied in Ref. [@Hamma2009], and was also found to possess self-correcting properties. In that case, however, the interaction is logarithmically divergent with distance while we consider here more physical interactions, i.e., polynomially decaying. A dependence of this type is commonly found in condensed matter systems and, more specifically, we show that local coupling of the anyon operators to long-range optical modes would allow to realize such interactions. As for the periodic boundary conditions, these are not an essential ingredient to a topological stabilizer code [@Bravyi1998; @Freedman1998].
Another important aspect of our study is that the properties of the memory are strongly influenced by the type of thermal bath. We obtained the size dependence of the memory lifetime for Ohmic and super-Ohmic baths, the latter representing an especially advantageous situation. For example, for typical stripline cavities with $\lambda_{i} \sim $ cm and typical lattice constants of 100 nm (e.g. quantum dots), we see that the anyon interaction stays constant over system sizes $L$ as large as $10^{5}$. Extrapolating the super-Ohmic curve of Fig. \[Zav\_90thresh\_int\], an enhancement factor $\sim 10^{20}$ is obtained at this value of $L$. With a single-spin lifetime $1/\gamma(-2J )\sim 1 \mu s-1 s$ [@Hanson2007; @Amasha2008] this gives a memory lifetime $\tau \sim 10^{14}-10^{20}$ s. However, the assumption that the super-Ohmic scaling is valid up to this large size might be violated (e.g., because $\gamma(0)=0$ can only hold approximately).
In conclusion, we have demonstrated the existence of 2D stabilizer quantum memories at finite temperatures. In our model, the stability of the memory is due to a large effective gap created by the repulsive interactions, which results in a vanishing anyon density. Furthermore, the diffusive motion of the anyons is quenched in a super-Ohmic bath, when the diffusion process requires creation of new anyon pairs. We expect that similar systems in the presence of such interactions also prove useful as self-correcting quantum memories.
We would like to thank D. P. DiVincenzo, A. Imamoglu, and B. M. Terhal for discussions. This work was partially supported by the Swiss NSF, NCCR Nanoscience Basel, and DARPA.
Mapping from lattice gas to Ising model {#app:ising_chain}
=======================================
Note that $H_0$ in Eq. (\[H0\]) has the general form of two independent lattice gases, which are in turn equivalent to two Ising spin lattices. We explicitly perform the transformation in the plaquette sector by identifying the Ising variables $s_p \equiv 1-2n_p$, yielding $$H_0= -\sum_p\Big(\frac{J}{2}+{\sum_{p'}}^\prime\frac{U_{pp'}}{4}\Big)s_p +\frac18 {\sum_{p,p'}}^\prime U_{pp'} s_p s_{p'}+\ldots~,$$ where $U_{pp'}$ is given in Eq. and the primes in the summations indicate $p'\neq p$. We have used $U_{pp}=2 J$ and $U_{pp'}=U_{p'p}$. The noninteracting Kitaev model corresponds to noninteracting spins in an external magnetic field. The ground state corresponds to the fully polarized state $s_p=1$ for all $p$, where no anyon is present. However, for $T>0$ a finite density of anyons emerges and is sufficient to destroy the information stored in the memory.
If a short-range ferromagnetic interaction is introduced, ordering of the system is spontaneously favored below some critical temperature. A higher magnetization corresponds to a lower population of anyons and improves the lifetime. However, short range interactions do not improve the scaling of the lifetime with the system size, since a residual density of anyons is left at any finite temperature. As in the noninteracting case, a finite density of excited plaquettes efficiently destroys the stored quantum information, in agreement with the general analysis of [@Bravyi2009; @Kay2008]. Instead, repulsive long-range interactions lead to a fully polarized system at a given temperature for sufficiently large system size $L$.
Lifetime in the presence of a single pair {#app:single_pair}
=========================================
The decay of the bare and logical $Z$ operators is most simply illustrated by assuming only a single anyon pair in the memory. We set $\gamma(2J)=0$, so that pair creation and annihilation are not allowed. If no anyons were present, the initial values $\langle Z
\rangle= \langle Z_{\rm ec} \rangle =1$ would be stable. We apply one $\sigma_x$-operation at a randomly chosen site and thereby create two neighboring anyons at $t=0$. This causes a partial decay of the bare logical operator already at $t=0$, since we might have chosen to flip a spin on the logical $Z$ operator, yielding $\langle
Z \rangle = 1-\frac{1}{L}$. This has been used in the main text in the discussion of the nonsplit-pair regime.
![\[pair\_of\_anyons\] (Color online.) Decay of the bare and corrected expectation value of $Z$ due to a single pair of anyons in the memory. The dots show numerical data (averaged over $10^4$ samples) while the two curves are the continuum limit expressions Eq. (\[P0\_pair\]) and (\[P\_pair\]) for $\langle Z_{\rm ec} \rangle$ (solid) and $\langle Z \rangle$ (dashed). The numerical data have been obtained for $L = 32, 64, 128$. All points collapse onto each other when plotted as a function of $\gamma(0)t/L^2$.](singlepair.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We now study the decay for $t > 0$ in the continuum limit and therefore neglect the $1/L$ correction at $t=0$. We consider a single pair of diffusing anyons with coordinates $(x_1, y_1)$ and $(x_2, y_2)$ created at the origin. We then assume that the probability to find an anyon at position $\bf r$ is described by the probability density $$p({\bf r})=\frac{1}{4\pi \gamma(0) t} e^{-\frac{r^2}{4\gamma(0)t}}.$$ We represent the torus as an infinite plane with the points $(x,y)$ and $(x+m L, y+n L)$ being equivalent ($m ,n\in \mathbb{Z}$). The logical $Z$ operator is then represented by parallel lines at $y_Z=L/2+n L$. The two anyons diffuse along $y$ with probability density $p(y_i-y_0)=e^{-(y_i-y_0)^2/4\gamma(0)t}/\sqrt{4\pi
\gamma(0) t}$, where $i=1,2$ and the initial (random) coordinate satisfies $-L/2\leq y_{0} < L/2$. The average of the logical operator at time $t$ is $$\langle Z \rangle=\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\frac{dy_0}{L} \int dy_1 dy_2 p(y_1-y_0)p(y_2-y_0) z(y_1,y_2),$$ where $z(y_1,y_2)$ gives the sign of $Z$ if the two anyons have diffused to the coordinates $y_1$ and $y_2$. Since $Z$ changes sign each time an anyon crosses the lines at $y_Z$, we have $z(y_1,y_2)=z(y_1)z(y_2)$ where $z(y)=1$ if $-L/2+2nL \leq y
<L/2+2nL$ and $-1$ otherwise ($n\in \mathbb{Z}$). Therefore we can write $$\label{P0_pair}
\langle Z \rangle =\int_{-1/2}^{1/2} dz_0 f(z_0)^2,$$ where we have made the change of variables $y_0=L z_0$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
f(z_0)= \frac12 \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}(-1)^n \left[{\rm erf}\left(\frac{2 z_0+2n+1}{4\sqrt{\gamma(0)t/L^2}}\right) \right. \quad \nonumber \\
-\left. {\rm erf}\left(\frac{2 z_0+2n-1}{4\sqrt{\gamma(0)t/L^2}}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$
We now consider the average of the error-corrected logical operator $Z_{\rm ec}$. In this case, only the distance $y_{12}=y_1-y_2$ between the two anyons is important since the value of $Z_{\rm ec}$ is $1$ if $-L/2+2nL\leq y_{12}< L/2+2nL$, and is $-1$ otherwise. The probability distribution for $y_{12}$ is $\int dy_2 \, p(y_{12}-y_2)p(y_2) = e^{-y_{12}^2/8 \gamma(0)t}/\sqrt{8\pi\gamma(0)t}$, which gives $$\label{P_pair}
\langle Z_{\rm ec} \rangle =\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}(-1)^n {\rm erf}\left( \frac{2n+1}{2\sqrt{2\gamma(0)t/L^2}}\right).$$ Both functions (\[P0\_pair\]) and (\[P\_pair\]) are plotted in Fig. \[pair\_of\_anyons\] and show perfect agreement with the numerical simulation. An important feature of the above analytical expressions is that the time dependence only enters through the combination $\gamma(0)t/L^2$, which makes it possible to scale curves from different system sizes and diffusion constants onto each other.
Effective Hamiltonian via Schrieffer-Wolff transformation {#app:SW_trafo}
=========================================================
In order to find an effective Hamiltonian for Eq. , we write $H = H_0 + V$, where $H_0 = \sum_{i = 1}^2 \omega_i a_i^\dag a_i$ and $V = \sum_p g_p n_p(a_1^\dag a_2 + a_1 a_2^\dag)$, and treat $V$ as a small perturbation. The general expression for the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation of $H$ up to second order in $V$ reads $$\label{eq:general SW trafo formula}
H_{\rm eff} = H_0 + \frac{i}{2}\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_0^\infty dt e^{-\varepsilon t}\left[ V, V(t)\right] + \mathcal{O}(V^3),$$ where $V(t) = \exp(iH_0 t)V \exp(-iH_0 t)$, which yields in our case $$V(t) = \sum_p g_p n_p\left(e^{i(\omega_1 - \omega_2)t} a_1^\dag a_2 + e^{-i(\omega_1 - \omega_2)t} a_2^\dag a_1\right).$$ With this, the commutator in Eq. evaluates to $$[V, V(t)] = 2i(\sum_p g_p n_p)^2 (a_2^\dag a_2 - a_1^\dag a_1)\sin(\omega_1 - \omega_2)t.$$ Inserting this into Eq. and performing the integral yields Eq. .
[38]{}
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, Ph.D. thesis, (), .
X-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 016803 (2003).
Z. Nussinov and G. Ortiz, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**324**]{}, 977 (2009).
$\sigma_z$-errors are irrelevant for the dynamics of plaquettes.
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
We have used the code `Triangle` [@Shewchuk1996]. See also Ref. [@Kolmogorov2009] and references therein for a justification of this approximation.
, in **, edited by (, ).
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
Note that in Eq. \[rate\_eq\_pairs\_int\], we have approximated the number of spins without errors by the total number $2L^2$, neglecting corrections of order $\ln L$.
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
H. Weimer, M. Müller, I. Lesanovsky, P. Zoller, and H. P. Büchler, Nat. Phys. [**6**]{}, 382 (2010).
, , , , ****, ().
, .
, , , , , ****, ().
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the results of a HST/NICMOS coronagraphic survey for the direct detection of substellar companions within the young TW Hydrae and Tucana Associations. At the distance of these associations, the lower mass limit of detection, based on models, is well into the high mass planet region for separations $>$ 30 AU . Results presented here include spectra and proper motion verification of two brown dwarf companions located 100 AU and 180 AU from their primaries. We also present a possible exo-solar giant planet candidate located 125 AU from TWA 6. These few examples demonstrate that the young associations remain fertile ground for discovery and environmental study of planetary systems.'
author:
- 'Patrick Lowrance, Eric E. Becklin'
- Glenn Schneider
- 'and the NICMOS IDT EONS team & STIS 8176 team'
title: 'Finding Brown Dwarf Companions with HST/NICMOS'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
In the last few decades, a primary goal of observational astronomy has been to gain more insight into stellar and planetary formation. Brown dwarfs occupy the niche in the mass range between stars and planets. They form like stars, but do not have enough mass to sustain hydrogen fusion. The observational distinctions between a planet and brown dwarf have yet to be constructed. Unfortunately, until just a few years ago, no unambiguous brown dwarfs were known.
Substellar objects cool indefinitely because they do not sustain hydrogen fusion and thus become fainter and more difficult to detect at older ages (c.f. Burrows et al. 1997). Therefore, the young 10$-$40 Myr associations such as TW Hydrae and Tucana represent excellent targets for a search for brown dwarfs and massive planetary companions.
As part of a larger coronagraphic survey program (Lowrance et al. 2001), we surveyed 5 of the members of the TW Hydrae Association, including TWA 1, 5, 6, 7, 8B, and 10 as well as 2 members of the Tucana Association for possible brown dwarf companions, low-mass stellar companions, and dust debris disks (see Schneider et al. (2001); this volume). TWA 8A was included in another NICMOS imaging survey (Weintraub et al. 2000). All other TWA members from Webb et al. (1999) were close multiple systems and we did not observe these since other close companions can presumably be ruled out on dyanamical grounds.
Using the coronagraph aboard NICMOS
===================================
The main problem with trying to image brown dwarfs or giant planets around main-sequence stars is the overwhelming brightness of the primary. A substellar companion will be much fainter than the star it orbits (i.e. a Gl 229B-like object, L$=$2$\times10^{-5}$L$_{\odot}$, orbiting a solar-like star of 1 L$_{\odot}$). The cool brown dwarf makes up a little of this in the infrared, where it radiates most of its power, and is brighter with youth, but the primary is still much brighter.
To facilitate the removal of background light from the primary near the coronagraphic hole, we designed pairs of observations with different spacecraft orientations ($\delta\theta$ = 29.9) which could then be subtracted from one another to cancel scattered light. Each observation was about 800s long split into 3 Multi-Accum (non-destructive read) sets (see Lowrance et al. 1999).
In Figure 1, we plot the detection limits for the example of HD 202917 (left) and the limits overall (right) in the observations found from planting and recovering PSF stars in the images. At 1$\arcsec$, we can detect a delta magnitude of 9.5 mag for all stars. For stars in the Tucana and TW Hya associations, the average primary is H $=$ 7 mag, and our average limit corresponds to M$_H$ = 13.6 mag at 50 AU (median distance is 50 pc). As these stars are very young (10–40 Myr), the detection limit is $\sim$5, based on the models of Burrows (pers comm). Even at 0.5$\arcsec$, we can detect a delta magnitude of 6–8 mag, a full 2–4 mag better than most speckle imaging programs.
In Table 1 we present the results of the coronagraphic survey. ‘Stellar-like’ candidates are those that have a FWHM between 0.14 and 0.18$\arcsec$, the brighter of which show an Airy diffraction pattern. The high resolution of the observations makes it easy to distinguish between stars and diffuse background galaxies. All of the candidate companions have been re-observed with adaptive optics to confirm companionship and their possible substellar nature.
[lccccc]{} &Primary & $<$—– & Secondary & —-$>$\
Star & Sp Type & Sep ($\arcsec$) & $\Delta$H mag & Follow-up & Results\
TWA 1 & K7 & none & – & – & –\
TWA 5 & M3 & 1.96 & 4.9 & AO, STIS & brown dwarf\
TWA 6 & K7 & 2.54 & 13.1 & NICMOS, AO & inconclusive\
TWA 7 & M4 & 2.47 & 9.6 & NICMOS, AO & background\
TWA 8B & M3 & none & – & – & –\
TWA 10 & M3 & none & – & – & –\
HR 7329 & A0 & 4.17 & 6.9 & AO, STIS & brown dwarf\
HD 202917 & G5 & none & – & – & –\
Brown Dwarf Companions
======================
Astrometry
----------
The TWA 5 system was observed several times in the last two years – with NIC 1 (Weintraub et al. 2000) and with the AO systems on the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope (CFHT) and the 10-m W.M. Keck II telescope (Figure 3(a)). The HR 7329 system was observed with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) instrument and using the AO system on the 3.6m ESO telescope. We also include the measurement of HR 7329 from Guenther et al. (2000) as the triangle in Figure 3(b). From these observations, we plot the change in measured separation of the A and B components at each epoch and compare them with the expected change in separation for a background object. We conclude both TWA 5B and HR 7329B are true proper motion companions to their primaries.
STIS spectra
------------
The companions to TWA 5A and HR 7329B were placed in the slit of the STIS by centering the primary and offsetting to the companion by the NICMOS-measured astrometry (Lowrance et al. 1999, Lowrance et al. 2000). Spectral imaging sequences were completed in one orbit with the G750M grating. The STIS spectra of TWA 5B and HR 7329B were fit to template M dwarf spectra (Figure 2), and classified as M9 $\pm$ 0.5 for TWA 5B and M7.5 $\pm$ 0.5 for HR 7329B. For TWA 5B, this is consistent with the photometric spectral type of M8-M8.5V derived by Lowrance et al. (1999) and more recent results by Neuhauser et al. (2000).
Using the temperatures derived from the spectral types and absolute H magnitudes which assume the same distance as the primary, we place these two objects on evolutionary diagrams of Baraffe et al. (1998)(Figure 2(b)). TWA 5B is consistent with a 20 object at an age of 10 Myr old, which is the approximate age of the TW Hydra Association. HR 7329B is consistent with a 40 object at an age of 30-40 Myr, the approximate age of the Tucana Association.
TWA 6B - giant planet candidate
===============================
A point-source was discovered at a separation of 2.549$\arcsec$ $\pm$ 0.011, and a position angle of -278.7$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 0.2 from TWA 6 (TWA 6A). The H magnitude of TWA 6B is 19.93 $\pm$ 0.08 mag. The field of TWA 6 was reobserved with the NICMOS 1 camera with a medium-band F090M filter (central wavelength: 0.9003 $\mu$m, $\Delta\lambda$ = 0.1885 $\mu$m) and TWA 6B was not detected. We derive an upper limit (3$\sigma$) to the flux of \[F090M\]=22.6 mag in the predicted position from the NICMOS images. Using low-temperature models to transform between F090M and I-band, we calculate an upper limit of I$-$H$>$3.3 for the candidate companion. The color is equivalent to a spectral type later than M7V (Kirkpatrick & McCarthy 1994), so we conclude that the object is very red, even if it is not associated with TWA 6A. A background K giant would have an I$-$H $<$ 2 mag, which would have been easily detected in the NIC 1 images. If associated with TWA 6A at 50 pc, this object would have an absolute magnitude, M$_H$=15.8, which corresponds to a $\sim$ 2 object at 125AU (Burrows, A. pers comm).
Re-observations of TWA 6 are underway with the Keck AO system (Macintosh et al, this volume). Such astrometric measures are difficult with the current two year baseline, but high resolution observations are needed to establish if TWA 6B is a young Jovian planet.
Conclusions
===========
With the NICMOS camera and the coronagraph, we have studied the environments of close to half of the young stars of the TW Hydrae Association and two of the Tucana Association. Around four of these stars we found point-like objects which were possible companions. After careful analysis and more observations, we find that TWA 5B is a $\sim$ 20 brown dwarf, HR 7329B is a $\sim$ 40 brown dwarf and TWA 7B is a background object. We find no candidate companions around HD 202917, TWA 1, TWA 8B, or TWA 10 greater than a few , based on models of giant planets, at 1$\arcsec$, or 50 AU at the distance of the stars. A faint, point-like object 2.5$\arcsec$ from TWA 6 remains a mystery, though. It has the potential to be the most significant discovery of this program as the first giant planet imaged around another star.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the influence of s-d or p-d hybridization to d-band ferromagnetism to estimate the importance of hybridization for the magnetic properties of transition metals. To focus our attention to the interplay between hybridization and correlation we investigate a simple model system consisting of two non-degenerated hybridized bands, one strongly correlated, the other one quasi-free. To solve this extended Hubbard model, we apply simple approximations, namely SDA and MAA, that, concerning ferromagnetism in the single-band model, are known to give qualitatively satisfactory results. This approach allows us to discuss the underlying mechanism, by which d-band ferromagnetism is influenced by the hybridization on the basis of analytical expressions. The latter clearly display the order and the functional dependencies of the important effects. It is found, that spin-dependent inter-band particle fluctuations cause a spin-dependent band shift and a spin-dependent band broadening of the Hubbard bands. The shift stabilizes, the broadening tends to destabilize ferromagnetism. Stabilization requires relatively high band distances and small hybridization matrix elements. Super-exchange and RKKY coupling are of minor importance.'
author:
- 'S. Schwieger and W. Nolting'
title: 'Stabilization of d-Band Ferromagnetism by Hybridization with Uncorrelated Bands'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The issue of magnetism in band-ferromagnets like Fe, Co and Ni is far from being settled. Magnetism in this materials is due to correlations within itinerant electron bands. The simplest model that comprises this aspects is the single-band Hubbard model. Although it was introduced to gain a first qualitative understanding of band-ferromagnetism[@GUT63]$\,$[@HUB63]$\,$[@KAN63] it took almost 30 years to answer the question whether it is a generic model for ferromagnetism at all. About ten years ago a Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT)[@MEV89]$\,$ [@VOL89]$\,$ [@JAR92]$\,$ [@GKKR96] was developed, which allows a consistent (mean field) description of the whole parameter range of the single-band Hubbard model. DMFT-based calculations confirmed the existence of ferromagnetism for a wide parameter range[@JP93]$\,$[@VBHK97]$\,$[@ULM98]. Today there is a general consensus that the single-band Hubbard model exhibits ferromagnetism.\
There is also consensus, however, that this model oversimplifies the situation in band-ferromagnets, for instance by restricting the correlations to the on-site elements. But an even more drastic simplification is the restriction to a single non-degenerated electron band. The fivefold degeneracy of the d-electrons certainly influences the magnetic properties of the system. Consequently, a lot of effort is being done by transferring certain treatments, once developed for the single-band model, to multi-band models. Let us mention Gutzwiller approximation [@BWG98] or various treatments within the DMFT-frame[@LK98]$\,$[@MZPK99].\
Besides the degeneracy of the d-electrons, the single-band model also neglects weakly correlated $s$- and $p$-bands, although they are located around the Fermi energy in $3d$ transition-metals. The interplay between correlated and uncorrelated electrons is known to give rise to a variety of phenomena such as the Kondo effect or heavy fermions[@HEW93] and is the central point of widely used models like the Anderson model. In the case of the periodic Anderson model (PAM), correlations in combination with the hybridization to an uncorrelated band can cause ferromagnetism[@MW93]$\,$[@TJF97]$\,$[@MN00] as shown rigorously for the one-dimensional case at quarter filling[@YAS93]. This indicates that uncorrelated bands may influence the magnetic phase diagram of the Hubbard model, too, and this is most likely if the band distance is smaller than the on-site Coulomb energy (charge transfer regime[@CK94]). Recent experiments indeed seem to indicate that ferromagnetism can be stabilized if additional p-orbitals are doped into a ${\rm RECo_2}$-system(${\rm RE=Ho,Er}$)[@CHSAAKD97]. The aim of this paper is to decide, whether the neglect of $s$- and $p$-bands is justified when modeling band-ferromagnets like Fe, Co, or Ni. The influence of the hybridization of $d$-electrons with these orbitals shall be investigated systematically.\
\
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section a suitable Hamiltonian is formulated and we try to give a qualitative overview of the interplay between the two different kinds of electrons. In section \[theory\] we will apply certain approximations to the Hamiltonian. Thereby we will try to get as much insight as possible into the mechanisms, by which the $d$-band magnetism is altered. While the above mentioned DMFT-based treatments give certainly reliable values for magnetic properties, it is challenging to give a direct physical meaning to auxiliary quantities used in this theory (e.g. the energy- and spin-dependent hybridization function). For these reasons we will formulate the much simpler Hubbard-I decoupling ([*Hu-I*]{})[@HUB63], the spectral density approach ([*SDA*]{})[@NOL72], and the modified alloy analogy ([*MAA*]{})[@HEN96] for the described multi-band model. These theories are conceptually restricted to high energy excitations in the strong coupling regime. This is, however, the interesting case concerning band-ferromagnetism. For the single-band model in the limit of infinite spatial dimensions the theories are thoroughly tested against numerical exact results available in this limit[@PHW98]. It is found that the [*SDA*]{} as well as the [*MAA*]{} systematically overestimate magnetic quantities such as the Curie temperature but turn out to give a qualitative satisfying description of band-ferromagnetism[@PHW98]$\,$[@MN00]. For our purpose the main advantage of these theories is the possibility for analytical estimations.\
In section \[results\] the main results concerning the p-band influence on ferromagnetism are shown. Within the [*SDA*]{} we will derive analytical expressions for the quasiparticle band structure in the strong coupling limit. This allows a vivid physical interpretation of the mechanism by which the properties of the correlated subsystem are influenced by uncorrelated bands. We will see that the main impact is due to spin dependent inter-band fluctuations, which may enhance or reduce the spin asymmetry of the interacting density of states. Finally we discuss alternative mechanisms that involve the new states, like superexchange and RKKY-coupling.
General considerations {#general}
======================
We want to study the influence of weakly correlated bands to $d$-band ferromagnetism within the following extension of the single-band Hubbard model: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\sum_{ij\sigma}(T_{ij}^d-\mu)d_{i\sigma}^+d_{j\sigma}+\frac{U}{2}\sum_{i\sigma}n_{i\sigma}^dn_{i-\sigma}^d\nonumber\\
&{}&+\sum_{ij\sigma}(T^p_{ij}-\mu)p_{i\sigma}^+p_{j\sigma}+V\sum_{i\sigma}(d_{i\sigma}^+p_{i\sigma}+p_{i\sigma}^+d_{i\sigma})\quad
.
\label{Ham}\end{aligned}$$ This Hamiltonian is similar to those used e.g. in reference [@CK94] and reduces to the periodic Anderson model (PAM) in the limit $T_{ij}^d\rightarrow 0$ for $i\neq j$. The weakly correlated electrons are described by a quasi-free “$p$-band”, with the hopping integrals $T_{ij}^p$, while the single-band Hubbard model describes the $d$-system. $T_{ij}^d$ are the hopping integrals within the $d$-band and $U$ is the local Coulomb interaction. The bands are coupled by a hybridization $V$. The hopping integrals are the Fourier transformed Bloch energies and $\mu$ denotes the chemical potential. The free band structure $\epsilon_k^{p;d}$ shall be the result of a tight-binding approximation. The relative position of the bands is characterized by two parameters: The difference of the free centers of gravity $\Delta T_0$ and the ratio of the free band widths $\alpha$: $$\Delta T_0=T_{0}^p-T_{0}^d\quad\quad \alpha=\frac{{\cal
W}_0^p}{{\cal W}_0^d}\quad.
\label{definition}$$ $T_0^{p,d}=T_{ii}^{p,d}$ are the centers of gravity of the free bands. To achieve a realistic description of transition metals we choose $\alpha>1$ and $\Delta T_0>0$. As a consequence of the tight binding approximation the dispersions are connected via $$\epsilon_k^p=T_0^p+\alpha\cdot(\epsilon_k^d-T_0^d)\quad .
\label{alpha}$$ Let us now discuss the possible influences of the $p$-band on the $d$-system within this model.\
First of all, there is a rather trivial particle number effect[@BJ79]. Magnetism depends sensitively on the $d$-particle density. If now the new band is added while the total particle number in the system stays fixed, the electron density within the correlated subsystem is changed. The same holds if the parameters $V$ or $\Delta T_0$ are tuned. We do not want to address these effects here. Note, that our intention is not to describe effects resulting from an experimental tuning of the hybridization strength, e.g. by applying pressure. Rather we want to decide if the neglect of the $s,p$-$d$ hybridization is a good approximation for many body model calculations. In this context it is assumed that even when the $s$- and $p$-electrons are neglected the correct $d$-particle number per site is used. This generally non-integer number is already the result of the hybridization to other bands. Thus we will regard this case (where the change of the $d$-particle number due to the hybridization is already considered) and the case of an explicitely treated hybridization (where additionally all other effects resulting from the two-band situation are taken into account). To compare these cases properly we have to fix the $d$-particle density in our calculations.\
What further effects can be expected? Naively, one would believe that an uncorrelated and therefore a priori “non-magnetic” $p$-band would destabilize ferromagnetism by “reducing the average correlation”. This reasoning, however, is too simple. Particle fluctuations between the bands will influence the propagation of electrons within the $d$-band and thus the $d$-projected density of states. It is known that ferromagnetism depends sensitively on the the shape of the density of states[@WBS98]. This effect will be most important if the fluctuation rate is spin-dependent. This would cause different alterations of the spin-up and spin-down density of states and directly influence its spin asymmetry.\
Let us look at this mechanism in the trivial limiting case of uncorrelated bands $U\rightarrow 0$. For small hybridizations the excitation energies are: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{k1}(V)&=&\epsilon_k^d-\frac{V^2}{|\epsilon_k^p-\epsilon_k^d|}\nonumber\\
E_{k2}(V)&=&\epsilon_k^p+\frac{V^2}{|\epsilon_k^p-\epsilon_k^d|}
\label{dispersionen}\end{aligned}$$ For the lower band $E_{k1}(V)$ this causes a band asymmetry, a band shift to lower energies, and a band broadening in the quasiparticle density of states. For non-overlapping bands, i.e. $\Delta T_0>max(\epsilon_k^{p}-T_0^{p})$, we insert (\[alpha\]) into (\[dispersionen\]) and expand $E_{k1}(V)$ in powers of $\frac{(\alpha-1)(\epsilon_k^d-T_0^d)}{\Delta
T_0}$. Equation (\[dispersionen\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
E_{k1}(V)=T_0^d+\Delta T_V^d+\left( \epsilon_k^d-T_0^d\right)\cdot x_V^d
\label{dispersionen2}\end{aligned}$$ with the band shift $$\Delta T_V^d=-\frac{V^2}{\Delta T_0}
\label{shift}$$ and the band broadening factor $$x_V^d= 1+\frac{V^2}{\Delta T_0^2}(\alpha-1)\quad.
\label{broad.}$$ The broadening as well as the shift are also present if the $d$-electrons are correlated as can be seen by studying a two-site cluster out of (\[Ham\]) with the inter-site hoppings $t^d$ and $t^p=\alpha\cdot t^d$. For small $V$ one can perform a canonical transformation that decouples the $p$- and $d$-band in first order in $V$. The calculation is lengthy but straightforward. For $U\rightarrow\infty$, $\Delta T_0>
t^{(p;d)}$, and $T_0^d<\mu<T_0^p$ the $d$-electrons are well approximated by a two-site Hubbard Hamiltonian with a renormalized center of gravity $\hat{T}_0^d(V)$, renormalized hopping integrals $\hat{t}^d(V)$, and a renormalized interaction $\hat{U}(V)$. We find the parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{T}_0^d(V)&=&T_0^d-\frac{V^2}{\Delta T_0}\nonumber\\
\hat{t}^d(V)&=&t^d(1+\frac{V^2}{\Delta T_0^2}(\alpha-1))\nonumber\\
\hat{U}(V)&=&U+\frac{V^2}{\Delta T_0}\quad.
\label{cluster}\end{aligned}$$ The broadening as well as the shift is clearly recognized in (\[cluster\]). Our preceding, qualitative considerations indicate that inter-band particle fluctuations indeed modify the d-projected density of states. These modifications are expected to influence also the magnetic properties. Up to now we only investigated spin-symmetric limiting cases allowing only a spin symmetric fluctuation rate. Regarding ferromagnetism it will be most important whether one of the effects becomes spin-dependent in the full system.
Theory
======
The magnetic properties of (\[Ham\]) can be studied using retarded single electron Green functions $$\begin{aligned}
G_{k\sigma}^{dd}&=&\langle\langle
d_{k\sigma};d_{k\sigma}^+\rangle\rangle\quad
G_{k\sigma}^{pp}=\langle\langle
p_{k\sigma};p_{k\sigma}^+\rangle\rangle\\
G_{k\sigma}^{dp}&=&G_{k\sigma}^{pd}=\langle\langle
d_{k\sigma};p_{k\sigma}^+\rangle\rangle =\langle\langle
p_{k\sigma};d_{k\sigma}^+\rangle\rangle\quad ,\end{aligned}$$ which fulfill the following equations of motion [^1]: $$\begin{aligned}
EG_{k\sigma}^{dd}&=&1+(\epsilon_k^d-\mu)G_{k\sigma}^{dd}+\Sigma_{k\sigma}G_{k\sigma}^{dd}+VG_{k\sigma}^{pd}\nonumber\\
EG_{k\sigma}^{pd}&=&(\epsilon_k^p-\mu)
G_{k\sigma}^{pd}+VG_{k\sigma}^{dd}\nonumber\\
EG_{k\sigma}^{pp}&=&1+({\epsilon}_k^p-\mu)G_{k\sigma}^{pp}+VG_{k\sigma}^{dp}\quad
.
\label{EOM}\end{aligned}$$ The self-energy $\Sigma_{k\sigma}$ is introduced as usual via $$\Sigma_{k\sigma}G_{k\sigma}^{dd}=\langle\langle
[d_{k\sigma},\frac{U}{2}\sum\limits_{i\sigma}n_{i\sigma}^d
n_{i-\sigma}^d]_-;d_{k\sigma}^+\rangle\rangle\quad ,
\label{def.sigma}$$ where $[\ldots ,\ldots]_-$ denotes the commutator. Solving (\[EOM\]) gives all Green functions: $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} G^{dd}_{k\sigma} &
G^{dp}_{k\sigma}\\
{}&{}\\
G^{pd}_{k\sigma} &
G^{pp}_{k\sigma}\end{array}\right)^{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
E-\epsilon_k^{\prime p} & -V\\
{}&{}\\
-V & E-\epsilon_k^{\prime d}-\Sigma_{k\sigma}\end{array}\right)\!,
\label{matrix}$$ where ${\epsilon}_k^\prime$ is used as an abbreviation for $\epsilon_k-\mu$.\
In the ferro- and paramagnetic phase we can calculate the spin-dependent average occupation numbers $n_\sigma^d=\langle n_{i\sigma}^d\rangle$ and $n_\sigma^{p}=\langle n_{i\sigma}^p\rangle$ using the Green functions (\[matrix\]): $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\sigma}^{(p;d)}=-\frac{Im}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE\,
f_-(E)G_{ii\sigma}^{(pp;dd)}(E-\mu)\quad.
\label{nvonro}\end{aligned}$$ $f_-(E)$ is the Fermi function and $G_{ii\sigma}^{(pp;dd)}$ are the local Green functions.\
Obviously we can calculate the phase boundary between para- and ferromagnetism as soon as we have found an (approximate) expression for the self-energy.\
To this aim we will formulate the [*Hu-I*]{}, [*SDA*]{}, and [*MAA*]{} for the two-band problem (\[Ham\]). By comparing the influence of the hybridization within different approximations we can minimize the risk of an artificial $p$-band influence. The two “simple” approximations [ *Hu-I*]{} and [*SDA*]{} can give an excellent insight into the working mechanisms. Due to their explicit structure of the self energy, one can perform some demonstrative analytical estimations. The [*SDA*]{} gives qualitatively convincing results concerning ferromagnetism. This is due to the fact that it reproduces the correct values for the centers of gravity and weights of the Hubbard bands in the strong coupling limit $U\rightarrow\infty$. Compared to [*Hu-I*]{}, an additional correlation function is considered that describes the itineracy of electrons of opposite spin direction and allows for a spin-dependent band shift. The [*MAA*]{} is a first systematic improvement of the [*SDA*]{}, since it allows quasiparticle damping, which is completely neglected within the [*SDA*]{}. By comparing [*MAA*]{}- and [*SDA*]{}-results one can see, if the mechanisms derived within the [*SDA*]{} are also present in a more complex theory.\
\
**Hubbard-I decoupling**: Let us start with the Hubbard-I approximation. Straightforward decoupling of the real space equations of motion in (\[matrix\]) yields the [*Hu-I*]{} self-energy $${}^{{\it
Hu-I}}\Sigma_\sigma=Un_{-\sigma}^d\frac{E-T_0^d+\mu}{E-T_0^d+\mu-U(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)}\quad ,
\label{hu-i}$$ which is formally identical to the single-band case. The self-energy is $V$-dependent via $n_{-\sigma}^d$, which is calculated using (\[matrix\]) and (\[nvonro\]). Equation (\[hu-i\]) gives three excitation energies in every point of the Brillouin-zone, corresponding to the three-peak structure of the spectral density in the atomic limit $V\rightarrow 0; T_{ij}^{i\neq
j}\rightarrow 0$. Finite values of the hopping and hybridization change the positions and weights of the $\delta$-peaks and lead to a mixing of $p-$ and $d-$ spectral density.\
\
**SDA** For the single-band model, the [*SDA*]{} is the simplest theory that yields the correct strong coupling and high energy behaviour, which seems to be decisive for the existence of ferromagnetism. The general structure of the spectral density and the self-energy is the same as in [*Hu-I*]{}. The energy-positions and weights of the $\delta$-peaks in the spectral density are obtained by fitting it to the first four spectral moments: $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(m)}&=&\int_{-\infty}^\infty\, dE\, E^m
S_{k\sigma}^{dd}(E)\nonumber\\
&=&\langle
[\underbrace{[[[d_{k\sigma},H]_-H]_-\ldots H]_-}_{m-fold},d_{k\sigma}^+]_+\rangle\quad .
\label{momente}\end{aligned}$$ $[\ldots ,\ldots]_+$ is the anti-commutator. For the two-band model we will apply this concept directly to the self-energy rather than to the spectral density. Therefore we choose the same structure as in (\[hu-i\]) for a self-energy ansatz: $${}^{\it
SDA}\Sigma_{k\sigma}\stackrel{!}{=}\gamma_1\frac{E-\gamma_2}{E-\gamma_3}\quad .
\label{ansatz}$$ The parameters $\gamma_i$ shall now be fitted to the spectral moments. To this end we expand the Green function and the self-energy with respect to powers of $\frac{1}{E}$: $$\begin{aligned}
G_{k\sigma}^{dd}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{{}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(n)}}{E^{n+1}};\quad
\Sigma_{k\sigma}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{C_{k\sigma}^{(n)}}{E^n}\quad,
\label{hochenergie}\end{aligned}$$ The high-energy coefficients of the Green function are the spectral moments (\[momente\]). This can easily be seen by expanding the spectral representation of the Green function $$G_{k\sigma}^{dd}(E)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty
dE^\prime\frac{S_{k\sigma}^{dd}(E^\prime)}{E-E^\prime +i0^+}$$ with respect to $\frac{1}{E}$ and comparing the resulting expressions with the definition of the moments (\[momente\]). The self-energy coefficients $C_{k\sigma}^{(n)}$ are obtained as functions of the moments ${}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(0)}\ldots {}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(n+1)}$ by inserting the expansions (\[hochenergie\]) into (\[matrix\]) (or equivalently into the Dyson equation) and by comparing the coefficients of the $\frac{1}{E^n}$ terms. With the r.h.s. of (\[momente\]), we find the first four correlated spectral moments: $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(0)}&=&1\nonumber\\
{}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(1)}&=&\epsilon_k^{\prime d}+Un_{-\sigma}^d\nonumber\\
{}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(2)}&=&(\epsilon_k^{\prime
d})^2+2Un_{-\sigma}^d\epsilon_k^{\prime d}+U^2
n_{-\sigma}^d+V^2\nonumber\\
{}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(3)}&=&(\epsilon_k^{\prime
d})^3+3Un_{-\sigma}^d(\epsilon_k^{\prime d})^2+U^2(2n_{-\sigma}+(n_{-\sigma}^d)^2)\nonumber\\&{}&+U^2n_{-\sigma}^d(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)(B_{k-\sigma}^{2-band}+T_0^\prime)\nonumber\\
&{}&+U^3n_{-\sigma}^d+V^2(2\epsilon_k^{\prime d}+\epsilon_k^{\prime p}+2Un_{-\sigma}^d)\quad.
\label{zweib-moments}\end{aligned}$$ The self-energy coefficients read: $$\begin{aligned}
C^{(0)}_\sigma&=&Un_{-\sigma}^d\nonumber\\
C^{(1)}_\sigma&=&U^2n_{-\sigma}^d(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)\nonumber\\
C^{(2)}_{k\sigma}&=&U^2n_{-\sigma}^d(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)(B_{k-\sigma}^{2-band}+T_0^\prime+U(1-n_{-\sigma}^d))\quad.
\label{koeffizienten}\end{aligned}$$ $B_{k\sigma}^{2-band}=B_\sigma^{2b}+F_{k\sigma}^{2b}$ is a higher correlation function with the local part $B_\sigma^{2b}$ and a $k-$dependent part $F_{k\sigma}^{2b}$. For the single-band model, the influence of both terms is discussed in detail in reference [@HEN97A]. It turns out that the most important term is the local $B_\sigma$, which leads to a spin-dependent band shift in the ferromagnetic phase. With regard to ferromagnetism the non-local part $F_{k\sigma}$ seems to be of minor importance. Therefore we will neglect it in the following. From (\[momente\]) we find for the local part $B_\sigma^{2b}$: $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\sigma}^{2b}&=&\frac{1}{n_\sigma^d(1-n_\sigma^d)}\Bigg(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{ij}^{i\neq
j}T_{ij}^d\langle d_{i\sigma}^+ d_{j\sigma}(2n_{i-\sigma}^d-1)\rangle\\
&{}&+\frac{2V}{UN}\sum_{ij}(T^p_{ij}-T_{ij}^d)\langle
d_{i\sigma}^+p_{j\sigma}\rangle\\
&{}&-V\langle d_{i\sigma}^+
p_{i\sigma}\rangle+\frac{2V^2}{U}(n_\sigma^d-n_\sigma^p)\Bigg)\quad.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Although $B_{\sigma}^{2b}$ contains expectation values of the uncorrelated band and higher correlation functions, it can be expressed as a functional of the correlated single-electron Green function only: $$\begin{aligned}
B_\sigma^{2b}&=\frac{-Im}{n_\sigma(1-n_\sigma)\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE\,
f_-(E)\left(\frac{2
\Sigma_\sigma(E)}{U}-1\right)\cdot\nonumber\\
&{}\!\!\cdot\left((E-\Sigma_\sigma(E)-T_0)G_{ii\sigma}^{dd}(E-\mu)-1\right).
\label{Be}\end{aligned}$$ The correlation-function $B_\sigma^{2b}$ and the self-energy coefficients $C_\sigma^{(0;1;2)}$ turn out to be the same functionals of the correlated Green function $G_{ii\sigma}^{dd}$ as in the single-band model. While determining the self-energy coefficients, the whole $V$-dependence in the moments ${}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(0)}\ldots {}^{dd}M_{k\sigma}^{(3)}$ (\[zweib-moments\]) is cancelled by the explicit $V$-dependence of the correlated Green function (\[matrix\]). Thus, like in the [*Hu-I*]{} approximation, the [*SDA*]{} self-energy is formally identical to the single-band case: $${}^{\it
SDA}\Sigma_\sigma=Un_{-\sigma}^d\frac{E-T_0+\mu-B_{-\sigma}^{2b}}{E-T_0+\mu-B_{-\sigma}^{2b}-U(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)}\quad .$$ The $V-$dependence comes again into play by the expectation values $n_{-\sigma}$ and $B_{-\sigma}^{2b}$ being evaluated via (\[matrix\]), (\[nvonro\]), and (\[Be\]).\
\
**MAA** Besides the restriction to strong interaction strengths a drawback of [*SDA*]{} and [*Hu-I*]{} is the exclusion of scattering processes, which lead to quasiparticle damping. The correlated $d$-system is described by two quasiparticles with infinite lifetime corresponding to singly or doubly occupied sites. One possibility to include quasiparticle damping is the description of the system by a fictitious alloy (alloy analogy), which is a standard method in many body physics[@VKE68]. With this approach one can account for electron scattering at the potentials formed by the distribution of the electrons of opposite spin direction. Main excitation energies of the many body system are modelled by atomic energy levels of a fictitious alloy. Correlation effects are then described by the properties of this alloy and its self-energy is identified with the self-energy of the many body problem. Since the self-energy (\[def.sigma\]) exclusively characterizes correlated electrons, we will only describe the correlated subsystem by a fictitious alloy. In the strong coupling limit we have two main excitation energies within the correlated subsystem. Consequently we will describe it by a two-component alloy. The resulting effective alloy problem can be solved by the Coherent Potential Approximation (CPA), which yields the CPA self-energy $$0=\sum_{p\sigma}^{p=1,2}
x_{p\sigma}\frac{E_{p\sigma}-T_0^d-\Sigma_\sigma(E)}{1-G_{ii\sigma}^{dd}(E)(E_{p\sigma}-\Sigma_\sigma(E)-T_0^d)}\quad.
\label{CPA}$$ $E_{p\sigma}$ and $x_{p\sigma}$ are the atomic energy-levels and concentrations of the alloy components. The CPA, being a single-site theory, gives a local self-energy $\Sigma_\sigma$. After rearranging the terms and setting $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_1&=&x_{1\sigma}(E_{1\sigma}-T_0^d)+x_{2\sigma}(E_{2\sigma}-T_0^d)\\
\gamma_2&=&\frac{(E_{1\sigma}-T_0^d)(E_{2\sigma}-T_0^d)}{\gamma_1}\\
\gamma_3&=&x_{1\sigma}(E_{2\sigma}-T_0^d)+x_{2\sigma}(E_{1\sigma}-T_0^d)\quad,\end{aligned}$$ equation (\[CPA\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_\sigma(E)=\gamma_1\frac{1+G_{ii\sigma}^{dd}(E)(\Sigma_\sigma(E)-\gamma_2)}{1+G_{ii\sigma}^{dd}(E)(\Sigma_\sigma(E)-\gamma_3)}\quad.
\label{CPA-3}\end{aligned}$$ Here $x_{1\sigma}+x_{2\sigma}=1$ is already used. To complete the theory, we now have to adjust the parameters $\gamma_1,\gamma_2$, and $\gamma_3$. Similar to the [*SDA*]{} these parameters can be fitted to the on-site spectral moments $M_{ii\sigma}^{(m)}$ and on-site self-energy coefficients $C_{ii\sigma}^{(m)}$. The two latters are defined analogously to $M_{k\sigma}$ and $C_{k\sigma}$ (\[momente\]). To this purpose one has to expand the local Green function $G_{ii\sigma}^{dd}$ and the local self-energy $\Sigma_\sigma$ in powers of $\frac{1}{E}$ analogously to (\[hochenergie\]). Then one inserts these expansions into (\[CPA-3\]) and compares the coefficients of the $\frac{1}{E^n}$-terms up to $n=2$.[^2] Using the abbreviation ${}^{MAA}\Sigma_\sigma\rightarrow
\Sigma_\sigma$, we finally find for the [*MAA*]{} self-energy: $$\Sigma_\sigma=Un_{-\sigma}^d\frac{(G_{ii\sigma}^{dd})^{-1}+\Sigma_\sigma-B_{-\sigma}^{2b}}{(G_{ii\sigma}^{dd})^{-1}+\Sigma_\sigma-B_{-\sigma}^{2b}-U(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)}$$ This is again, as in [*Hu-I*]{} and [*SDA*]{}, formally identical to the single-band expression, i.e. the self-energy is the same functional of the correlated Green function as in the single-band case. The self-energy is $V$-dependent via $G_{ii\sigma}^{dd}$ and the expectation-values $n_\sigma^d$ and $B_\sigma^{2b}$.\
The [*MAA*]{} self-energy is still consistent with the high-energy limit and additionally allows for quasiparticle damping, thus being a systematic improvement of the [*SDA*]{}[^3].
Results and Discussion {#results}
======================
Keeping in mind the scope of the theories used in our approach, we will now investigate the influence of the additional $p$-band. In reference [@PHW98] these theories are thoroughly evaluated. To gain the best possible comparison with these calculations, we choose the same lattice structure (fcc-tight-binding, $d\rightarrow\infty$, after particle-hole transformation) for our investigations of the two-band model. The density of states reads $$\rho^{(0)}(E)=\frac{e^{-(1+\sqrt{2}E/t^*)/2}}{t^*\sqrt{\pi(1+\sqrt(2)E/t^*)}}\quad
.
\label{DOS}$$ In the following all energies will be given in units of $t^*$.The density of states exhibits a divergence at the lower band edge. This feature is known to stabilizes ferromagnetism. The main trends regarding the influence of the hybridization are also present in other lattice structures (e.g. sc or bcc tight-binding). Ferromagnetism, however, is most certain within the fcc-lattice[@WBS98]. Fig. \[para\] and Fig. \[maa\] show the quasiparticle densities of states calculated with [*SDA*]{} and [*MAA*]{} for different values of $V$ in the paramagnetic case. In both theories the QDOS consists of two Hubbard-bands and the uncorrelated band. These bands move apart with rising $V$ while the correlated sub-bands are broadened. One can see that the band shifts are proportional to $V^2$, which agrees perfectly with the results for free bands (\[dispersionen2\], \[shift\], \[broad.\]) and the two-site cluster (\[cluster\]).\
Fig. \[ferro\] displays the lower Hubbard band ([*SDA*]{}) of the correlated density of states in the ferromagnetic case.
It turns out, that the hybridization-caused band shift is in fact spin-dependent in the ferromagnetic phase. The shift is larger for majority-spin electrons. The magnetic properties can thus be changed drastically due to the presence of the uncorrelated band. Within the framework of the [*SDA*]{} we can derive analytical expressions for the shift and the broadening by calculating the poles of (\[matrix\]) with $\Sigma_{k\sigma}=\Sigma_\sigma^{SDA}$. For $U\rightarrow\infty$ we find: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{1k\sigma}^{SDA}&=&T_0^d+U+(\epsilon_k^d-T_0^d)n_{-\sigma}^d+B_{-\sigma}^{2b}(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)\nonumber\\
E_{2k\sigma}^{SDA}&=&\epsilon_k^p+ V^2 X_{k\sigma}\nonumber\\
E_{3k\sigma}^{SDA}&=&T_0^d+(\epsilon_k-T_0^d)(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)+B_{-\sigma}^{2b}n_{-\sigma}^d-
V^2 X_{k\sigma}\end{aligned}$$ where $$V^2
X_{k\sigma}=V^2\frac{1-n_{-\sigma}^d}{{\epsilon}_k^p-T_0^d-(\epsilon_k^d-T_0^d)(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)-B_{-\sigma}^{2b}n_{-\sigma}^d}$$ describes the whole influence of the hybridization. The other terms are the well-known [*SDA*]{}-result for the single-band Hubbard model. For band fillings smaller than unity, the most important energies are $E_{3k\sigma}$ forming the lower Hubbard-band. For non-overlapping bands (i.e. $\Delta T_0> {\rm max}(\epsilon_k^p-T_0^p)$), we can rewrite $E_{3k\sigma}^{SDA}$ in terms of a band shift $\Delta T_{V\sigma}$ and a band broadening factor $x_{V\sigma}$ $$\begin{aligned}
E_{3k\sigma}^{SDA}&=&T_0^d+\Delta
T_{V\sigma}+n_{-\sigma}^dB_{-\sigma}^{2b}\\
&{}&+(\epsilon_k^d-T_0^d)(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)\cdot
x_{V\sigma}\quad.\end{aligned}$$ Both are spin dependent: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta T_{V\sigma}&=-&\frac{V^2}{\Delta T_0-n_{-\sigma}^dB_{-\sigma}^{2b}}(1-n_{-\sigma}^d)\nonumber\\
x_{V\sigma}&=&1+\frac{V^2}{(\Delta T_0-n_{-\sigma}^d
B_{-\sigma}^{2b})^2}(\alpha-1+n_{-\sigma}^d).
\label{effekte}\end{aligned}$$ $\alpha$ is the ratio of the free band widths as defined in (\[definition\]). Thus an hybridization with an uncorrelated band causes alterations in the band structure similar to the non-interacting case (\[shift\], \[broad.\]), i.e. a band shift and a band broadening for the correlated sub-band. The important difference is the [*spin dependence*]{} of both quantities in the full system. Equation (\[effekte\]) describes two competing effects. The shift to lower energies $\Delta T_{V\sigma}^d$ supports magnetism since it is larger for majority-spin electrons. The band broadening $x_{V\sigma}$, in contrast, destabilizes magnetism, since broader bands are known to be inconvenient for band-ferromagnetism. In addition, the spin dependence of $x_{V\sigma}$ works against ferromagnetism.\
$\Delta T_{V\sigma}$ and $x_{V\sigma}$ constitute the main mechanisms by which the $p$-band influences the $d$-band magnetism.\
In Fig. \[tvonn\] Curie temperatures are shown in dependence of the band filling $n^d$ for different parameters V.
We find both, stabilization for lower particle densities as well as destabilization for higher ones in all theories. Surprisingly, the stabilization is clearly more pronounced, if the band distance increases (r.h.s of Fig. \[tvonn\]).\
Fig. \[tvonV\] gives a systematic overview of the $V$-dependence of the Curie temperature for different band distances $\Delta T_0$.
There exists a critical band distance $\Delta T_0^c$ that separates regimes with qualitatively different behaviour of the Curie temperature (lines with circles). This distance is about $2.8\,eV$ for [*Hu-I*]{}, for [*MAA*]{} approximately $2.6\,eV$, while within the [*SDA*]{} the critical band distance is somewhat smaller than $2.4\,eV$. $\Delta T_0^c$ is characterized by the following:\
(i) Above the critical band distance (triangles up) we are in the stabilizing regime. Here ferromagnetism can be stabilized by the uncorrelated bands for small hybridizations $V$. The Curie temperature $T_c$ shows a maximum as a function of the hybridization $V$.\
(ii) The situation is different for small band distances $\Delta T_0<\Delta
T_0^c$ (triangles down). We are now in the destabilizing regime. No enhancement of the Curie temperature is found, only destabilization of magnetism.\
The different behaviour can be understood by inspecting again the two competing band structure effects (\[effekte\]) of the hybridization: At small band distances $\Delta T_0$ the destabilizing band broadening $x_{V\sigma}\sim 1+\frac{V^2}{\Delta T_0^2}$ is more important than the stabilizing shift $\Delta
T_{V\sigma}\sim-\frac{V^2}{\Delta T_0}$. We are in the destabilizing regime. As $\Delta T_0$ increases, the shift more and more over-compensates the broadening, though both effects become smaller. Thus ferromagnetism can be stabilized for $\Delta
T_0>\Delta T_0^c$. Large inter-band fluctuations at high values of $V$, however, suppress ferromagnetism also in this regime.\
For further investigations we only show [*SDA*]{}-results since the dependence of the hybridization strength $V$ is qualitatively the same in all theories. First we want to look at the critical band distance, that separates the stabilizing from the destabilizing regime. It depends sensitively on the band filling $n^d$ (Fig. \[efcrit\]).
For densities $n^d$ closer to half filling the critical band distance is enhanced. This could reflect the fact, that the Fermi energy rises with increasing band filling and therefore the gap between the Fermi energy and the uncorrelated states becomes smaller. This enhances the inter-band fluctuation rate and the stabilization of ferromagnetism is more unlikely. As in the single-band model, no ferromagnetism was found at $n^d\ge 1$ for the free density of states (\[DOS\]).\
Finally we want to study ground state properties: The $p$-band can induce a ferromagnetic ground-state, if the single-band system is paramagnetic, but close to a ferromagnetic transition (Fig. \[ef\_V\], bcc tight-binding lattice). A ferromagnetic ground state is induced by the $p$-$d$ hybridization for band distances greater than $\Delta T_0^c=0.3\,eV$ and for moderate values of $V$. The magnetization shows a distinct maximum as a function of the hybridization strength as shown in the inset of Fig. \[ef\_V\].\
Conclusions
===========
Let us summarize our findings. The question, whether and how an uncorrelated band can stabilize band ferromagnetism can now be answered:\
Stabilization of ferromagnetism is only found for small hybridization strengths. Strong fluctuations between the bands generally suppress ferromagnetic order. Small fluctuations can stabilize ferromagnetism if the band distance is larger than a critical energy $\Delta T_0^c$, which depends sensitively on the band filling $n$ and on the shape of the free density of states.\
The stabilization and the destabilization result from spin-dependent inter-band particle fluctuations. They induce a spin-dependent renormalization of the correlated quasiparticle density of states. This renormalization can be analyzed in terms of a band broadening dominating at small band distances and a band shift dominating at larger ones. The former turns out to suppress, the latter to stabilize ferromagnetism.\
In other words: as usual the system lowers its energy by inter-band particle fluctuations. Because the latters can be spin-dependent, the energy-win is different for the spin-up and the spin-down electrons. This in turn influences the stability of the ferromagnetic phase and e.g. the Curie-temperatures. The described mechanism can also give a “final kick” to a system, that is close to a ferromagnetic transition.\
There are various arguments that compared to this mechanism indirect exchange interactions as an RKKY-like coupling of localized $d$-moments are of minor importance:\
(i) In most of the calculations shown here, the lower band edge of the $p$-band is located above the Fermi-energy (Fig. 1 - Fig. 6). Except for the mixing of $d-$ and $p-$states, this band is therefore empty and no polarization of the $p$-band can be expected. This excludes RKKY-coupling.\
(ii) RKKY-coupling results from simultaneous fluctuations at different sites and is thus of order $V^4$ (see e.g. reference [@TJF97]). The same holds for other indirect exchange mechanisms as e.g. super-exchange. On the other hand the band-structure effects we discussed above are based on uncoupled fluctuations and are thus of order $V^2$. Therefore they will dominate the system.
In conclusion we have found a considerable influence of the $p$-band to $d$-band ferromagnetism in our model.\
The involved processes are due to the interplay of correlation and hybridization. Hence our investigations showed that the $p$-$d$ hybridization should be taken into account in model calculations to achieve a realistic description of real substances. Otherwise magnetic properties may be over- or underestimated.\
If and how the $p$-bands influence the anti-ferromagnetic phase was left open in our analysis and remains an interesting question to be answered in further investigations.\
\
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the Sonderforschungsbereich 290 (“Metallische dünne Filme: Struktur, Magnetismus und elektronische Eigenschaften”)
[10]{}
M. C. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 159 (1963).
J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc. A [**276**]{}, 238 (1963).
J. Kanamori, Prog. Theor. Phys. (Kyoto) [**30**]{}, 275 (1963).
W. Metzner and D. Vollhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 324 (1989).
D. Vollhardt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**3**]{}, 2189 (1989).
M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 168 (1992).
A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 13 (1996).
M. Jarrell and T. Pruschke, Z. Phys. B [**90**]{}, 187 (1993).
D. Vollhardt, N. Bl[ü]{}mer, K. Held, M. Kollar, J. Schlipf and M. Ulmke, Z. Phys. B [**103**]{}, 283 (1997).
M. Ulmke, Europ. Phys. J. B [**1**]{}, 301 (1998).
J. B[ü]{}nemann, W. Weber and F. Gebhard, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 6896 (1998).
A. I. Lichtenstein and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 6884 (1998).
T. Maier, M. B. Z[ö]{}lfl, T. Pruschke and J. Keller, Europ. Phys. J. B [**7**]{}, 377 (1999).
A. C. Hewson,[*The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions,*]{} Cambridge University Press (1993)
B. M[ö]{}ller and P. W[ö]{}lfle, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 10320 (1993).
A. N. Tahvildar-Zadeh, M. Jarrell and J. K. Freericks, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, R3332 (1997).
D. Meyer and W. Nolting, Europ. Phys. J. B [**18**]{}, 385 (2000).
T. Yanagisawa and Y. Shimoi, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 6104 (1993) This term is usual in the investigation of correlation induced metal-insulator transitions. See e.g.: M. Caffarel and W. Krauth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1545 (1994); Y. Ono, R. Bulla and A. C. Hewson, Europ. Phys. J. B [**19**]{}, 375 (2001).
V. Sechovsky, A. V. Andreev, Z. Arnold, J. Kamarad, T. D. Cuong, L. Havela and N. H. Duc, J. of Alloys a. Comp. [**262**]{}, 141 (1997).
W. Nolting, Z. Phys. B [**25**]{}, 255 (1972).
T. Herrmann and W. Nolting, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 10579 (1996).
M. Potthoff, T. Herrmann, T. Wegner and W. Nolting, phys. stat. sol. (b) [**210**]{}, 199 (1998).
An investigation of the pure particle number effect is found in: M. B[ü]{}nger and R. J. Jelitto, phys. stat. sol. (b) [**94**]{}, 191 (1979).
see e.g. J. Wahle, N. Bl[ü]{}mer, J. Schlipf, K. Held and D. Vollhardt, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 12749 (1998).\
R. Arita, S. Onoda, K. Kuroki and H. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn [**69**]{}, 785 (2000)
T. Hermann and W. Nolting, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. [**170**]{}, 253 (1997).
B. Velicky, S. Kirkpatrick and H Ehrenreich, Phys. Rev. [**175**]{}, 747 (1968).
[^1]: natural units are used throughout this paper, hence $\hbar=1$
[^2]: best to be done in the form $\Sigma_\sigma-\gamma_1+G_{ii\sigma}[\Sigma_\sigma(\Sigma_\sigma-\gamma_3)-\gamma_1(\Sigma_\sigma-\gamma_2)]=0$
[^3]: However, as in the [*SDA*]{}, the low energy behaviour is described poorly. For instant the imaginary part of the self energy does not vanish at the Fermi energy.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The beta transformation is the iterated map $\beta x\,\mod1$. The special case of $\beta=2$ is known as the Bernoulli map, and is exactly solvable. The Bernoulli map provides a model for pure, unrestrained chaotic (ergodic) behavior: it is the full invariant shift on the Cantor space $\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\omega}$. The Cantor space consists of infinite strings of binary digits; it is notable for many properties, including that it can represent the real number line.
The beta transformation defines a subshift: iterated on the unit interval, it singles out a subspace of the Cantor space that is invariant under the action of the left-shift operator. That is, lopping off one bit at a time gives back the same subspace.
The beta transform seems to capture something basic about the multiplication of two real numbers: $\beta$ and $x$. It offers insight into the nature of multiplication. Iterating on multiplication, one would get $\beta^{n}x$ – that is, exponentiation; the mod 1 of the beta transform contorts this in strange ways.
Analyzing the beta transform is difficult. The work presented here is more-or-less a research diary: a pastiche of observations and some shallow insights. One is that chaos seems to be rooted in how the carry bit behaves during multiplication. Another is that one can surgically insert “islands of stability” into chaotic (ergodic) systems, and have some fair amount of control over how those islands of stability behave. One can have islands with, or without a period-doubling “route to chaos”.
The eigenvalues of the transfer operator seem to lie on a circle of radius $1/\beta$ in the complex plane. Given that the transfer operator is purely real, the appearance of such a quasi-unitary spectrum unexpected. The spectrum appears to be the limit of a dense set of quasi-cyclotomic polynomials, the positive real roots of which include the Golden and silver ratios, the Pisot numbers, the n-bonacci (tribonacci, tetranacci, etc.) numbers.
author:
- Linas Vepstas
bibliography:
- 'solvit.bib'
date: 'December 2017 (Updated Feb 2018 and Dec 2018)'
title: On the Beta Transformation
---
[email protected] doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17132.26248
Introduction
============
The last three or four decades of mathematical research has seen dramatic advances in the theory of subshifts. This text is mostly not about that, except to point out that this theory has very broad and important impact on many branches of physics and mathematics. From the perspective of the amateur enthusiast, the theory of subshifts finally exposes and makes clear some of the mysterious and intriguing behavior of fractals and of chaotic dynamical systems.
This text focuses almost entirely on just one particular map of the unit interval, the $\beta$-transform, defined as the iterated map $\beta x\mod1$. As such, it is an example of an iterated map on the unit interval of the real number line. Such maps have the form $$f:[0,1]\to[0,1]$$ and the topic is the exploration of the consequence of iterating the map by composing: $$f^{n}(x)=(f\circ f\circ\cdots\circ f)(x)=f(f(\cdots f(x)\cdots))$$ Such one-dimensional iterated maps have been heavily studied, and there is a large body of results, interconnecting many different concepts and results from mathematics, and so having a particularly broad range.
This text attempts to report some brand-new results on the $\beta$-transform. This is perhaps surprising, as one might think that the $\beta$-transform is sufficiently simple so as to be well-studied and well-understood, it being among the very simplest of iterated one-dimensional maps. This text also attempts to report these results in a naive and unsophisticated fashion, in the hope that this makes the text readable for the interested student and casual enthusiast.
Thus, although the author is personally excited by the advances in the field, this text is neither a survey of known results on the $\beta$-transform, nor does it much glance at most of the typical avenues that are available for studying one-dimensional maps. This text does focus extensively on the spectrum of the transfer operator (the “Ruelle Perron Frobenius operator”), and thus it contributes to the general “Koopmania”. Little prior knowledge is assumed, and the needed concepts are introduced in a very casual and informal way. This will, no doubt, completely discourage and dismay the formally trained mathematician. The best I can offer is to reiterate: “new results”, off the beaten track.
This text begins with some pretty pictures, showing the iterated tent and logistic maps, so as to remind the reader as to why this is an interesting problem to study. The fact is that the $\beta$-transformation is far more dry and abstract than the rather sexy logistic map, or its complex cousin, the Mandelbrot set. The hope is that the $\beta$-transformation is also simpler, and therefore, perhaps, easier to understand. The reader will soon discover that there is nothing particularly easy about it, and that, at every turn, one bumps into other interesting areas of mathematics that could, perhaps should shed some light, but don’t actually seem to do so, in practice.
The most fun for the casual reader might be chapter 5, on the periodic orbits, where the quasi-cyclotomic polynomials appear; these are polynomials of the form $p_{n}\left(z\right)=z^{k+1}-b_{0}z^{k}-b_{1}z^{k-1}-\cdots-b_{k-1}z-1$ for the $b_{j}$ being binary bits (zero or one). Also quite fun is the section on the islands of stability, which sheds light on how one can take a purely ergodic (chaotic) system, and surgically insert, as desired, islands of stability. The point here is that the classic logistic map attracted interest precisely because of its interleaving of chaos and stability; it turns out, one can manufacture such systems, at will.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of iteration (surprising to me) is that the invariant measure consists of flat plateaus. Or perhaps this is not surprising; after all, for the full shift, $\beta=2$, the invariant measure is a straight line, and this is equivalent to saying that the real numbers are aboslutely evenly distributed, or that the toss of a perfectly fair coin is a perfectly even, random sequences of heads and tails. Flatness implies an even distribution. So flatness is not surprising. But look at it a different way: the digit sequences are wildly and ergodically different, yet none-the-less manage to *sum to exactly the same value*, when summed in an analytic series! Why should crazy-different, crazy-chaotic sequences yeild identical summations? That they do should be considered to be the “fundamental theorem of analytic ergodics”. (I use the word “analytic” here in the same sense as “analytic number theory” or “analytic combinatorics”. Given a sequence of values, one explores the analytic properties of its generating functions.) If this theorem has ever been clearly stated before, or if it has been proven (for any case other than the Bernoulli shift), I do not know. It seems terribly important for analyzing subshifts.
A word about the format of this paper: this is a *de facto* “research diary”, not a formal report. This, it contains various unfinished corners and notes-to-self.
Bernoulli shift
---------------
The Bernoulli shift (aka the bit-shift map) is an iterated map on the unit interval, given by iteration of the function $$b(x)=\begin{cases}
2x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
2x-1 & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}\le x\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:Bernoulli shift}$$ The symbolic dynamics of this map gives the binary digit expansion of $x$. That is, write $$b^{n}(x)=(b\circ b\circ\cdots\circ b)(x)=b(b(\cdots b(x)\cdots))$$ to denote the $n$-fold iteration of $b$ and let $b^{0}(x)=x$. The symbolic dynamics is given by the bit-sequence $$b_{n}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
0 & \mbox{ if }0\le b^{n}(x)<\frac{1}{2}\\
1 & \mbox{ if }\frac{1}{2}\le b^{n}(x)\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:bernoulli-bits}$$ Of course, the symbolic dynamics recreates the initial real number: $$x=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b_{n}\left(x\right)2^{-n-1}$$ All of this is just a fancy way of saying that a real number can be written in terms of it’s base-2 binary expansion. That is, the binary digits for $x$ are the $b_{n}=b_{n}\left(x\right)$, so that $$x=0.b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots$$
The Bernoulli shift has many interesting properties, connecting it to the Cantor set and to many self-similar fractals. I have explored these in many other texts, as have other authors, and will not repeat these here. The author is too lazy to provide a bibliography; the reader is directed at search engines.
The current task is to attempt to see how many of these properties still hold in slightly more complex systems, and whether any of the tools used to analyze and solve the Bernoulli shift can be applied to these systems.
Shift space
-----------
The use of the word “shift” here deserves a small bit of formality. A “shift space” can be formally defined to be a set of infinite sequences of a set of $N$ letters (or symbols), together with a shift operator $T$ that takes each sequence, and lops off the left-most symbol. For the Bernoulli shift, there are $N=2$ letters, taken from the set $\left\{ 0,1\right\} $. For the Bernoulli shift, one is typically interested in the set of all possible infinite sequences: this is the “full shift”. One writes $\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\omega}$ for this shift space, $\omega$ denoting countable infinity. For the Bernoulli shift, the map $b\left(x\right)$ is the shift operator: it just lops of the left-most symbol.
In general, a shift space does not have to include every possible sequence of symbols; it does, however, by definition, have to be shift-invariant. That is, given some set $S$ of infinite sequences of $N$ symbols, the set $S$ is a shift space if and only if, by loping off the leading symbol of each string, one regains $S$ again. In formulas, a shift space $S$ must obey $$TS=S$$
For example, $S=\left\{ 000\cdots,111\cdots\right\} $ contains only two elements: the string of all zeros, and the string of all ones; loping off the leading digit just returns $S$ again. In general, shift spaces may contain a finite, or a countable, or an uncountable number of elements. In general, one defines the “full shift” as the space $N^{\omega}$ of all possible strings of $N$ symbols. Subsets that are shift spaces are called “subshifts”.
The words “symbolic dynamics” also deserve some mention: given one specific sequence $x$ out of the shift space, one can ponder “where it goes to”, as one lops off a symbol at a time. This gives the “symbolic dynamics” or the “point dynamics” of the sequence. The “orbit” is defined as the set $\left\{ T^{m}x\,|\,\mbox{integer }m\ge0\right\} $– that is, the set of all places that $x$ goes to. There are several possibilities: one is that $x$ is a fixed point, so that $Tx=x$. Another is that $x$ is a repeating sequence of symbols, in which case iteration repeats as well: $T^{m}x=x$ holds whenever the repeat length is $m$; this is a periodic orbit. Most importantly, there usually uncountably many non-periodic sequences or orbits. That is, the number of periodic orbits is always countable: one merely arranges them in lexicographic order, and one is done. As Cantor famously demonstrated (and Hilbert so carefully expanded on) this cannot be done for the non-periodic orbits: they are uncountable.
In what follows, the text will in general confine itself to uncountable case. Periodic orbits exist, but will be ignored; in a certain strict sense, they constitute a set of measure zero. A number of glosses like this will be made: for example, the real numbers, and the Cantor space $\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\omega}$ are both uncountable; however, they are not in one-to-one correspondence, as some real numbers can have two different representations as bit sequences. Specifically, these are the fractions $\left(2n+1\right)/2^{m}$ for positive integers $m,n$ – they can be validly represented by bit-sequences ending in all-zeros, or all-ones. There are countably many such fractions, termed the dyadic fractions. For the most part, this difference between the real number line, and the Cantor space will be ignored.
Beta shift
----------
The beta shift is similar to the Bernoulli shift, replacing the number 2 by a constant real-number value $1<\beta\le2$. It can be defined as
$$T_{\beta}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
\beta\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}\le x\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:downshift}$$
This map, together with similar maps, is illustrated in figure \[fig:Iterated-piece-wise-linear\] below.
Just as the Bernoulli shift generates a sequence of digits, so does the beta shift: write $$k_{n}=\begin{cases}
0 & \mbox{ if }0\le T_{\beta}^{n}(x)<\frac{1}{2}\\
1 & \mbox{ if }\frac{1}{2}\le T_{\beta}^{n}(x)\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:down-bits}$$ Given the symbolic dynamics, one can reconstruct the original value whenever $1<\beta$ as $$x=\frac{k_{0}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\frac{k_{1}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\frac{k_{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\frac{k_{3}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\cdots\right)\right)\right)\right)$$ That is, one clearly sees that $T_{\beta}(x)$ acts as a shift on this sequence: $$T_{\beta}(x)=\frac{k_{1}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\frac{k_{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\frac{k_{3}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\frac{k_{4}}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\cdots\right)\right)\right)\right)$$ In this sense, this shift is “exactly solvable”: the above provides a closed-form solution for iterating and un-iterating the sequence.
Multiplying out the above sequence, one obtains the so-called “$\beta$-expansion” of a real number $x$, namely the series $$x=\frac{1}{2}\,\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{k_{n}}{\beta^{n}}\label{eq:shift series}$$ That is, the bit-sequence that was extracted by iteration can be used to reconstruct the original real number. Setting $\beta=2$ in eqn \[eq:bernoulli-bits\] gives the Bernoulli shift. Explicitly, one has $T_{2}\left(x\right)=b\left(x\right)$.
Unlike the Bernoulli shift, not every possible bit-sequence occurs in this system. It is a subshift of the full shift: it is a subset of $\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\omega}$ that is invariant under the action of $T_{\beta}$. This is explored in greater detail in a later section.
Associated polynomial
---------------------
The iterated shift can also be written as a finite sum. This is noted here; it will be useful in later sections. Observe that $$T_{\beta}(x)=\beta\left(x-\frac{k_{0}}{2}\right)$$ and that $$T_{\beta}^{2}(x)=\beta^{2}x-\frac{\beta}{2}\left(\beta k_{0}+k_{1}\right)$$ and that $$T_{\beta}^{3}(x)=\beta^{3}x-\frac{\beta}{2}\left(\beta^{2}k_{0}+\beta k_{1}+k_{2}\right)$$ The general form is then: $$T_{\beta}^{p}(x)=\beta^{p}x-\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{m=0}^{p-1}k_{m}\beta^{p-m-1}\label{eq:iterated shift}$$ Since the $k_{m}$ depend on both $\beta$ and on $x$, this is not a “true” polynomial; however, it will be useful in analysis, later.
Density Visualizations
----------------------
Why is the beta transform interesting to explore? This can be partly illustrated with some graphs. Shown in figure \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\] is the “bifurcation diagram” for the beta transform. It visualizes the long-term dynamics of the beta shift. Comparing to the usual bifurcation diagram, e.g. for the Feigenbaum logistic map (shown in figure \[fig:Logistic-Map-Bifurcation\]) one thing becomes immediately apparent: there are no actual “bifurcations”, no “islands of stability”, no period-doubling regions. Although there are periodic orbits, these form a set of measure zero: the iteration produces purely chaotic motion for all values of $\beta$. Thus, the beta transform provides a clean form of “pure chaos”,[^1] without the pesky “islands of stability” popping up intermittently.
The visualization of the long-term dynamics is done by generating a histogram, and then taking the limit, as follows. One divides the unit interval into a fixed sequence of equal-sized bins; say a total of $N$ bins, so that each is $1/N$ in width. Pick a starting $x$, and then iterate: if, at the $n$’th iteration, one has that $j/N\le b_{\beta}^{n}(x)<(j+1)/N$, then increment the count for the $j$’th bin. After a total of $M$ iterations, let $c(j;M)$ be the count in the $j$’th bin. This count is the histogram. In the limit of a large number of iterations, as well as small bin sizes, one obtains a distribution: $$\rho(y;x)=\lim_{N\to\infty}\lim_{M\to\infty}\frac{c(j;M)}{M}\mbox{ for }\frac{j}{N}\le y<\frac{j+1}{N}$$ This distribution depends on the initial value $x$ chosen for the point to be iterated; a “nice” distribution results when one averages over all starting points: $$\rho(y)=\int_{0}^{1}\rho(y;x)\,dx$$ Numerically, this integration can be achieved by randomly sampling a large number of starting points. Observe that $\rho(y)$ is a probability distribution: $$1=\int_{0}^{1}\rho(x)\,dx$$ This probability distribution is an eigenstate of the transfer operator for the beta transform; the definition of the transfer operator of the beta transform is given later. Probability distributions are the same thing as measures; this particular distribution is invariant under iteration, and thus is often called the invariant measure, or sometimes the Haar measure.
For each fixed $\beta$, one obtains a distinct distribution $\rho_{\beta}(y)$. The figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\] illustrates some of these distributions. Note that, for $\beta<1$, the distribution is given by $\rho_{\beta}(y)=\delta(y)$, a Dirac delta function, located at $y=0$.
![Beta-shift Density Distribution\[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\]](bigbern){width="1\columnwidth"}
The above figure shows three different density distributions, for $\rho_{1.2}(y)$, $\rho_{1.6}(y)$ and $\rho_{1.8}(y)$, calculated numerically. This is obtained by histogramming a large number of point trajectories, as described in the text. The small quantities of jitter are due to a finite number of samples. To generate this figure, a total of $M=4000$ iterations were performed, using randomly generated arbitrary-precision floats (the Gnu GMP package), partitioned into $N=800$ bins, and sampled 24000 times (or 30 times per bin) to perform the averaging integral. It will later be seen that the discontinuities in this graph occur at the “iterated midpoints” $m_{p}=T_{\beta}^{p}\left(\beta/2\right)$. The flat plateaus really are flat, and this is perhaps the one of the most amazing aspects of this figure; ths will be a recurring theme throughout the text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general trend of the distributions, as a function of $\beta$, can be visualized with a Feigenbaum-style “bifurcation diagram”, shown in figure \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\]. This color-codes each distribution $\rho_{\beta}(y)$ and arranges them in a stack; a horizontal slice through the diagram corresponds to $\rho_{\beta}(y)$ for a fixed value of $\beta$. The term “bifurcation diagram” comes from its use to visualize the logistic map iterator.
![Beta-shift Bifurcation Diagram\[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\]](bern-4K){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure shows the density $\rho_{\beta}(y)$, rendered in color. The constant $\beta$ is varied from 0 at the bottom to 2 at the top; whereas $y$ runs from 0 on the left to 1 on the right. Thus, a fixed value of $\beta$ corresponds to a horizontal slice through the diagram. The color green represents values of $\rho_{\beta}(y)\approx0.5$, while red represents $\rho_{\beta}(y)\gtrsim1$ and blue-to-black represents $\rho_{\beta}(y)\apprle0.25$. The diagram is “interesting” only for $1<\beta$; for smaller $\beta$’s, one has that $\rho_{\beta}(y)=\delta(y)$, indicated by the column of red pixels on the left side of the image. The lines forming the fan shape are not actually straight, they only seem to be; in fact, they have a slight curve. This means that one cannot apply simple-minded guess-work to discover the overall diagram shown here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tent Map
--------
The tent map is a closely related iterated map, given by iteration of the function $$v_{\beta}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
\beta\left(1-x\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}\le x\le1
\end{cases}$$ Its similar to the beta shift, except that the second arm is reflected backwards, forming a tent. The bifurcation diagram is shown in figure \[fig:Tent-Map-Bifur\]. Its is worth contemplating the similarities between this, and the corresponding beta shift diagram. Clearly, there are a number of shared features.
![Tent Map Bifurcation Diagram\[fig:Tent-Map-Bifur\]](tent-4K){width="1\columnwidth"}
The bifurcation diagram for the tent map. The value of $\beta$ runs from 1 at the bottom of the image, to 2 at the top. The color scheme is adjusted so that green represents the average value of the distribution, red represents areas of more than double the average value, while blue shows those values that are about half the average value. Note that this is a different color scheme than that used in figure \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\]; that scheme would obliterate the lower half of this figure in red.\
The black areas represent parts of the iterated range that are visited at most a finite number of times. To the left, a straight line indicates that after one iteration, points in the domain $\beta/2\le x\le1$ are never visited. To the right, points in the domain $0\le x\le\beta\left(1-\beta/2\right)$ are never visited more than a finite number of times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logistic Map
------------
The logistic map is related to the tent map, and is given by iteration of the function $$f_{\beta}\left(x\right)=2\beta x(1-x)$$ It essentially replaces the triangle forming the tent map with a parabola of the same height. That is, the function is defined here so that the the same value of $\beta$ corresponds to the same height for all three maps. Although the heights of the iterators have been aligned so that they match, each exhibits rather dramatically different dynamics. The $\beta$-transform has a single fixed point for $\beta<1$, and then explodes into a fully chaotic regime above that. By contrast, the logistic map maintains a single fixed point up to $\beta=3/2$, where it famously starts a series of period-doubling bifurcations. The onset of chaos is where the bifurcations come to a limit, at $\beta=3.56995/2=1.784975$. Within this chaotic region are “islands of stability”, which do not appear in either the $\beta$-transform, or in the tent map. The tent map does show a period-doubling regime, but in this region, there are no fixed points: rather, the motion is chaotic, but confined to multiple arms. At any rate, the period doubling occurs at different values of $\beta$ than for the logistic map.
The bifurcation diagram is shown in figure \[fig:Logistic-Map-Bifurcation\]. Again, it is worth closely examining the similarities between this, and the corresponding tent-map diagram, as well as the $\beta$-transform diagram. Naively, it would seem that the general structure of the chaotic regions are shared by all three maps. Thus, in order to understand chaos in the logistic map, it is perhaps easier to study it in the$\beta$-transform.
![Logistic Map Bifurcation Diagram\[fig:Logistic-Map-Bifurcation\]](feig-4K){width="1\columnwidth"}
The logistic map bifurcation diagram. The value of $\beta$ runs from 1.75 at the bottom of the image, to 2 at the top. The color scheme is adjusted so that green represents the average value of the distribution, red represents areas of more than double the average value, while blue shows those values that are about half the average value. Clearly, the orbits of the iterated points spend much of their time near the edges of the diagram.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general visual similarity between the figures \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\], \[fig:Tent-Map-Bifur\] and \[fig:Logistic-Map-Bifurcation\] should be apparent, and one can pick out and find visually similar regions among these three illustrations. Formalizing this similarity is a bit harder, but it can be done: there is a way to make all three of these maps be “topologically conjugate” to one-another. This is perhaps surprising to some readers, but is based on the observation that the “islands of stability” in the logistic map are countable, and are in one-to-one correspondence with certain “trouble points” in the iterated beta transformation. These are in turn in one-to-one correspondence with rational numbers. With a slight distortion of the beta transformation, the “trouble points” can be mapped to the islands of stability, in essentially the same way that “phase locking regions” or “Arnold tongues” appear in the circle map. But this is all for a later section, again, mentioned here only to whet the appetite.
Beta Transformation
-------------------
After exactly one iteration of the beta shift , all initial points $\beta/2\le x\le1$ are swept up into the domain $0\le x<\beta/2$, and never leave. Likewise, the range of the iterated beta shift is $0\le x<\beta/2$. Thus, an alternative representation of the beta shift, filling the entire unit square, can be obtained by dividing both $x$ and $y$ by $\beta/2$ to obtain the function $$t_{\beta}(u)=\begin{cases}
\beta u & \mbox{ for }0\le u<\frac{1}{\beta}\\
\beta u-1 & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{\beta}\le u\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:beta transform}$$ which can be written more compactly as $t_{\beta}\left(x\right)=\beta x\,\mod1$. In this form, the function is known as the beta transform, and is often called the $\beta$-transformation, presenting a typesetting challenge to search engines when used in titles of papers. The orbit of a point $x$ in the beta shift is identical to the orbit of a point $u=2x/\beta$ in the beta transformation. Explicitly comparing to the beta shift of eqn \[eq:downshift\]: $$T_{\beta}^{n}\left(x\right)=\frac{\beta}{2}t_{\beta}^{n}\left(\frac{2x}{\beta}\right)$$ The beta shift and the $\beta$-transformation are essentially “the same function”; this text works almost exclusively with the beta shift, and is thus idiosyncratic, as it flouts the much more common convention of working with the $\beta$-transformation. There is no particular technical reason for this; it is rather due to happenstance.
After a single iteration of the tent map, a similar situation applies. After one iteration, all initial points $\beta/2\le x\le1$ are swept up into the domain $0\le x<\beta/2$. After a finite number of iterations, all points $0<x\le\beta\left(1-\beta/2\right)$ are swept up, so that the remaining iteration takes place on the domain $\beta\left(1-\beta/2\right)<x<\beta/2$. It is worth defining a “sidetent” function, which corresponds to the that part of the tent map in which iteration is confined. It is nothing more than a rescaling of the tent map, ignoring those parts outside of the above domain that “wander away”. The sidetent is given by $$s_{\beta}(u)=\begin{cases}
\beta\left(u-1\right)+2 & \mbox{ for }0\le u<\frac{\beta-1}{\beta}\\
\beta\left(1-u\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{\beta-1}{\beta}\le u\le1
\end{cases}$$ Performing a left-right flip on the side-tent brings it closer in form to the beta-transformation. The flipped version, replacing $u\to1-u$ is $$f_{\beta}(u)=\begin{cases}
\beta u & \mbox{ for }0\le u<\frac{1}{\beta}\\
2-\beta u & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{\beta}\le u\le1
\end{cases}$$
The tent map (and the flipped tent) exhibits fixed points (periodic orbits; mode-locking) for the smaller values of $\beta$. These can be eliminated by shifting part of the tent downwards, so that the diagonal is never intersected. This suggests the “sidetarp”: $$a_{\beta}(u)=\begin{cases}
\beta u & \mbox{ for }0\le u<\frac{1}{\beta}\\
\beta\left(1-u\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{\beta}\le u\le1
\end{cases}$$ The six different maps under consideration here are depicted in figure \[fig:Iterated-piece-wise-linear\]. It is interesting to compare three of the bifurcation diagrams, side-by-side. These are shown in figure \[fig:Side-Shift-and-Side-tent\].
![Iterated piece-wise linear maps\[fig:Iterated-piece-wise-linear\]](maps){width="1\columnwidth"}
The beta shift map, shown in the upper left, generates orbits that spend all of their time in the shaded area: a box of size $\frac{\beta}{2}\times\frac{\beta}{2}$. Enlarging this box to the unit square gives the $\beta$-transformation. The tent map resembles the beta shift, except that one arm is flipped to make a tent-shape. After a finite number of iterations, orbits move entirely in the shaded region; enlarging this region to be the unit square gives the sidetent map. Flipping it left-right gives the fliptent map. Although it is not trivially obvious, the fliptent map and the sidetent map have the same orbits, and thus the same bifurcation diagram.
The bottom three maps all have fixed points and periodic orbits, essentially because the diagonal intersects the map. The top three maps have no periodic orbits, and are purely chaotic, essentially because the diagonal does not intersect them. Note tht the slopes and the geometric proportions of all six maps are identical; they are merely rearrangents of the same basic elements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Beta transform and Side-tent\[fig:Side-Shift-and-Side-tent\]](sidebern "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Beta transform and Side-tent\[fig:Side-Shift-and-Side-tent\]](sidetent "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Beta transform and Side-tent\[fig:Side-Shift-and-Side-tent\]](sidetarp "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
The left figure shows the bifurcation diagram for the $\beta$-transform, as it is normally defined as the $\beta x\mod1$ map. It is the same map as the beta shift, just rescaled to occupy the entire unit square. In all other respects, it is identical to \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\].
The middle figure is a similarly-rescaled tent map, given the name “side tent” in the main text. It is essentially identical to \[fig:Tent-Map-Bifur\], with the middle parts expanded and the sides removed. In both figures, $\beta$ runs from 1 at the bottom to 2 at the top. The right-hand-side figure is the “sidetarp”, clearly its an oddly-folded variant of the beta transform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beta Transformation Literature Review and References
----------------------------------------------------
The $\beta$-transformation, in the form of $t_{\beta}\left(x\right)=\beta x\,\mod1$ has been well-studied over the decades. The beta-expansion \[eq:down-bits\] was introduced by A. Renyi[@Renyi57], who demonstrates the existence of the invariant measure. The ergodic properties of the transform were proven by W. Parry[@Parry60], who also shows that the system is weakly mixing.
An explicit expression for the invariant measure was independently obtained by A.O. Gel’fond[@Gelfond59] and by W. Parry[@Parry60], as $$\nu_{\beta}\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{F}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\varepsilon_{n}\left(y\right)}{\beta^{n}}\label{eq:invariant measure}$$ where $\varepsilon_{n}$ is the digit sequence $$\varepsilon_{n}\left(y\right)=\begin{cases}
0 & \mbox{ if }t_{\beta}^{n}\left(1\right)\le y\\
1 & \mbox{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ and $F$ is a normalization constant.
In the same way that a dyadic rational $p/2^{n}$ has two different binary expansions, one ending in all-zeros, and a second ending in all-ones, so one may also ask if and when a real number $x$ might have more than one $\beta$-expansion (for fixed $\beta$). In general, it can; N. Sidorov shows that almost every number has a continuum of such expansions![@Sidorov03]
Conversely, the “univoke numbers” are those values of $\beta$ for which there is only one, unique expansion for $x=1$. These are studied by De Vries.[@DeVries06]
The $\beta$-transformation has been shown to have the same ergodicity properties as the Bernoulli shift.[@Dajani97] The fact that the beta shift, and its subshifts are all ergodic is established by Climenhaga and Thompson.[@Clim10]
An alternative to the notion of ergodicity is the notion of universality: a $\beta$-expansion is universal if, for any given finite string of bits, that finite string occurs somewhere in the expansion. This variant of universality was introduced by Erdös and Komornik[@Erdos98]. Its is shown by N. Sidorov that almost every $\beta$-expansion is universal.[@Sidorov02] Conversely, there are some values of $\beta$ for which rational numbers have purely periodic $\beta$-expansions;[@Adamczewski10] all such numbers are Pisot numbers.[@Schmidt80]
The symbolic dynamics of the beta-transformation was analyzed by F. Blanchard[@Blanchard89]. A characterization of the periodic points are given by Bruno Maia[@Maia07]. A discussion of various open problems with respect to the beta expansion is given by Akiyama.[@Akiyama09]
When the beta expansion is expanded to the entire real-number line, one effectively has a representation of reals in a non-integer base. One may ask about arithmetic properties, such as the behavior of addition and multiplication, in this base - for example, the sum or product of two $\beta$-integers may have a fractional part! Bounds on the lengths of these fractional parts, and related topics, are explored by multiple authors.[@Guimond01; @Julien06; @Hbaib13]
Certain values of $\beta$ - generally, the Pisot numbers, generate fractal tilings,[@Thurston89; @Berthe05; @Ito05; @Adamczewski10; @Akiyama09] which are generalizations of the Rauzy fractal. An overview, with common terminology and definitions is provided by Akiyama.[@Akiyama17] The tilings, sometimes called (generalized) Rauzy fractals, an be thought of as living in a direct product of Euclidean and $p$-adic spaces.[@Berthe04]
The set of finite beta-expansions constitutes a language, in the formal sense of model theory and computer science. This language is recursive (that is, decidable by a Turing machine), if and only if $\beta$ is a computable real number.[@Simonsen11]
The zeta function, and a lap-counting function, are given by Lagarias[@Lagarias94]. The Hausdorff dimension, the topological entropy and general notions of topological pressure arising from conditional variational principles is given by Daniel Thompson[@Thompson10]. A proper background on this topic is given by Barreira and Saussol[@Barreira01].
None of the topics or results cited above are made use of, or further expanded on, or even touched on below. That’s mostly because what follows below is just a ... different perspective on the topic. Not intentionally so; it just happened to come out that way.
Symbolic Dynamics
=================
The Bernoulli shift corresponds to the sequence of binary digits of a real number. Such sequences can be imagined to belong to the space of all possible sequences of binary digits, the Cartesian product of infinitely many copies of the set containing two elements: $$\left\{ 0,1\right\} \times\left\{ 0,1\right\} \times\left\{ 0,1\right\} \times\cdots=\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\omega}=2^{\omega}$$ This space has a natural topology, the product topology, which differs sharply from the natural topology on the real-number line. Essentially all of the strange phenomena of fractals and of iterated functions follows from the product topology on this sequence.
One notable effect that can be explained in terms of the product topology is the fractal self-similarity of many kinds of fractals: this arises from the self-similarity of the product space under the action of a shift: specifically, the left-shift, which discards the left-most digit, and shifts the rest over by one. The shift operator itself is that operator that performs this shift; self-similar fractals can be seen to be eigenstates of the shift operator.
Another notable effect is the close proximity of the Cantor set to the proceedings. In a certain sense, the Cantor set can be understood to be the most basic manifestation of the product space. When attuned to its presence, it can be seen everywhere throughout the proceedings.
A third byproduct is the manifestation of the infinitely-deep binary tree. This arises when the set $\left\{ 0,1\right\} $ of the product space is re-interpreted as the set $\left\{ L,R\right\} $ of left-right moves. At each point in a binary sequence, one can make a choice of one of two things: to move left or right. This naturally suggests a binary decision tree.
A fourth byproduct is the presence of some implicit, ambient hyperbolic space. The infinite binary tree, when drawn on flat two-dimensional space, simply “runs out of room”, as each subsequent branching pushes closer together. The infinite binary tree can be embedded in the simplest hyperbolic space, the Poincaré disk or upper-half-plane, in such a way that the distance, the spacing between two neighboring nodes is always the same. Visually, this takes the form of some prototypical M.C. Escher drawing, of a repeated fractal form moving out to the edge of a disk. This makes the self-similar shape of the infinite binary tree manifest: as one moves from one location to another, one always sees “the same thing” in all directions: the space is homogeneous.
The rational numbers play a very special role in the infinite binary tree. Dyadic rationals, of the form $\left(2p+1\right)/2^{n}$ for integers $p$ and $n$ correspond to bit sequences (eqn \[eq:bernoulli-bits\]) that terminate in all-zeros after a finite number of moves. That is, after an initial “chaotic” sequence, they settle down to a fixed point of period one. General rational numbers $p/q$ behave similarly, in that after an initial “chaotic” sequence, they settle down to periodic orbits of some fixed period. The bit-sequence becomes cyclic. This cyclic behavior implies that most of classical number theory can be dragged into the proceedings. Any particular statement that classical number theory makes with regard to rational numbers, or even modular forms, can be promptly ported over to a statement about the bit-sequences and the orbits of the Bernoulli shift, usually taking on a strange and unrecognizable form.
All of these things go together, like hand in glove: whenever one is manifest and visible, the others are lurking right nearby, in the unseen directions. All of these things can be given a formal and precise definition, and their explicit inter-relationships articulated. This has been done by a wide variety of authors over the last four decades; a proper bibliography would be overwhelming. I have written on all of thee topics, trying to present them in the simplest, most jargon-free way that I can, in a dozen different texts available wherever you found this one. The ideas will not be repeated here; they are not immediately useful to the current proceedings. None-the-less, the general interplay between all of these concepts is extremely important to understand, and burbles constantly under the surface of the current proceedings. In essence, shifts and subshifts are interesting precisely because they touch on so any different topics; and, conversely, so many different areas of mathematics can inform the subshift.
Symbolic Dynamics
-----------------
Given that iteration can generate strings of binary digits, and that these can be reassembled back into real numbers, it is interesting to ask what those mappings look like. To firm up the notation, let$\left(b_{n}\right)=\left(b_{0},b_{1,},\cdots\right)$ denote a sequence of bits (or symbols) and write
$$x_{\beta}\left(\left(b_{n}\right)\right)=\frac{1}{2}\,\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{b_{n}}{\beta^{n}}$$ as the real number generated from that sequence. Conversely, given a real number $x$, let $\left(k_{n;\beta}\left(x\right)\right)$ denote the sequence of bits obtained by iterating the beta shift on $x$ with constant $\beta$; that is, the sequence generated by eqn. \[eq:down-bits\]. The bit sequence for $\left(k_{n;2}\left(x\right)\right)$ is just the bit sequence $\left(b_{n}\left(x\right)\right)$ generated by eqn \[eq:bernoulli-bits\]. The transformations between symbol sequences and real numbers make sense only when $1<\beta\le2$.
Two interesting functions can be considered. One is the compressor $$\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}(y)=x_{2}\left(\left(k_{n;\beta}\left(y\right)\right)\right)$$ and the other is the expander $$\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}(y)=x_{\beta}\left(\left(k_{n;2}\left(y\right)\right)\right)\label{eq:expander function}$$ The terms “compressor” and “expander” are being invented here to indicate negative and positive Lyapunov exponents associated with the two functions. For almost all $y$, the compressor function is pushing nearby points closer together; the total measure of the range of the compressor function is less than one. Likewise, for almost all $y$, the expander function is pushing nearby points apart. These two functions are illustrated in figures \[fig:Compressor-Function\] and \[fig:Expander-Function\].
![Compressor Function\[fig:Compressor-Function\]](cpr){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
This illustrates the compressor function for various values of $\beta$. As should be clear, almost all input values are mapped to a set of discrete output values.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Expander Function\[fig:Expander-Function\]](pdr){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
This illustrates the expander function for various values of $\beta$. As should be clear, almost all neighboring input values are mapped to wildly different output values.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two functions are adjoint; specifically, one has that $\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\left(\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(y\right)\right)=y$ but that $\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\left(y\right)\right)\ne y$. The former relation is equivalent to eqn. \[eq:shift series\]. Not all possible sequences of bit strings appear in the beta shift sequence $\left(k_{n;\beta}\left(x\right)\right)$; that is, this function is not a surjection onto $\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\omega}$. This manifests itself as the gaps in the range of the compressor function, clearly visible in figure \[fig:Compressor-Function\]. If a sequence of bits is viewed as a sequence of left-right moves walking down a binary tree, this implies that some branches of the tree are never taken, and can be pruned. Only branches on the right are ever pruned: That is, there can be arbitrarily long sequences of zeros in the expansion, but the longest possible sequence of 1’s is always bounded. The longest run of 1’s possible is the largest value of $n$ that satisfies $$2\ge\frac{1+\beta+\beta^{2}+\cdots\beta^{n-1}}{\beta^{n-1}}$$ Solving, the bound is $$n=1+\left\lfloor \frac{-\log\left(2-\beta\right)}{\log\beta}\right\rfloor \label{eq:longest-all-ones}$$ That is, every $n$’th right branch is pruned from the binary tree. For example, a run of three 1’s in a row is possible only for $\beta\ge\left(1+\sqrt{5}\right)/2=1.618034\cdots$ the Golden Ratio. The range of $\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(y\right)$ is most of, but not all of the Cantor set. The figure \[fig:Range-compress\] visualizes the range of the compressor as a function of $\beta$.
![Range of the compressor\[fig:Range-compress\]](unmap){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure illustrates a color coded visualization of the range of the compressor function. As before $\beta$ varies from 0 at the bottom to 2 at the top, and $y$ varies from 0 on the left to 1 on the right. In general, the compressor function maps intervals of the real number line to single points; the color corresponds to the size (the measure) of the intervals that were mapped to that particular point. Blue corresponds to a compression of the measure by about 1, green to a compression of about 2-3, and yellow-red to a compression greater than that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shifts with holes
-----------------
Viewed as a shift space, as opposed to a cut-down binary tree, the trimming can be thought of as a punching of holes into the full shift. This requires a bit of mental gymnastics. Let $\left(a,c\right)$ be an (open) interval on the real number line: $\left(a,c\right)=\left\{ x\,|\,a<x<c\right\} $. Given the Bernoulli shift $b\left(x\right)=T_{2}\left(x\right)$ from eqns \[eq:Bernoulli shift\] or \[eq:downshift\], consider the set $$\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)=\left\{ x\,|\,b^{n}\left(x\right)\notin\left(a,c\right)\mbox{ for any }n\ge0\right\}$$ That is, as one iterates on some fixed $x$, one requests that no iterate $b^{n}\left(x\right)$ ever lands in the interval $\left(a,c\right)$. In essence, one has punched a hole in the unit interval; this corresponds to a “hole” in the full Bernoulli shift. The set $\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)$ is what remains after punching such a hole.
How can this be visualized? Considering the case $n=0$, its clear that $\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)$ cannot contain $\left(a,c\right)$. That is, $\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)\cap\left(a,c\right)=\emptyset$. For $n=1$, the interval $\left(a,c\right)$ can come from one of two places: either from $\left(\frac{a}{2},\frac{c}{2}\right)$ or from $\left(\frac{a+1}{2},\frac{c+1}{2}\right)$, and so neither of these can be in $\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)$. Continuing, for $n=2$, the intervals $\left(\frac{a}{4},\frac{c}{4}\right)$, $\left(\frac{a+1}{4},\frac{c+1}{4}\right)$, $\left(\frac{a+2}{4},\frac{c+2}{4}\right)$ and $\left(\frac{a+3}{4},\frac{c+3}{4}\right)$ must also be gone. Continuing in this fashion, one proceeds with an infinite hole-punch: to obtain $\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)$, one just cuts out $\left(a,c\right)$ and everything that iterates to $\left(a,c\right)$. For the holes, write $$\mathcal{H}\left(a,c\right)=\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty}\bigcup_{k=0}^{2^{n}-1}\left(\frac{a+k}{2^{n}},\frac{c+k}{2^{n}}\right)$$ and for the interval with the holes punched out: $$\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)=\left[0,1\right]\backslash\mathcal{H}\left(a,c\right)$$ where $\bigcup$ denotes set-union and $\backslash$ denotes set subtraction. It is not hard to see that, in the end, this forms a contorted Cantor set, using the standard midpoint-subtraction algorithm, but with different endpoints. The canonical Cantor set is built by taking $\left(a,c\right)=\left(\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3}\right)$.
Note that both $\mathcal{H}\left(a,c\right)$ and $\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)$ are subshifts: applying the left-shift to them just returns the same set again. Bot are invariant under the action of the shift operator. In formulas, $$b\mathcal{H}\left(a,c\right)=\mathcal{H}\left(a,c\right)$$ and $$b\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)=\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)$$ where, for notational simplicity, the parenthesis are not written, so that for the set $S$, write $bS=b\left(S\right)$. As shifts, its more appropriate to view both as sets of bit-sequences, so that the proper relationship between one and the other should have been written as $$\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)=\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\omega}\backslash\mathcal{H}\left(a,c\right)$$
How should these subshifts be visualized as strings? Let $\left(b_{n}\left(x\right)\right)$ be the bit sequence generated by $x$, for some $a<x<c$. The cut operation states that such strings can never occur anywhere in $\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)$. Explicitly, $\mathcal{I}\left(a,c\right)$ never contains sequences of the form $d_{0}d_{1}d_{2}\cdots d_{k}b_{0}\left(x\right)b_{1}\left(x\right)b_{2}\left(x\right)\cdots$ for any arbitrary leading bits $d_{0}d_{1}d_{2}\cdots d_{k}$.
How should these subshifts be visualized as binary trees? The simplest case to visualize is to take $a=m/2^{n}$ and $c=\left(m+1\right)/2^{n}$ being dyadic rationals, for some integers $m,n$. In this case, one takes the bit-expansion for both have the same $n$ leading bits: one starts at the root of the tree, and walks down the binary tree, making left-right moves in accordance with this sequence, and after $n$ moves, arrives at a node above a subtree. Just cut out this subtree, in it’s entirety. That’s the first cut. Now repeat the process, for the left and right subtrees, from off the root, *ad infinitum*. For $a$ and $c$ not dyadic rationals, the process is more complicated. If $a$ and $c$ are ordinary rationals, thus having a repeating bit-sequence, one performs in the same way, but cyclically walking down the side branches of subtrees. For $a$ and $c$ irrational, the algorithm is considerably more complicated, and is left as an exercise for the reader :-).
A general classification of shifts with holes, for the beta transform, was performed by Lyndsey Clark[@Clark14].
Generalized compressors and expanders
-------------------------------------
The range of the compressor function is a shift with a hole. Specifically, for a given $\beta$, the range of $\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}$ is $\mathcal{I}\left(\frac{\beta}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)$. The construction for shifts with holes can then be applied to construct generalized compressor and expander functions. One way, which is really rather cheesy, but it works, is to define the function $$\mbox{dcpr}_{\beta,\gamma}\left(a;x\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left[\frac{1}{\gamma^{n+1}}\sum_{k=0}^{2^{n}-1}\delta\left(x-\frac{a+k}{\beta^{n}}\right)\right]$$ and then define the generalized compressor as $$\mbox{cpr}\left(a;x\right)=\int_{0}^{x}\mbox{dcpr}\left(a;y\right)dy$$ That is, as one walks along the unit interval, from left to right, one picks up points with weights on them, obtaining a generalized Devil’s staircase (Cantor-Vitali) function. This generalization does not seem to be terribly useful here, and is left to rot.
Self-similarity
---------------
Subshifts are, by definition, self-similar. If $S$ is a subshift, and $T$ is the shift operator, then $TS=S$ is a part of the definition of the subshift. It is fun to see how this actually manifests itself on the unit interval.
So, the two functions cpr and pdr are self-similar. The pdr function demonstrates classic period doubling self-similarity: namely, under $g(x)=x/2$, it behaves as $$\left(\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\circ g\right)\left(x\right)=\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{\beta}\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\left(x\right)$$ while under reflection $r(x)=1-x$, it behaves as $$\left(\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\circ r\right)\left(x\right)=\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\left(1-x\right)=\frac{\beta}{2\left(\beta-1\right)}-\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\left(x\right)$$ Note that $$\lim_{x\to1}\,\mbox{pdr}_{\beta}\left(x\right)=\frac{\beta}{2\left(\beta-1\right)}$$ The full dyadic monoid is generated by the generators $g$ and $r$; see other posts from me for lengthly expositions on the structure of the dyadic monoid and its relationship to the Cantor set and a large variety of fractals.
Here, $g$ is the generator that corresponds to the shift operator $T$. The notation $g$ is used only to stay consistent with other things that I’ve written. The generator $r$ indicates that the subshift is also invariant under reflection; in this case, under the exchange of the symbols $0\leftrightarrow1$ in the corresponding shift.
The function cpr also exhibits self-similarity, although it alters (expands) what happens on the $x$ axis. Several self-similarities are apparent. First, for $0\le x\le1$, one has $$\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{\beta x}{2}\right)$$ Equivalently, for $0\le y\le\beta/2$ one can trivially restate the above as $$\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(y\right)\label{eq:compressor self-sim}$$ Although it follows trivially, this restatement helps avoid later confusion.
The left and right halves are identical to one-another, but offset: $$\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{x}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2}+\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)$$ It follows that
$$\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{y}{\beta}\right)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(y\right)$$ Combining the above results into one, one has that
$$\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)+\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{y}{\beta}\right)=\frac{1}{2}+\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(y\right)$$ This last form is interesting, as it makes an appearance in relation to the transfer operator, defined below.
Other things with similar symmetry
----------------------------------
The cpr curve is just one that belongs to a class of such curves. As an example, one may construct a Takagi (blancmange) curve by iterating triangles whose peak is located at $1/\beta$. The Takagi curve is an example of a curve transforming under a 3-dimensional representation of the dyadic monoid; the cpr curves transforms under a two-dimensional representation. See my paper on the Takagi curve for details. Figure \[fig:Skew-Takagi-Curve\] shows such a curve. Denote by $\mbox{tak}_{\beta;w}\left(x\right)$a curve constructed in this fashion. The transformation properties of this curve include self-similarity on the left, as $$\mbox{tak}_{\beta;w}\left(\frac{x}{\beta}\right)=x+w\;\mbox{tak}_{\beta;w}\left(x\right)$$ for $0\le x\le1$ and self-similarity on the right, as $$\mbox{tak}_{\beta;w}\left(\frac{1}{\beta}+x\left(1-\frac{1}{\beta}\right)\right)=1-x+w\;\mbox{tak}_{\beta;w}\left(x\right)$$ Both of these properties follow directly from the construction of the curve; they can be taken as the defining equations for the curve. That is, the curve can be taken as that function which satisfies these two recursion relations.
The derivative of the skew Takagi curve is shown in figure \[fig:Skew-Haar-Wavelet\], and, for lack of a better name, could be called the skew Haar fractal wavelet. It can be defined as the formal derivative $$\mbox{har}_{\beta;w}\left(x\right)=\frac{d}{dx}\,\mbox{tak}_{\beta;w}\left(x\right)$$ This formal derivative is well-defined, as the skew Takagi is smooth and piecewise-linear almost everywhere; the places where it has corners is a dense set of measure zero. That is, the derivative is defined everywhere, except on a set of measure zero, which happens to be dense in the unit interval.
![Skew Takagi Curve\[fig:Skew-Takagi-Curve\]](skew){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
This figure shows a skew Takagi curve, and the first four steps of its construction. The initial triangle is of height 1; the apex is located at $1/\beta$, for $\beta=1.6$ in this figure. Subsequent triangles obtain a height of w=0.7 above the apex point, and are similarly skew.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the Haar fractal wavelet is piece-wise constant everywhere. It is constructed from a “mother wavelet” given by $$h_{\beta}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta & \mbox{for }0\le x<\frac{1}{\beta}\\
\frac{-\beta}{\beta-1} & \mbox{for }\frac{1}{\beta}\le x\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:Haar mother}$$ which is then iterated on to form the fractal curve $\mbox{har}_{\beta;w}\left(x\right)$. The self symmetries are $$\mbox{har}_{\beta;w}\left(\frac{x}{\beta}\right)=\beta+w\;\mbox{har}_{\beta;w}\left(x\right)$$ and $$\mbox{har}_{\beta;w}\left(\frac{1}{\beta}+x\left(1-\frac{1}{\beta}\right)\right)=-\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}+w\;\mbox{har}_{\beta;w}\left(x\right)$$
![Skew Haar Wavelet\[fig:Skew-Haar-Wavelet\]](haar){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
This figure shows the derivative of the skew Takagi curve. Note that it is piece-wise constant everywhere. The mother wavelet is shown, as well as the fourth iteration. The specific values graphed are $\beta=1.6$ and $w=0.7$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Points; Periodic Orbits
-----------------------------
The Bernoulli shift, given by eqn \[eq:bernoulli-bits\], generates every possible bit-sequence. As was observed in a previous section, not every possible bit-sequence occurs in the beta shift. The longest sequence of all-ones possible was given by eqn \[eq:longest-all-ones\]. Arbitrary finite lengths of zeros do appear; but are there fixed points, i.e. sequences that terminate in all-zeros? Clearly, $x=1/2\beta^{n}$ is such a fixed point: after $n+1$ iterations of eqn \[eq:downshift\], $x$ goes to zero, and stays there. Is this the only such fixed point? The answer depends on $\beta$. If $\beta$ can be written in the form of $\beta^{n}=2m+1$ for some integers $n$ and $m$, then the values of $x$ which can iterate down to zero in $n+1$ steps are dense in the interval $\left[0,\beta/2\right]$. Curiously, such values $\beta$ are dense in the interval $\left[1,2\right)$. A later chapter performs explores periodic orbits in great detail.
Transfer operators
==================
The discovery and study of invariant measures, as well as of decaying states can be approached via the transfer operator, or, properly named, the Ruelle-Frobenius-Perron operator. This is an operator that captures the behavior of a distribution under the action of a map. The invariant measure is an eigenstate of this operator; indeed, it provides a formal definition for what it means to be invariant under the action of the map.
Given an iterated map $g:[0,1]\to[0,1]$ on the unit interval, the transfer operator defines how distributions are acted on by this map. It is defined as $$\left[\mathcal{L}_{g}f\right]\left(y\right)=\sum_{x=g^{-1}(y)}\frac{f(x)}{\left|g^{\prime}(x)\right|}$$ The left adjoint of the transfer operator is the composition operator (Koopman operator). This is defined as $$\left[\mathcal{C}_{g}f\right]\left(y\right)=f\left(g\left(y\right)\right)$$ The Koopman operator is adjoint, in the sense that $\mathcal{L}_{g}\mathcal{C}_{g}=1$ but that, in general, $\mathcal{C}_{g}\mathcal{L}_{g}\ne1$.
The $\beta$-transform Transfer Operator
---------------------------------------
The transfer operator for the beta shift map $T_{\beta}(x)$ is $$\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}f\right]\left(y\right)=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{\beta}\left[f\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)+f\left(\frac{y}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right] & \mbox{ for }0\le y\le\beta/2\\
0 & \mbox{ for }\beta/2<y\le1
\end{cases}$$ or, written more compactly $$\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}f\right]\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{\beta}\left[f\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)+f\left(\frac{y}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]\Theta\left(\frac{\beta}{2}-y\right)\label{eq:xfer oper}$$ where $\Theta$ is the Heaviside step function. The density distributions graphed in figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\] are those functions satisfying $$\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\rho\right]\left(y\right)=\rho\left(y\right)\label{eq:FP-eigenvector}$$ That is, the $\rho(y)$ satisfies $$\rho\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{\beta}\left[\rho\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)+\rho\left(\frac{y}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]\Theta\left(\frac{\beta}{2}-y\right)\label{eq:eigen-eqn}$$ This is generally referred to as the Ruelle-Frobenius-Perron (RFP) eigenfunction, as it corresponds to the largest eigenvalue of the transfer operator, and specifically, the eigenvalue 1.
More generally, one is interested in characterizing the eigenspectrum $$\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\rho\right]\left(y\right)=\lambda\rho\left(y\right)$$ for eigenvalues $\left|\lambda\right|\le1$ and eigenfunctions $\rho(y)$. Solving this equation requires choosing a space of functions in which to work. Natural choices include any of the Banach spaces, and in particular, the space of square-integrable functions. Particularly interesting is the space of almost-smooth functions, those having discontinuities at only a countable number of locations, but otherwise being infinitely differentiable. Although the discussion so far implicitly conditions one to restrict oneself to real-valued functions, and to consider only real-valued eigenvalues, this is perhaps too sharp a restriction. It will become clear in the following chapters that even the most basic form of $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ has a complex-valued spectrum. At any rate, it should be obvious that, whatever the choice of function space, one must have that $\rho\left(y\right)=0$ whenever $\beta<2y$. This turns out to be a rather harsh condition.
At least one basic fact is known: for at least some kinds of function spaces, the RFP eigenfunction is given by Gel’fond and Parry, as shown in eqn \[eq:invariant measure\]. More precisely, it is just the rescaled form $\rho\left(x\right)=\nu\left(2x/\beta\right)$ for $x<\beta/2$ and zero otherwise. Changing vocabulary, this is sometimes called the “invariant measure”; as it describes a measure on the unit interval. That is, for the space of all possible measures on the unit interval, the Gel’fond-Parry measure is one of the eigenfunctions of the transfer operator. Some caution is advised here: for the special case of $\beta=2$, that is, the Bernoulli shift, one has as an eigenfunction the Minkowski measure[@Vep-mink2008]; it has eigenvalue 1, but is otherwise quite pathological: it is continuous nowhere, zero on the rationals, and divergent on the rest (i.e. on a “fat” Cantor set). There’s no particular reason to think that this holds only for $\beta=2$; measures can be, in general, very unusual functions.
A very minor simplification can be achieved with a change of variable. Let $y=\frac{\beta}{2}-\epsilon$. Then the eigenequation becomes $$\lambda\beta\rho\left(\frac{\beta}{2}-\epsilon\right)=\rho\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{\beta}\right)+\rho\left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{\beta}\right)$$ The second term vanishes whenever $\beta/2<1-\epsilon/\beta$ or $\epsilon<\beta(1-\beta/2)$ and so one has the simpler recurrence relation $$\lambda\rho\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{\beta}\rho\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)\label{eq:eigen-branch}$$ whenever $\beta(\beta-1)<2y\le\beta$.
The equations \[eq:eigen-eqn\] and \[eq:eigen-branch\] can be treated as recurrence relations, defining the $\lambda=1$ eigenstate. Recursing on these gives exactly the densities shown in figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\]. Computationally, these are much, much cheaper to compute, at least for $\beta$ much larger than 1, although convergence issues present themselves as $\beta$ approaches 1. The resulting density may be called the Ruelle-Frobenius-Perron eigenstate; because it can be quickly computed, it provides an alternative view of figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\], free of stochastic sampling noise.
A note on complex eigenvalues
-----------------------------
Since the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ is purely real, then if it has a complex spectrum, the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions must come in complex-conjugate pairs. This can make numerical searches and numerical convergence behave in unexpected ways, so some brief commentary is in order.
Assume that there exists some complex-valued eigenfunction $\rho_{\lambda}\left(x\right)$ for fixed, complex eigenvalue $\lambda$. Write it’s real and complex components as $$\rho_{\lambda}\left(x\right)=\sigma\left(x\right)+i\tau\left(x\right)$$ while also writing $\lambda=a+ib$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\sigma\right]\left(x\right)= & \frac{1}{2}\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\left(\rho_{\lambda}+\bar{\rho}_{\lambda}\right)\right]\left(x\right)\\
= & \frac{1}{2}\left(\lambda\rho_{\lambda}\left(x\right)+\bar{\lambda}\bar{\rho}_{\lambda}\left(x\right)\right)\\
= & a\sigma\left(x\right)-b\tau\left(x\right)\end{aligned}$$ Both left and right sides of the above are real. If one had somehow stumbled upon $\sigma\left(x\right)$ numerically, as an eigenvector-candidate, then the above admixing of the imaginary component would quickly throw one off the hunt. Thus, a numeric search for complex-valued eigenfunctions must necessarily take into account eigenfunction pairs, with real and imaginary components that mix together as above.
Almost-solutions
----------------
If one ignores the Heaviside step function in the definition \[eq:xfer oper\], one easily finds a number of “almost solutions” to the transfer operator. These are most easily discussed by defining the operator
$$\left[\mathcal{P}_{\beta}f\right]\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{\beta}\left[f\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)+f\left(\frac{y}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]$$ Solving this operator is relatively straight-forward. Consider, for example, the monomial $f\left(y\right)=y^{n}$. Clearly, $\left[\mathcal{P}_{\beta}y^{n}\right]$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ and that therefore, the space of polynomials is closed under the action of $\mathcal{P}_{\beta}$. But this result is even stronger: the monomials provide a basis in which $\mathcal{P}_{\beta}$ is upper-triangular, *i.e.* solvable. It’s eigensolutions in this basis are polynomials. The eigenspectrum is clearly discrete, and is given by $\left(\beta\right)^{-n-1}$ for integers $n$ corresponding to the degree of the polynomial eigensolution.
This all goes horribly wrong if one instead considers $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ and the almost-monomials $f\left(y\right)=y^{n}\Theta\left(\frac{\beta}{2}-y\right)$. This does not provide a basis that is closed under the action of $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$. Attempting to find the closure by iterating on $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ generates a splatter of step functions. This case is examined more closely in the next chapter.
Attempting some guess-work, the self-similarity of the cpr function suggests an opening. Specifically, let $\mbox{ei}_{\beta}\left(x\right)=\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(x\right)-1/2$. The one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathcal{P}_{\beta}\mbox{ei}_{\beta}\right]\left(y\right)= & \frac{1}{\beta}\left[\mbox{ei}_{\beta}\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)+\mbox{ei}_{\beta}\left(\frac{y}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]\\
= & \frac{\mbox{ei}_{\beta}\left(y\right)}{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ This is a non-polynomial, fractal eigenfunction of $\mathcal{P}_{\beta}$, and, with a bit of elbow-grease, one can find many more. This includes the Takagi functions, and their higher-order analogs, which are, roughly speaking, Takagi functions constructed from polynomials. These all have interesting self-similarity properties under the dyadic monoid.
Unfortunately, one has that $\mbox{ei}_{\beta}\left(x\right)\ne0$ when $\beta<2x$; it won’t do as an eigenfunction of $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$. There is no obvious, simple modification of $\mbox{ei}_{\beta}\left(x\right)$ that would cause it to be a valid eigensolution of $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$. Manually installing a factor of $\Theta\left(\frac{\beta}{2}-y\right)$ and then iterating to find the closure leads to the same splatter of step functions as in the case of the polynomials.
Another interesting case arises if one attempts a Fourier-inspired basis. Define $$\mbox{e}_{\beta;n;l}\left(x\right)=\exp\,i2\pi\left(2l+1\right)\beta^{n}x$$ for integer $l$. One then obtains a shift sequence $$\left[\mathcal{P}_{\beta}\mbox{e}_{\beta;n;l}\right]\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\beta}\mbox{e}_{\beta;n-1;l}\left(x\right)\left(1+\mbox{e}_{\beta;n;l}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)$$ This is not a viable candidate for $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$, as it is again beset by the step function. As a shift sequence, it can be used to construct coherent states that are eigenfunctions of $\mathcal{P}_{\beta}$, having any eigenvalue within the unit disk. Specifically, observe that $\mbox{e}_{\beta;0;l}\left(1/2\right)=\exp i\pi\left(2l+1\right)=-1$ so that $\left[\mathcal{P}_{\beta}\mbox{e}_{\beta;0;l}\right]\left(x\right)=0$ and so the shift sequence terminates after finite iteration. Given a complex value $z$, construct the coherent state as $$\phi_{l;z}\left(x\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^{n}\mbox{e}_{\beta;n;l}\left(x\right)$$ The shift is then $$\left[\mathcal{P}_{\beta}\phi_{l;z}\right]\left(x\right)=\frac{z}{\beta}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^{n}\left(1+\mbox{e}_{\beta;n+1;l}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)\mbox{e}_{\beta;n;l}\left(x\right)$$ This is not particularly useful, until one notices that for for certain values of $\beta$, this contains nilpotent sub-series.
Specifically, fix a value of $n=N$ and consider those values of $\beta$ for which $\mbox{e}_{\beta;N;l}\left(1/2\right)=-1$. This holds whenever $\beta^{N}$ is an odd integer, that is, whenever $\beta=\left(2m+1\right)^{1/N}$ (and, as always, $\beta\le2$). For these special values of $\beta$, one has that $\left[\mathcal{P}_{\beta}\mbox{e}_{\beta;N;l}\right]\left(x\right)=0$ and so the functions $$\phi_{l;z;N}\left(x\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{N}z^{n}\mbox{e}_{\beta;n;l}\left(x\right)$$ vanish after $N$ iterations of $\mathcal{P}_{\beta}$. That is, these can be used to form a a basis in which $\mathcal{P}_{\beta}$ is nilpotent. Conversely, letting $m$ and $N$ be free, the values for which $\beta=\left(2m+1\right)^{1/N}$ are dense in the interval $\left[1,2\right)$ and so any $\beta$ is arbitrarily close to one with a nilpotent function space. These values of $\beta$ are exactly the same values for which the bit sequences given by eqn \[eq:down-bits\] eventually terminate in all zeros; i.e. become periodic fixed points with period 1.
The existence of a dense set of fixed points is dual to the the existence of nilpotent densities. That is, one “causes” or “forces” the other to happen. This idea should be further elaborated, as it establishes a duality between countable and uncountable sets, which has an element of curiosity to it.
Presumably, there are special values of $\beta$ which allow a periodic orbits to originate from a dense set. Such values of $\beta$, and such periodic orbits, should then correspond to specific self-similarities of the $\phi_{l;z}\left(x\right)$ function, specifically manifesting as cyclic behavior in $\left(1+\mbox{e}_{\beta;n+1;l}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)^{p}$ for some period $p$. Whether there is some similar manifestation for $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ is wholly unclear; however, the examination of the periodic orbits of the beta shift, undertaken in a later chapter, will provide a strong clue.
Rotated Renyi-Parry function\[subsec:Rotated-Renyi-Parry-function\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A different class of almost-solutions starts with the Renyi-Parry invariant measure defined in eqn \[eq:invariant measure\]. Using this, one may define a “rotated” function $$v_{\beta;z}\left(x\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{d_{n}\left(x\right)}{\beta^{n}}z^{n}\label{eq:coherent-first-order}$$ where $d_{n}\left(x\right)=\varepsilon_{n}\left(2x/\beta\right)$ are the same digits as defined by Renyi and Parry, just rescaled for the beta shift convention being used here. That is, $$d_{n}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{if }x<T^{n}\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ and $T$ the beta shift map of eqn \[eq:downshift\]. The summation is clearly convergent (and holomorphic) for complex numbers $z$ within the disk $\left|z\right|<\beta$.
Exploring this numerically, one finds that $$\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}v_{\beta;z}\right]\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{z}v_{\beta;z}\left(x\right)+C\left(\beta;z\right)$$ where $C\left(\beta;z\right)$ is a constant independent of $x$ (or rather, a constant for $x<\beta/2$ and zero otherwise). The fact that $C\left(\beta;z\right)$ is a constant independent of $x$ can be taken either as a humdrum fact, typical of the territory, or as a big unexplained surprise! I prefer the later. The sequence of digits $d_{n}\left(x\right)$ depend strongly on $x$. The function $v_{\beta;z}\left(x\right)$ depends strongly on $x$. The digits $d_{n}\left(x\right)$ are entangled in an analytic series, in very highly non-trivial form. This is worth pursuing to great extent.
First, some baby-steps. Combining the above expressions, one can write $$\begin{aligned}
C\left(\beta;z\right)= & \left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}v_{\beta;z}\right]\left(y\right)-\frac{v_{\beta;z}\left(y\right)}{z}\\
= & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{z^{n}}{\beta^{n}}\left[\frac{1}{\beta}d_{n}\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)+\frac{1}{\beta}d_{n}\left(\frac{y}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{z}d_{n}\left(y\right)\right]\end{aligned}$$ Again: this is a constant, independent of $y$ for $0\le y<\beta/2$, and zero for $y\ge\beta/2$. This only holds for the sum; individual terms are not independent of $y$. The interesting limit is where $\left|z\right|\to\beta$ and so its convenient to define $$\begin{aligned}
D\left(\beta;\zeta\right)= & \zeta\beta C\left(\beta;\zeta\beta\right)\\
= & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\zeta^{n}\left[\zeta d_{n}\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)+\zeta d_{n}\left(\frac{y}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)-d_{n}\left(y\right)\right]\end{aligned}$$ This is holomorphic on the unit disk $\left|\zeta\right|<1$, as each individual $d_{n}$ is either zero or one; there won’t be any poles inside the unit disk. Again, this is independent of $y$.
The equation is readily simplified. Set $y=0$, to obtain $d_{n}\left(0\right)=1$. Cancelling terms, one obtains $$D\left(\beta;\zeta\right)=-1+\zeta\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\zeta^{n}d_{n}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\label{eq:holomorphic-disk}$$ This is straight-forward to examine numerically; the disk is readily plotted, and reveals what looks like a countable number of zeros in the disk $\left|\zeta\right|<1$, and then many more in the limit $\left|\zeta\right|\to1$. Each zero corresponds to an eigenfunction/eigenvalue pair, the eigenfunction given by eqn \[eq:coherent-first-order\]. The table below lists some examples; the numbers are accurate to about the last decimal place.
$\beta$ $z$ $\left|z\right|$ $1/z$
--------- ------------------------------ ------------------ --------------------------------
1.8 -1.591567859 1.591567859 -0.6283112558
1.8 -1.1962384 +i 1.216022231 1.705783215 -0.4111213835 - i 0.4179206604
1.8 0.9919147363 +i 1.446092984 1.753590535 0.3225655308 -i 0.4702619429
1.6 -1.063651387 +i 1.008959895 1.466067646 -0.4948701876 -i 0.4694246429
1.4 0.550836432 +i 1.178171082 1.300579822 0.3256481633 -i 0.6965211931
1.2 0.9578845659 +i 0.6073301155 1.134192537 0.7446284155 -i -0.4721187476
These are not particularly meaningful numbers; they just give a flavor for some locations of eigenvalues. The overall distribution is scattered; the zeros appear in not very predictable locations, mostly not far from the edge of the disk. Insight into this behavior is developed in depth in later chapters. A typical eigenfunction is shown in figure \[fig:Typical-Eigenfunction\]; this is for the zero listed in the last row of the table above. Although its unlike figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\], it does have the same general characteristics, belonging to the same family.
![Typical Eigenfunction\[fig:Typical-Eigenfunction\]](almost){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Formula \[eq:holomorphic-disk\] will reappear in a later chapter, where it is found to describe periodic orbits of the beta shift. It will serve to tie together the transfer operator with the behavior of orbits.
This section ends with a deep mystery: why is $C\left(\beta;z\right)$ independent of the $y$ coordinate? How should it be explained? How can it be put to good use? Might there be more of such identities? Or is there only this one?
Analytic Ergodics
-----------------
Why is $C\left(\beta;z\right)$ independent of the $y$ coordinate? And is this surprising, or not surprising?
Perhaps it should not be surprising. The full shift (the Bernoulli shift) has an absolutely flat, uniform distribution. This is not a surprise: real numbers are uniformly distributed on the real number line. Pick almost any real number: the binary digits are uniformly distributed. The FP eigenfunction of the transfer operator for the Bernoulli shift is a constant. This is not a surprise; the uniformity of the reals demands this.
Compare to the invariant measure of eqn \[eq:invariant measure\], shown in the very first figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\]. The figure clearly consists of flat plateaus; the flatness harking back to, and “explained by” the flatness of the real numbers. But those flat regions arise from eqn \[eq:coherent-first-order\] (with $z=1$), and if one looks at the individual binary digit sequences $d_{n}\left(x\right)$ for two different values of $x$, these sequences become wildly, crazily, chaotically different; why should they sum to the same value? This now seems to be profound, in some way that the flatness of the reals is not.
Presumably, this should be known as “the fundamental theorem of analytic ergodics”. Or at least, “the funamental theorem of analytic subshifts”. Oddly, I’ve never heard of such a theorem, nor recollect any proof of it having scrolled past my eyes. Perhaps it is known. It certainly deserves greater fame; it seems like it would be quite the tool to unlock many of the mysteries being fumbled-over in this text.
Iterated transfer operator
--------------------------
To understand the nature of the steady-state solution (the Frobenius-Perron eigenstate), its is worth iterating on the recurrence relation for it, by hand, the first few times. To do this, it is convenient to write it in the form $$\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}f\right]\left(y\right)=\frac{\Theta\left(y\right)}{\beta}\left[f\left(\alpha\left(y\right)\right)+f\left(\omega\left(y\right)\right)\right]$$ where $\Theta\left(y\right)=1$ if $y\le\beta/2$ else zero; this is a step function to denote the vanishing for the operator for $2y>\beta$. (This differs from the use of $\Theta$ as the Heaviside step function in earlier sections; the intent is the same, but the goal is to have a briefer notation here. Which is which should be clear from context.) The functions $\alpha\left(y\right)=y/\beta$ and $\omega\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{2}+\alpha\left(y\right)$ are convenient shorthands for symbolic iteration.
Iterating once gives $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathcal{L}^{2}f\right]\left(y\right)= & \frac{\Theta\left(y\right)}{\beta^{2}} & \left[\Theta\left(\alpha\left(y\right)\right)\left[f\left(\alpha^{2}\left(y\right)\right)+f\left(\left(\omega\circ\alpha\right)\left(y\right)\right)\right]+\right.\\
& & \left.\Theta\left(\omega\left(y\right)\right)\left[f\left(\left(\alpha\circ\omega\right)\left(y\right)\right)+f\left(\omega^{2}\left(y\right)\right)\right]\right]\end{aligned}$$ Using a simplified notation $g\left(y\right)=f\left(\alpha\left(y\right)\right)+f\left(\omega\left(y\right)\right)$ allows this to be iterated a third time: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathcal{L}^{3}f\right]\left(y\right)= & \frac{\Theta\left(y\right)}{\beta^{3}} & \left[\Theta\left(\alpha\left(y\right)\right)\left[\Theta\left(\alpha^{2}\left(y\right)\right)g\left(\alpha^{2}\left(y\right)\right)+\Theta\left(\omega\alpha\left(y\right)\right)g\left(\omega\alpha\left(y\right)\right)\right]+\right.\\
& & \left.\Theta\left(\omega\left(y\right)\right)\left[\Theta\left(\alpha\omega\left(y\right)\right)g\left(\alpha\omega\left(y\right)\right)+\Theta\left(\omega^{2}\left(y\right)\right)g\left(\omega^{2}\left(y\right)\right)\right]\right]\end{aligned}$$ and a fourth time, this time omitting the argument, and the various nesting parenthesis. $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathcal{L}^{4}f\right]\left(y\right)= & \frac{\Theta\left(y\right)}{\beta^{4}} & \left[\Theta\alpha\Theta\alpha^{2}\left[\Theta\alpha^{3}g\alpha^{3}+\Theta\omega\alpha^{2}g\omega\alpha^{2}\right]+\right.\\
& & \Theta\alpha\Theta\omega\alpha\left[\Theta\alpha\omega\alpha g\alpha\omega\alpha+\Theta\omega^{2}\alpha g\omega^{2}\alpha\right]\\
& & \Theta\omega\Theta\alpha\omega\left[\Theta\alpha^{2}\omega g\alpha^{2}\omega+\Theta\omega\alpha\omega g\omega\alpha\omega\right]\\
& & \left.\Theta\omega\Theta\omega^{2}\left[\Theta\alpha\omega^{2}g\alpha\omega^{2}+\Theta\omega^{3}g\omega^{3}\right]\right]\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the primary structure is given by a product of step functions. This is more conveniently visualized as a tree:
{width="0.7\columnwidth"}
For any given iteration, the result is the sum of the vertexes at a given level, while the product of step functions is the product of the step functions in the tree, following the path to each node. Because any particular step function might be zero, it effectively acts to cut off the tree at that location. It is therefore interesting to understand general products of the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ functions.
It is convenient to define $$\gamma_{x}\left(y\right)=\frac{x}{2}+\frac{y}{\beta}$$ so that $\alpha\left(y\right)=\gamma_{0}\left(y\right)$ and $\omega\left(y\right)=\gamma_{1}\left(y\right)$, so that a general iterated sequence of intermixed $\alpha$’s and $\omega$’s can be written uniformly in terms of $\gamma$. Given a sequence of bits $b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots b_{n}$ with each $b_{k}$ being either zero or one, the iterated sequence of functions can be written as $$\left(\gamma_{b_{0}}\gamma_{b_{1}}\gamma_{b_{2}}\cdots\gamma_{b_{n}}\right)\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[b_{0}+\frac{b_{1}}{\beta}+\frac{b_{2}}{\beta^{2}}+\cdots+\frac{b_{n}}{\beta^{n}}\right]+\frac{y}{\beta^{n+1}}\label{eq:not de Rham curve}$$ So, for example: $$\alpha^{n}\left(y\right)=\frac{y}{\beta^{n}}$$ while $$\omega^{2}\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\beta}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{y}{\beta}\right)$$ and, in general, that $$\omega^{n}\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{1}{\beta}+\frac{1}{\beta^{2}}+\cdots\frac{1}{\beta^{n-1}}\right]+\frac{y}{\beta^{n}}$$ Iterated sequences of pairs of functions, of the form $\gamma_{b_{0}}\gamma_{b_{1}}\gamma_{b_{2}}\cdots\gamma_{b_{n}}$ are reminiscent of de Rham curves, which generalize Cesaro curves and the Koch snowflake. The proper definition of a de Rham curve assumes the sequence is of infinite length, and applies a certain continuity condition, and is generally carried out on the complex plane, so that a continuous, nowhere-differentiable curve results. Here, the curve is distinctly not continuous: eqn \[eq:not de Rham curve\] is a finite-length form of the shift series \[eq:shift series\] which can be visualized as the expander function pdr \[eq:expander function\], as shown in figure \[fig:Expander-Function\].
The Tree Function
-----------------
Given a bit sequence $\left(b_{k}\right)$ and value for $y$, define the tree function as $$T_{\beta}\left(\left(b_{k}\right);y\right)=\Theta\left(y\right)\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}\Theta\left(\gamma_{b_{0}}\gamma_{b_{1}}\gamma_{b_{2}}\cdots\gamma_{b_{n}}\left(y\right)\right)$$ For any given fixed sequence of bits and value of $y$, this function is either zero or one. One way to understand this function is to ask how it varies for fixed $\beta$ and $y$, but with the bit sequence coming from the Bernoulli shift of eqn \[eq:bernoulli-bits\], so that $b_{n}=b_{n}\left(x\right)$. This simplifies notation, so that one can write $$T_{\beta}\left(x;y\right)=T_{\beta}\left(\left(b_{k}\left(x\right)\right);y\right)=\Theta\left(y\right)\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}\Theta\left(\gamma_{x;n}\left(y\right)\right)$$ with $\gamma_{x;n}\left(y\right)=\gamma_{b_{0}}\gamma_{b_{1}}\gamma_{b_{2}}\cdots\gamma_{b_{n}}\left(y\right)$. Its clear that the tree function has maximum support when $y=0$. Figure \[fig:Gamma-functions\] shows several gamma functions, and the corresponding tree function that results. Figure \[fig:Tree-functions\] shows the $x$ vs. $y$ behavior of the tree functions. Figure \[fig:Tree-function-variations\] shows the $\beta$ vs. $x$ behavior of the functions. Figure \[fig:Tree-function-Unified\] shows a unified visualization of the three preceding charts.
![Gamma functions\[fig:Gamma-functions\]](gamma-0\lyxdot 8-0 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}![Gamma functions\[fig:Gamma-functions\]](gamma-0\lyxdot 8-0\lyxdot 7 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
Examples of “typical” gamma functions. Both figures show gamma functions for $\beta=1.6$; the one on the left shows them for $y=0$, while the one on the right shows them for $y=0.7$. Every gamma function is a sequence of plateaus; the zig-zag line is a high-order gamma, essentially showing the limiting case. The tree function is unity whenever all of these curves are below $\beta/2$, and is zero when above. So, for example, for the left figure, the tree function is unity, for all values of $x$ less than about 0.4952; it drops to zero, then returns to unity above $x=0.5$, until about 0.6221, when it briefly plunges and rises again. Then, another dip, before finally settling to zero near 0.6541. For the right figure, a high-order zig-zag rises above 0.8 somewhere near 0.4914; then $\gamma_{x;1}\left(0.7\right)$ rises above 0.8 and stays there, driving the tree function to zero, rendering all other orders irrelevant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Tree functions\[fig:Tree-functions\]](step-0\lyxdot 7 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}![Tree functions\[fig:Tree-functions\]](step-0\lyxdot 8 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
The above illustrate the $y$ vs. $x$ dependence of the tree functions; the left image is for $\beta=1.4$, the right is for $\beta=1.6$. Green indicates the regions where the tree function is unity, and black where it is zero. To be clear, this shows $T_{\beta}\left(x;y\right)$ with $x$ and $y$ plotted along the $x$ and $y$ axes. The tree functions shown in figure \[fig:Gamma-functions\] are just two horizontal slices taken from the right image: a slice along the bottom, and a slice a bit above the middle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Tree function variations\[fig:Tree-function-variations\]](treek-0\lyxdot 0 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![Tree function variations\[fig:Tree-function-variations\]](treek-0\lyxdot 3 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
![Tree function variations\[fig:Tree-function-variations\]](treek-0\lyxdot 5 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![Tree function variations\[fig:Tree-function-variations\]](treek-0\lyxdot 7 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
These figures illustrate the $\beta$ vs. $x$ dependence of the tree function. The upper left shows $T_{\beta}\left(x;0\right)$, the upper right shows $T_{\beta}\left(x;0.3\right)$, the lower left shows $T_{\beta}\left(x;0.5\right)$, the lower right shows $T_{\beta}\left(x;0.7\right)$. In each case, $x$ runs from 0 to 1 along the $x$ axis, while $\beta$ runs from 1 to 2 along the vertical axis. As before, green indicates where the tree function is unity, and black where it is zero. The tree functions shown in figure \[fig:Gamma-functions\] correspond to horizontal slices in the first and last images. Note that many (possibly all??) of the green spikes in the upper-left image reach all the way down to the bottom, although they are mostly much thinner than a pixel and thus not rendered. The vague blue hazing near the spikes is an attempt at anti-aliasing, to highlight the sharpness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Tree function Unified Visualization\[fig:Tree-function-Unified\]](treecolor){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure presents a unified visualization of figures \[fig:Gamma-functions\], \[fig:Tree-functions\] and \[fig:Tree-function-variations\]. That is, it depicts the $T_{\beta}\left(x;y\right)$ varying all three parameters. The parameter$\beta$ runs from 1 at the bottom, to 2 at the top. The parameter $x$ runs from 0 to 1, left to right. Because $T_{\beta}\left(x;y\right)$ is either zero or one, the color is used to represent the largest value of $y$ for which $1=T_{\beta}\left(x;y\right)$. The color coding corresponds to red for $y=1,$ green for $y=0.5$, blue for $y=0.25$ and black for $y=0$. Thus, for example, figure \[fig:Tree-function-variations\] can be obtained directly from this, by setting a given color, “or darker”, to black. The figure \[fig:Tree-functions\] represents a single fixed horizontal slice through this figure, with the height of the rectangles in figure \[fig:Tree-functions\] corresponding to the color in this figure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haar Basis Matrix Elements
--------------------------
The symmetric Haar wavelets are built from the mother wavelet $$h\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{for }0\le x<1/2\\
-1 & \mbox{for }1/2\le x<1
\end{cases}$$ and has individual wavelets given by $$h_{nj}\left(x\right)=2^{n/2}h\left(2^{n}x-j\right)\;\mbox{ for }0\le j\le2^{n}-1$$ The matrix elements of the transfer operator are $$\left\langle mi\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|nj\right\rangle =\int_{0}^{1}h_{mi}\left(x\right)\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}h_{nj}\right]\left(x\right)dx$$ where the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ is given by eqn \[eq:xfer oper\]. Computing these by hand promptly pushes into a big mess. One can obtain explicit expressions, just that they are tedious to obtain. Some preliminary observations include that $$\left\langle mi\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|nj\right\rangle =0\;\mbox{ if }\beta\le i/2^{m-1}$$ because the transfer operator vanishes above $\beta/2$. In the same vein, matrix elements vanish unless $$\left[\frac{i}{2^{m}},\frac{i+1}{2^{m}}\right]\cap\left[\frac{\beta j}{2^{n}},\frac{\beta\left(j+1\right)}{2^{n}}\right]\ne\emptyset$$ or if $$\left[\frac{i}{2^{m}},\frac{i+1}{2^{m}}\right]\cap\left[\beta\left(\frac{j}{2^{n}}-\frac{1}{2}\right),\beta\left(\frac{j+1}{2^{n}}-\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]\ne\emptyset$$ In all other cases, the Haar wavelets completely fail to overlap, and thus the matrix elements are zero. In addition, only three pairs of wavelets overlap in a non-zero fashion. That is, for a fixed $m,n$ and $j$, there are at most six different values of $i$ for which the matrix elements are non-vanishing: the first three of these are the values for which $$\frac{\beta j}{2^{n}}\in\left[\frac{i}{2^{m}},\frac{i+1}{2^{m}}\right]\;\mbox{ or }\;\frac{\beta\left(j+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{2^{n}}\in\left[\frac{i}{2^{m}},\frac{i+1}{2^{m}}\right]\;\mbox{ or }\;\frac{\beta\left(j+1\right)}{2^{n}}\in\left[\frac{i}{2^{m}},\frac{i+1}{2^{m}}\right]$$ and likewise for three more. The observation is that the integral vanishes unless the first wavelet intersects an edge transition of the second wavelet.
The primary failure of this basis is that there is no obvious way to diagonalize the transfer operator in this basis. There is no obvious way of solving it, of finding it’s eigenfunctions and eigenvalues, other than by brute-force numerical attack.
Julia Set
---------
Consider the two iterators $a_{0}\left(y\right)=\min\left(\frac{\beta}{2},\beta y\right)$ and $a_{1}\left(y\right)=\max\left(0,\beta y-\frac{\beta}{2}\right)$. Individually, they are the two arms of the beta shift. Here, they have been separated from each other, so that the full domain $0\le y\le1$ is allowed. Exploring all possible inter-iterations for these gives the Julia set for the transfer operator: it indicates where a point “came from”, for the iterated transfer operator. There are several related ways to visualize this. One way is to fix $y$ and then, given a bit-sequence $\left(b_{n}\right)$ to compute $$j\left(\left(b_{n}\right)\right)=a_{b_{o}}\circ a_{b_{1}}\circ a_{b_{2}}\circ\cdots\left(y\right)$$ Figure \[fig:Julia-Set-visualization\] shows a visualization for finite bit-sequences: in essence, the very first few iterations. Although it is similar to figure \[fig:Range-compress\], it is not the same.
![Julia Set visualization\[fig:Julia-Set-visualization\]](julie){width="1\columnwidth"}
Consider the binary tree of dyadic fractions: that is, the tree whose rows are 1/2, (1/4 3/4), (1/8 3/8 5/8 7/8), ... Consider a function $J$ on this tree. For the head of the tree, set $J\left(1/2\right)=\beta$. For the next row, set $J\left(1/4\right)=a_{0}\left(J\left(1/2\right)\right)$ and $J\left(3/4\right)=a_{1}\left(J\left(1/2\right)\right)$. Iterate in this fashion so that $J\left(\left(2k-1\right)/2^{n+1}\right)=a_{0}\left(J\left(k/2^{n}\right)\right)$ and $J\left(\left(2k+1\right)/2^{n+1}\right)=a_{1}\left(J\left(k/2^{n}\right)\right)$ recursively. This produces a function $J$ taking values on every dyadic fraction $k/2^{n}$.
In the above figure, $\beta$ runs from 1 at the bottom to 2 at the top. A single horizontal slice through the image shows a color-coded version of $J$, with red coding values near 1, green coding values near 1/2 and blue, fading to black coding values of 1/4 and less. Note that there are many faint blue lines that extend quite far down, but not all the way down: these form a stair-step. The image is 1024 pixels wide: it shows the first ten rows of the binary tree. Although this image is similar to figure \[fig:Range-compress\], it differs in many details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a related notion, consider the definition of “laps”, from Jeffrey Lagerias *etal*.[@Lagarias94].
Hessenberg basis
================
There is a set of Haar-like wavelets in which the transfer operator is of the form of a Hessenberg operator - that is, the operator becomes almost upper-diagonal, with only one diagonal, just below the main diagonal, that is non-zero. Explicitly, the transfer operator $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ has matrix entries $\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\right]_{ij}$ such that $\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\right]_{ij}=0$ whenever $i>j+1$. A matrix having this form is called a Hessenberg matrix; such matrices have various interesting properties; among others, they generalize the Jacobi matrix. This chapter explicitly constructs an infinite-dimensional Hessenberg matrix, which may now be called a Hessenberg operator.
Hessenberg operators occur naturally in spectral measure theory; some of this will be reviewed in several later chapters. To get a flavor for what is to come: Given a Hessenberg operator, one may construct a system of orthogonal polynomials that provide a basis for square-integrable holomorphic functions on some domain of the complex plane. Such a space is called a Berman space; in this sense it generalizes the Jacobi operator for real Borel measures. This basis of polynomials in turn allows the Hessenberg operator to be explicitly seen as a shift operator on that domain, with $\left[Hf\right]\left(z\right)=zf\left(z\right)$ for $H$ the Hessenberg operator and $f\left(z\right)$ a holomorphic function (specifically a Bergman function) on the Bergman domain. But all of this is for later chapters; its mentioned here only to whet the appetite.
Hessenberg wavelet basis
------------------------
The transfer operator $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ can be fairly easily brought into Hessenberg matrix form. A sequence of of orthonormal functions is constructed in this section; when used as a basis, the transfer operator becomes almost upper-diagonal.
The trick to the construction is to define wavelets such that the transfer operator applied each wavelet causes the end-points of the wavelet to exactly line up with the end- or mid-points of previous wavelets, thus avoiding the nasty interval-overlap algebra required with the Haar basis. This is accomplished by carefully picking the midpoint of the next wavelet in the sequence to be located exactly at the discontinuity of the transfer operator applied to the previous wavelet.
The construction proceeds as follows. Let $$\psi_{0}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta/2}} & \mbox{for }0\le x\le\beta/2\\
0 & \mbox{for }\beta/2<x\le1
\end{cases}$$ Consider ${\cal L}_{\beta}\psi_{0}$. It is the sum of two parts: two step-functions; one which is constant for $x\le\beta/2$ and another that is constant for $\frac{x}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\le\frac{\beta}{2}$. Solving explicitly for the location of the step, it is $x=\beta\left(\beta-1\right)/2$. For convenience, define $m_{1}=\beta\left(\beta-1\right)/2$ and $m_{0}=\beta/2$. These will anchor a series of midpoints, beginning with $m_{-1}=0$. Using the midpoint $m_{1}$, construct the wavelet $$\psi_{1}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{m_{1}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{1}\left(m_{0}-m_{1}\right)}{m_{0}}} & \mbox{for }0\le x\le m_{1}\\
\frac{-1}{m_{0}-m_{1}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{1}\left(m_{0}-m_{1}\right)}{m_{0}}} & \mbox{for }m_{1}<x\le m_{0}\\
0 & \mbox{for }m_{0}<x\le1
\end{cases}$$ Note that this is normalized to unit length: $\int_{0}^{1}\left|\psi_{1}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}dx=1$ and that it is explicitly orthogonal to the first: $\int_{0}^{1}\psi_{1}\left(x\right)\psi_{0}\left(x\right)dx=0$.
Consider ${\cal L}_{\beta}\psi_{1}$. As always, it is the sum of two parts. The midpoint of $\psi_{1}$ is at $m_{1}=\beta\left(\beta-1\right)/2$ and this mid-point is mapped to one of two different places. If $m_{1}<1/2$ then it is mapped to $m_{2}=\beta m_{1}$ else it maps to $m_{2}=\beta\left(m_{1}-1/2\right)$. Thus, if $m_{1}<1/2$, define $$\psi_{2}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
0 & \mbox{for }0\le x\le m_{1}\\
\frac{1}{\left(m_{2}-m_{1}\right)}\sqrt{\frac{\left(m_{2}-m_{1}\right)\left(m_{0}-m_{2}\right)}{m_{0}-m_{1}}} & \mbox{for }m_{1}\le x\le m_{2}\\
\frac{-1}{\left(m_{0}-m_{2}\right)}\sqrt{\frac{\left(m_{2}-m_{1}\right)\left(m_{0}-m_{2}\right)}{m_{0}-m_{1}}} & \mbox{for }m_{2}<x\le m_{0}\\
0 & \mbox{for }m_{0}<x\le1
\end{cases}$$ else define $$\psi_{2}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{m_{2}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{2}\left(m_{2}-m_{1}\right)}{m_{1}}} & \mbox{for }0\le x\le m_{2}\\
\frac{-1}{\left(m_{1}-m_{2}\right)}\sqrt{\frac{m_{2}\left(m_{2}-m_{1}\right)}{m_{1}}} & \mbox{for }m_{2}\le x\le m_{1}\\
0 & \mbox{for }m_{1}<x\le1
\end{cases}$$ Because each end of the interval on which $\psi_{2}$ is non-zero lies entirely within one of the constant arms of $\psi_{1}$, one has, by construction, that $\int_{0}^{1}\psi_{2}\left(x\right)\psi_{1}\left(x\right)dx=0$ (and, of course, $\int_{0}^{1}\psi_{2}\left(x\right)\psi_{0}\left(x\right)dx=0$.)
The rest of the basis can be constructed iteratively, based on these examples. The midpoints are given by iterating \[eq:downshift\] on $m_{0}=\beta/2$, so that $m_{p}=T_{\beta}\left(m_{p-1}\right)=T_{\beta}^{p}\left(m_{0}\right)$ is the $p$’th iterate of $\beta/2$. Let $m_{l}$ be largest midpoint smaller than $m_{p}$ (and $l<p$); let $m_{u}$ be the smallest midpoint larger than $m_{p}$ (and $l<p$). Let $m_{-1}=0$ initiate the sequence by providing the smallest-possible “midpoint”; $m_{0}=\beta/2$ already provides the largest possible.
Then define $$\psi_{p}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
0 & \mbox{for }0\le x\le m_{l}\\
\frac{C_{p}}{\left(m_{p}-m_{l}\right)} & \mbox{for }m_{l}\le x\le m_{p}\\
\frac{-C_{p}}{\left(m_{u}-m_{p}\right)} & \mbox{for }m_{p}<x\le m_{u}\\
0 & \mbox{for }m_{u}<x\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:Hess-Haar-basis-fn}$$ By construction, this has the property that $\int_{0}^{1}\psi_{p+1}\left(x\right)\psi_{n}\left(x\right)dx=0$ for any $n<p+1$. The normalization constant is $$C_{p}=\sqrt{\frac{\left(m_{p}-m_{l}\right)\left(m_{u}-m_{p}\right)}{m_{u}-m_{l}}}$$ which is determined by requiring that $\int_{0}^{1}\left|\psi_{p}\left(x\right)\right|^{2}dx=1$.
Matrix Elements
---------------
The above-defined basis provides the Hessenberg representation for the transfer operator. Defining $$\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle =\int_{0}^{1}\psi_{n}\left(x\right)\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\psi_{m}\right]\left(x\right)dx\label{eq:hessen-matrix-elts}$$ this has the expected Hessenberg form, in that $$\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle =0\quad\mbox{ for }n>m+1$$ This is just one diagonal short of being actually solvable. A visualization of the matrix elements is shown in figure \[fig:Hessenberg-Operator-Matrix\].
![Hessenberg Operator Matrix Elements\[fig:Hessenberg-Operator-Matrix\]](matrix-0\lyxdot 55 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Hessenberg Operator Matrix Elements\[fig:Hessenberg-Operator-Matrix\]](matrix-0\lyxdot 6 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Hessenberg Operator Matrix Elements\[fig:Hessenberg-Operator-Matrix\]](matrix-0\lyxdot 65 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
![Hessenberg Operator Matrix Elements\[fig:Hessenberg-Operator-Matrix\]](matrix-0\lyxdot 8 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Hessenberg Operator Matrix Elements\[fig:Hessenberg-Operator-Matrix\]](matrix-0\lyxdot 95 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Hessenberg Operator Matrix Elements\[fig:Hessenberg-Operator-Matrix\]](matrix-0\lyxdot 999 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
Six illustrations of the absolute value of the matrix elements $\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle $ for the transfer operator $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ for (left to right, top to bottom) $\beta=$1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 1.90, 1.998 and $0\le n,m<48$ in the Hessenberg basis. The red color represents values of 0.66 or larger, green represents values of 0.33 and blue and darker correspond to 0.16 or less. Almost all matrix elements are in fact precisely zero; black pixels in these images correspond to matrix elements that are zero. Note that the almost all of the diagonal matrix elements are exactly zero: that is $\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|n\right\rangle =0$ for most $n$. The bright-red pixels are just below the diagonal: for most $n$, one has that $\left\langle n+1\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|n\right\rangle \apprge0.5$ with the occasional blueish pixel suggesting a smaller value. These two, taken together, suggests that the eigenvalue spectrum is rapidly decreasing. The first few images suggests a regular pattern that gets increasingly compressed and chaotic as $\beta$ increases. More-or-less the sane structure prevails if one instead zooms out to look at the 600x600 submatrix; animating with fine-grained steps in $\beta$ does not result in an interesting animated movie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completeness
------------
The Hessenberg basis construction gives a countable set of $\psi_{n}$ that is an orthonormal basis on the unit interval: $\int_{0}^{1}\psi_{m}\left(x\right)\psi_{n}\left(x\right)dx=\delta_{mn}$. Are they complete? Obviously the $\left\{ \psi_{n}\right\} $ cannot be complete on the unit interval, as they all vanish for $\beta/2<x$. Perhaps they are complete on the interval $[0,\beta/2]$, where they are already orthonormal: $\int_{0}^{\beta/2}\psi_{m}\left(x\right)\psi_{n}\left(x\right)dx=\delta_{mn}$.
A numerical exploration shows that the midpoints $m_{p}$ are dense in the interval $(0,\beta/2)$, and so this suggests that the basis should be considered to be “sufficiently complete” on the interval $[0,\beta/2]$. The distribution of the $m_{p}$ follow exactly the distribution of the invariant measure. Convergence is uniform to the same degree that the midpoints “eventually” fill in and become dense in some interval. Renyi[@Renyi57] and Parry[@Parry60] do more: they show that the midpoint process is ergodic (Parry points out that it’s weakly mixing), and provide a formal proof that the distribution is one and the same as the invariant measure.
The above has some exceptions: there are some values of $\beta$ for which the midpoint $m_{0}$ iterates $x=1/2$, wherupon iteration stops (i.e. iterates to zero), or becomes cyclic (forming a periodic orbit). Which is which depends on how the point $1/2$ is treated by the map. These values of $\beta$ are potential “trouble spots”, and are explored in greater detail in the next chapter. They are dense in the interval $1<\beta<2$, but they form a countable set that can be taken to be of measure zero. Thus, most “most” values of $\beta$ are not problematic. Excluding the trouble spots, the Hessenberg basis can be taken to be complete.
Clearly, the $\psi_{n}$ span some subspace; do they span the Hilbert space $L_{2}\left[0,\beta/2\right]$ of square-integrable functions on the interval $[0,\beta/2]$? To what degree can one legitimately write $$\delta\left(y-x\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\psi_{n}\left(y\right)\psi_{n}\left(x\right)$$ as a resolution of the identity?
The question of completeness dogs some “obvious” assumptions one wants to make. For example, if the set of states is complete, and the resolution of the identity holds, then one expects that the transfer operator resolves to the iterated function: $$\delta\left(y-\left(\beta x\,\mod1\right)\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\psi_{n}\left(y\right)\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle \psi_{m}\left(x\right)$$ It is fun to verify that the world works as one expects it to work: the above can be verified to hold numerically, for sums limited to a finite cutoff.
Numerical Eigenvalues
---------------------
Given the apparent sparsity visible in figure \[fig:Hessenberg-Operator-Matrix\], one might think that the eigenvalue problem is fairly stable, numerically. It is not all that much. Numerical exploration suggests that the spectrum is on or near a circle lying in the complex plane[^2], of radius $\left|\lambda\right|=1/\beta$ (ignoring, that is, the leading eigenvalue of 1, which is easily found).
To be clear, this is a numerical exploration of the $N\times N$ principle submatrix of $\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle $. The eigenvalue problem being posed is to find a vector $\vec{v}=\left(v_{k}\right)_{k=0}^{N}$ that solves $$\sum_{m=0}^{N}\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle v_{m}=\lambda v_{n}$$ for some constant $\lambda$ (with the set of possible $\lambda$ depending on $N$, of course).
There are various pitfalls in extrapolating from this to the $N\to\infty$ limit. For the next few paragraphs, consider only some notion of a “minimal” extension from finite $N$ to the limit. That is, for each finite $N$, one has a finite set of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. In the limit, there may be accumulation points: points where the eigenvalues accumulate to a limit point, in a standard topological sense. What should that that topological space be? For finite $N$, all eigenvectors are explicitly summable, and thus can be taken to belong to any Banach space $\ell_{p}$. One may as well take $p=2$ the Hilbert space, and normalize the eigenvectors $\vec{v}$ so that $1=\sum_{m=0}^{N}v_{m}^{2}$.
For finite $N$, it appears that “most” eigenvalues $\lambda$ are “near” the circle $\left|\lambda\right|=1/\beta$, and that they seem to be very uniformly distributed around this circle. The numerical results indicate that in the limit $N\to\infty$, that the scare-quotes “most” becomes “almost all” in the usual sense. Similarly, “near” appears to mean that for any given $\lambda$ at finite $N$, one has that $\left|\lambda\right|-1/\beta\sim\mathcal{O}\left(1/N\right)$. As to uniformity, it seems that the spacing between nearest neighbors is also $\mathcal{O}\left(1/N\right)$, and that there are no “premature” accumulation points: eigenvalues never get any closer than $\mathcal{O}\left(1/N\right)$, either.
Thus, the minimal closure, the minimal extrapolation to limit points strongly suggests that the limit points really do lie, uniformly distributed, on the circle $\left|\lambda\right|=1/\beta$. Then, writing a given accumulation point as $\lambda=\beta^{-1}\exp2\pi i\phi$, what the numerics do not reveal, or, at least, do not easily reveal, is whether the allowed values of $\phi$ are always rational, irrational or might have some other regular structure. The numerical exploration does suggest that the eigenvalues are dense on the circle. Certainly it is the case Hessenberg basis is countable, an so one would expect the eigenvalue spectrum obtained in this way to be at least countable, as well. Whether it is also uncountable seems unknowable in this naive sense.
This question is interesting because if only rational $\phi$ are allowed, then the decaying eigenfunctions belong to a cyclic group, and exhibit an exact form of Poincaré recurrence as they decay. If irrational $\phi$ are allowed, then the decaying eigenfunctions are at least ergodic.
For $\beta=2$, the $\beta$-transform is the Bernoulli shift, the transfer operator is solvable, and the spectrum is exactly known. This has been explored by various authors[@Dri99]. I’ve written extensively about this spectrum and the eigenvalues in other texts[@Ve-B04; @Ve-M04; @Ve-T04]. To recap, it takes several forms, depending on the function space that one chooses to work in. If one restricts oneself to polynomial eigenfunctions, then the spectrum is real, non-negative (it has an extensive kernel) and has eigenvalues of $2^{-n}$ for all $n$. The eigenfunctions are the Bernoulli polynomials. Restricting to square-integrable eigenfunctions, the spectrum continuous, having eigenvalues on the unit disk in the complex plane. The continuous-spectrum eigenfunctions (for eigenvalues other than $2^{-n}$) can be understood in several ways: if forced to be differentiable, then they are not bounded (they diverge) at the endpoints of the interval. If forced to be bounded, then they are fractal (non-smooth) over the entire interval. The unitary spectrum corresponds to differentiable-nowhere eigenfunctions (wait, or continuous-nowhere? I forget.)
A pair of plausible, numerically-extracted eigenfunctions are shown in image \[fig:Decaying-Eigenfunction\].
![Decaying Eigenfunction, Period Two\[fig:Decaying-Eigenfunction\]](decay-0\lyxdot 8){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
This shows a numerically-computed decaying eigenfunction of period two, for $\beta=1.6$. It is period two, in that it corresponds to an eigenvalue of $\lambda=-1/\beta=-0.625$, so that after one iteration of $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$, the sign flips. This can be confirmed, numerically: after one iteration, the sign really does flip, to within numerical errors. This was computed by numerically diagonalizing the $861\times861$ matrix given by the lowest terms of eqn \[eq:hessen-matrix-elts\], and then graphing the eigenvector closes to $\lambda=-0.625$ (The GnuMP library was used to provide the required level of precision in the calculations.)\
Although this figure is drawn with curves labeled “real” and “imaginary”, this is a bit fantastic, and is a numeric artifact. For any period-two eigenfunction, the real and imaginary parts would have no coupling, and would be independent of each other; either one could be set to zero and one would still have a valid eigenfunction. This differs from the case of period-three and higher, where the real and imaginary parts are expected to mix. (Nor are the two components orthogonal, as one might expect.) The eigenfunction is also fantastic in that only slightly different numerics result in a completely different eigenfunction being computed. Even the functions resulting from diagonalizing the $863\times863$ matrix differ fair amount from those arising from the $861\times861$ matrix; there’s only a general resemblance. This is not entirely surprising: the magnitude of the basis coefficients decays very slowly; even at $861$, that are still on the order of $10^{-3}$, and thus contribute strongly.\
Computed eigenfunctions for period-three are not dissimilar, nor are the ones for other values of $\beta$. They do seem to start having the general oscillatory character of $\sin\left(1/x\right)$ as $\beta\to1$, but its not clear if this is a numeric artifact, or something real. The wildness of these functions contrast sharply with the seemingly tame $\lambda=1$ eigenfunctions shown in figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\]. Compare to figure \[fig:Typical-Eigenfunction\], which paves the way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presumably, the spectrum can be related to the lap-counting function, given by Lagarias[@Lagarias94].
(Non-)Unitarity
---------------
The numerical results suggest a hypothesis that perhaps some fragment of $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ is unitary, as it is ordinarily the case that when eigenvalues appear on the unit circle, it is because an operator is unitary. That does not seem to be the case here. Specifically, define the Frobenius-Perron eigenvector $\rho$ as the one satisfying $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\rho=\rho$ and normalizing it to unit length, so that $\left\Vert \rho\right\Vert =1$ in the Hilbert (mean-square) norm. Define the reduced operator $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}$ in terms of the matrix elements $$\frac{1}{\beta}\left\langle n\left|{\cal R}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle =\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle -\left\langle \rho\vert n\right\rangle \left\langle \rho\vert m\right\rangle$$ That is, it is just the beta shift operator, with the Frobenius-Perron eigenvector removed, so that $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}\rho=0$ . Its rescaled, so that the remaining eigenvectors of $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}$ lie on the unit circle. Is this operator unitary in any way? That is, might either $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}\mathcal{R}_{\beta}^{\dagger}$ or $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}^{\dagger}\mathcal{R}_{\beta}$ be the identity? Here, the dagger $\dagger$ is just the transpose, as $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}$ is purely real. Numerical exploration clearly shows that $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}$ is neither unitary on the left nor on the right. Not a surprise, but does leave the understanding of $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ in a curious situation.
Perhaps it is not enough to subtract the invariant measure: The zeros of the formula \[eq:holomorphic-disk\] lying inside the disk must be subtracted as well. There seems to be a cutable number of these; the subtraction won’t be straight-forward.
Invariant Measure
-----------------
Let $v_{n}$ be the Ruelle-Frobenius-Perron eigenvector in the Hessenberg basis. That is, let $v_{n}$ be the vector that solves $$\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\left\langle n\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|m\right\rangle v_{m}=v_{n}\label{eq:fp coefficients}$$ This is readily computed numerically, and it is straightforward to verify the numerics by confirming that $$\rho\left(x\right)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}v_{m}\psi_{m}\left(x\right)$$ is the invariant measure of equations \[eq:FP-eigenvector\],\[eq:eigen-eqn\], with the $\psi_{k}\left(x\right)$ being the wavelets of eqn \[eq:Hess-Haar-basis-fn\]. This expansion seems to “make sense”, as the discontinuities seen in the graph of $\rho\left(x\right)$ in figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\] occur at exactly the midpoints $m_{p}$ and the size of each discontinuity appears to get smaller as $p$ gets larger. Given that the wavelet $\psi_{p}\left(x\right)$ has its central discontinuity at $m_{p}$ and is bounded on left and right by midpoints of lower order, this expansion seems to be very natural. This is supported by the diagram \[fig:FP-Coef-vs-n\], which depicts the values of $v_{n}$ as a function of $n$ for selected values of $\beta$. These values of $v_{n}$ are real, positive, and quickly get small; there are no difficulties or issues of convergence.
![Frobenius-Perron Eigenvector Coefficients\[fig:FP-Coef-vs-n\]](psifp){width="1\columnwidth"}
The coefficients $v_{n}$ solving eqn \[eq:fp coefficients\] as a function of $n$, for various values of $\beta$. Note that the coefficients are all real and positive. These can be obtained in two different ways: either by numerically diagonalizing the matrix equation of \[eq:fp coefficients\] or by numerically integrating $\int_{0}^{1}\rho\left(x\right)\psi_{n}\left(x\right)dx$. Either method gives the same results; diagonalization is far, far quicker. The slope appears to go as approximately $v_{m}\sim C\beta^{-m}$ with $C=0.02$ roughly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there some simple expression for the values of $v_{n}$ as a function of $\beta$? If so, it must be formed using some sort of fractal shift. Figure \[fig:FP-Coeff-beta\] illustrates $v_{1}$ through $v_{5}$.
![Perron-Frobenius Eigenvector Coefficients\[fig:FP-Coeff-beta\]](fpcoef){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure shows $v_{1}$ through $v_{5}$ as $\beta$ is varied. The most prominent spike is located at $\beta=\varphi=1.618\cdots$ the Golden Ratio. All spikes correspond to orbits that terminate in a fixed point after a finite number of iterations. The root cause and location of the spikes is shown in figure \[fig:Location-of-Midpoints\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The orbit of the midpoint is correlated with value of the coefficients, illustrated in figure \[fig:Orbits-and-Coefficients\]. The midpoint polynomial for $m_{p}=T_{\beta}^{p}\left(\beta/2\right)$, given in eqn \[eq:midpoint poly\], is compared to $v_{m}\beta^{m}$. It can be seen to “line up”. The two are somehow related; its not clear just how.
![Orbits and Coefficients\[fig:Orbits-and-Coefficients\]](orbit){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure compares the midpoint orbit to the coefficients, providing evidence for the hypothesis stated in the text. The midpoint orbit is just $m_{p}=T_{\beta}^{p}\left(\beta/2\right)$. Because $\beta=1.1$ in this figure, the discontinuities are infrequent and appear to be quasi-regular (they are ultimately fully chaotic), as the midpoint mostly just walks up to where it is knocked down again. The “coefficient” curve is a graph of $10v_{p}\beta^{p}$ for $p$ running along the horizontal axis. This is the same $v_{p}$ as discussed in the text, and previously shown in figure \[fig:FP-Coef-vs-n\]. Here, its rescaled by its asymptotic behavior, and a constant of 10 to place it on the same vertical scale. The discontinuitites clearly line up. The relationship is clearly non-trivial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generating Function
-------------------
The truncated ordinary generating function associated with the eigenvector of eqn \[eq:fp coefficients\] is $$G_{N}\left(z\right)=\sum_{m=0}^{N}v_{m}z^{m}$$ with the ordinary generating function being the limit $N\to\infty$. A numerical study of this function indicates that most of the $N$ zeros of $G_{N}$ are arranged approximately on a circle of radius $\beta$. The arrangement appear to be quite uniform, with more-or-less equi-distant spacing of the zeros. As $N$ increases, it seems that more of the zeros get closer to the circle, although the numerical instabilities associated with double-precision math make this difficult to control; an arbitrary-precision eigenvalue solver would be needed to confirm this behavior.
If this behavior persists, and it seems that it will, then the limit $N\to\infty$ cannot be taken, and the ordinary generating function, as an analytic function, can’t exist, *per se*, as it would be uniformly zero inside the disk. Thus, the zeros already found by means of eqn \[eq:holomorphic-disk\] seem to come to the rescue: these are located inside the disk; perhaps these are masquerading as “numerical instabilities”, and should be taken as actually existing, and not spurious.
In the next chapter, it will be seen that circles of zeros in the complex plane is a recurring theme. This suggests a hypothesis that somehow it might hold that $$\sum_{m}^{N}v_{m}\left(\beta z\right)^{m}\sim z^{N+1}-\sum_{k}b_{k}z^{k}$$ as both sides have zeros arranged in circles of unit radius. The right hand side is defined and explored in detail in the next chapter. Superficially, this hypothesis is clearly false: coefficients on the left are all real and positive; coefficients on the right - the $b_{k}$, are bits, either zero or one. Yet both exhibit a circle of zeros.
XXX This section is awkward. Revise it or cut it.
Givens rotations
----------------
An open question: A Hessenberg matrix can be brought to solvable form by applying a sequence of Givens rotations. Is the sequence of angles that appear in these rotations meaningful in any way, or are they just some form of uninteresting junk?
Periodic Orbits
===============
The iteration of the midpoint, used to construct the Hessenberg basis, works well, unless the midpoint iterates to hit the point $x=1/2$ where the map has a discontinuity. Here, iteration stops: at the next step, this point is defined to iterate to zero, in eqn \[eq:downshift\]. Zero is a fixed point, and so there is nowhere further to go. This occurs for certain values of $\beta$: after a finite number for steps, the midpoint $m_{0}=\beta/2$ iterates to 1/2. This section explores these special values of $\beta$.
Aside from the definition in eqn \[eq:downshift\], one can consider the modified map, where the less-than sign has been altered to a less-than-or-equals: $$T_{\beta}^{\le}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0\le x\le\frac{1}{2}\\
\beta\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}<x\le1
\end{cases}$$ In this map, the point $x=1/2$ iterates to $\beta/2$, which is just the initial midpoint itself. In this case, the halted orbits become periodic orbits. There is a third possibility, to simply remove the points 0, 1 and 1/2 from the domain: $$T_{\beta}^{<}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0<x<\frac{1}{2}\\
\beta\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}<x<1
\end{cases}$$ In this case, if the midpoint iterates to 1/2, it can be taken to simply have exited the domain of validity.
All three variants can be considered together, so that the “true” beta shift is taken as the quotient space or identification space[@WP-Quotient-Space] of the three variants, in the strict topological sense of a quotient space. Thus, interestingly, for the beta shift, the periodic orbits and the fixed point both belong to the same equivalence class. This has some interesting implications when one compares the beta shift to other iterated maps, such as the logistic map, which have non-trivial stable regions. Topologically, it would seem that one can perform a kind of surgery, attaching stable regions exactly into those spots where, in the beta shift, one has an equivalence class. This solves (at least for me) the long-standing problem of exactly how to properly describe the topological conjugacy between different kinds of iterated maps.
The $\beta$-generalized Golden Ratio
------------------------------------
The above wavelet basis seems to be well-behaved, except when $\beta=\varphi=\left(1+\sqrt{5}\right)/2$ the Golden Ratio. In this situation, one has that $m_{0}=\varphi/2$ and $m_{1}=1/2$. At this location, further iteration breaks down. That is, $m_{2}=T_{\varphi}\left(m_{1}\right)$ can either be taken to be $m_{2}=0$ or $m_{2}=m_{0}$. In the former case, iteration simply stops; in the later case, it repeats, again, without generating new midpoints that can provide a workable basis.
Working backwards, this issue re-appears whenever the $p$’th iterate $m_{p}=T_{\beta}^{p}\left(m_{0}\right)$ lands at the discontinuity, so that one may take either $m_{p}=0$ or $m_{p}=m_{0}$. For $p=3$, there are two trouble spots, which occur when either $\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-1=0$ or when $\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-\beta-1=0$. These correspond to the values of $\beta=1.465571231876768\cdots$ and $\beta=1.839286755214161\cdots$.
Where are the trouble spots located? Consider, for example, $m_{4}=T_{\beta}^{4}\left(m_{0}\right)$, and consider the movement of $m_{4}$ as $\beta$ is swept through the range $1<\beta<2$. This is shown in figure \[fig:Location-of-Midpoints\]. As made clear in the image, three new trouble spots appear. These are located at $\beta=1.380327757\cdots$ and $\beta=1.754877666\cdots$ and $\beta=1.927561975\cdots$, which are the real roots of $\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-1=0$ and $\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-1=0$ and $\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-\beta-1=0$ respectively.
![Location of Midpoints\[fig:Location-of-Midpoints\]](psimid){width="1\columnwidth"}
This rather busy image illustrates the location of the first five midpoints, $m_{0},m_{1},\cdots,m_{4}$ as a function of $\beta$. The locations of the discontinuities are termed “trouble spots”; the first trouble spot occurring for $m_{2}$ at $\beta=\varphi$. The midpoint $m_{3}$ has two new trouble spots at $\beta=1.465\cdots$ and $\beta=1.839\cdots$; the trouble spot at $\beta=\varphi$ being disallowed, as it already lead to a termination of midpoint iteration. The midpoint $m_{4}$ has three new trouble-spots.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following a similar suggestion by Dajani[@Dajani97], numbers of this kind may be called “generalized golden means”. Unfortunately, the term “generalized golden mean” is in common use, and is applied to a variety of different systems. Not all are relevant; one that is, is given by Hare *et al.*[@Hare14] who provide series expansions for the real roots of $\beta^{p}-\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\beta^{k}=0$; these are known as the n-bonacci constants (Fibonacci, tribonacci, tetranacci, *etc.*). Stakhov[@Stakhov05] considers $\beta^{p+1}-\beta^{p}-1=0$ in general settings. Some, but not all of these numbers are known to be Pisot numbers or Salem numbers[@Maia07]. In what follows, these will be referred to as the “beta golden means”, since all of the ones that appear here have explicit origins with the beta shift.
Counting Orbits
---------------
How many trouble spots are there? The table below shows the count $M_{p}$ of the number of “new” trouble spots, as a function of the midpoint index $p$.
$p$ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
--------- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -----
$M_{p}$ 1 2 3 6 9 18 30 56 99 186 335
This appears to be Sloane’s OEIS A001037 which has a number of known relationships to roots of unity, Lyndon words, and the number of orbits in the tent map. The trouble spots are the positive real roots of polynomials of the form $\beta^{p}-\beta^{p-1}-b_{1}\beta^{p-2}-b_{2}\beta^{p-3}-\cdots-1=0$ with the $b_{k}$ being certain binary bit sequences. There is just one such (positive , real) root for each such polynomial. These polynomials are irreducible, in the sense that a bit-sequence $b_{k}$ is disallowed if it has the same root as some lower-order polynomial. For example, $\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta-1$ is disallowed; it has the same root as $\beta^{2}-\beta-1$. Although the digits $b_{k}$ must be zero or one, this definition of irreducibility, plus the counting, suggests some relationship to the irreducible polynomials over the field $\text{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}}_{2}$, as that is what the definition of OEIS A001037 counts. Yet the relationship, if any, is quite unclear.[^3]
The values of $M_{n}$ are given explicitly by Moreau’s necklace-counting function $$M_{n}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{d|n}2^{d}\mu\left(\frac{n}{d}\right)$$ where the sum runs over all integers $d$ that divide $n$ and $\mu$ is the Möbius function. The generating function is $$\frac{t}{\frac{1}{2}-t}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}nM_{n}\frac{t^{n}}{1-t^{n}}$$ which has a radius of convergence of $\left|t\right|<1/2$. For large $n$, the asymptotic behavior can be trivially deduced from the defining sum: $$M_{n}=\frac{2^{n}}{n}-\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{2^{n/2}}{n}\right)$$
The above counting function is for necklaces with only two colors. In general, one can have necklaces with 3 or more colors; can that happen here? Yes, of course: if one considers the general $\beta$-transform for $2<\beta$, then, in general, it can be taken as a “kneading transform” with $\left\lceil \beta\right\rceil $ branches or folds in it. The analogous trouble-spots again appear, and they can appear after an arbitrary finite-length orbit. Insofar as they correspond to periodic orbits, they are necessarily counted by the necklace-counting function. That is, one must consider all possible strings of $\left\lceil \beta\right\rceil $ letters, modulo a cyclic permutation: this is the very definition of a necklace (or “circular word”). The number of such necklaces is given by the necklace-counting function. Each such orbit is necessarily represented by a Lyndon word, which is a representative of the conjugacy class of the orbit.
$\beta$-Golden Polynomials
--------------------------
The “trouble spots” whenever the $k$’th iterate $m_{k}=T_{\beta}^{k}\left(m_{0}\right)$ lands on the starting midpoint $m_{k}=m_{0}$. Because of the piece-wise linear form of $T_{\beta}$, the $k$’th iterate will be a piece-wise collection of polynomials, each of order $k$, and of the form $\beta^{k}-\beta^{k-1}-b_{1}\beta^{k-2}-b_{2}\beta^{k-3}-\cdots-1$ for some binary digits $b_{i}$ being zero or one. These must be arranged in the manner such that $\beta^{k}-\beta^{k-1}-b_{1}\beta^{k-2}-b_{2}\beta^{k-3}-\cdots-1=0$ at each discontinuity, as illustrated in figure \[fig:Location-of-Midpoints\]. This limits the polynomials that can appear; it limits the possible coefficients $b_{i}$; not all bit-sequences appear.
Although the count of these polynomials is the same as that for the irreducible polynomials over $\mathbb{F}_{2}$, the relationship is completely opaque (to me). Apparently, this is a generic issue: the number of irreducible polynomials over $\mathbb{F}_{p}$, for $p$ prime, is the same as the number of necklaces, and yet, there is no known bijection between these irreducible polynomials and the Lyndon words![@Glen12] Thus, a compilation seems to be called for.
The table below explicitly shows the polynomials for the first few orders. A polynomial is included in the table if it is an iterate of a previous polynomial, and if it’s real root is bracketed by the roots of the earlier iterates. That is, $\ensuremath{p_{n}\left(\beta\right)}$must have the form $\ensuremath{\beta\left(p_{n/2}\left(\beta\right)+1\right)-1}$ when $n$ is even or $\ensuremath{\beta p_{\left(n-1\right)/2}\left(\beta\right)-1}$ for $n$ odd. The roots must be bracketed by the roots of polynomials occurring earlier in the sequence; if the root is not bracketed, then the corresponding polynomial does not appear in the list.
The bracketing relationship is rather awkwardly expressed in the following pseudo-code. Here, $r_{n}$ is the root $p_{n}\left(r_{n}\right)=0$. The polynomial $p_{n}$ is included in the list if it is the case that this pseudo-code does not fail:
`m_{prev} := n`
`m := \left\lfloor n/2\right\rfloor `
`while (0 < m)`
`m_{prev} is even and r_{m} < r_{n} then fail`
`m_{prev} := m`
`m := \left\lfloor m/2\right\rfloor `
The above is a rather awkward way of stating that roots must be bracketed by pairs of previous roots. It can perhaps be more easily understood by studying the location of the discontinuities in figure \[fig:Location-of-Midpoints\]: new discontinuities at higher orders must occur before earlier ones.
Thus, for example, the polynomial $\beta^{3}-\beta-1$ is excluded from the list simply because it is not an iterate of an earlier polynomial, even though it has the interesting real root $1.324717957244746\cdots$, the “silver constant”. The numbering scheme does not even have a way of numbering this particular polynomial. Despite this, the silver constant does appear, but a bit later, as the root of $p_{8}=\beta^{5}-\beta^{4}-1$, which is an allowed polynomial.
The polynomial $p_{5}=\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta-1$ is excluded because it has $\varphi=1.618\cdots$ as a root, which was previously observed by $p_{1}$. The polynomial $p_{9}=\beta^{5}-\beta^{4}-\beta-1$ is excluded because it’s root, $r_{9}=1.497094048762796\cdots$ is greater than its predecessor $r_{2}$; the recursive algorithm does not compare to $r_{4}$.
There are other ways to start the table, and to index the polynomials. The given indexing has the property that $2n+1$, taken as binary, encodes the coefficients of the polynomial. The order of the polynomial is $\left\lceil \log_{2}\left(2n+1\right)\right\rceil $. The index $n$ itself encodes the orbit of the midpoint. That is, writing $n=b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots b_{p}$ for binary digits $b_{k}$, then $T_{\beta}^{k}\left(\beta/2\right)<1/2$ if and only if $b_{k}=0$. Note that $b_{0}=1$ always corresponds to $1/2<\beta/2$ always. By convention, the last digit is always 1, also.
order $p_{n}\left(\beta\right)$ $n$ binary root
------- --------------------------------------------------- ----- -------- --------------------------------------------
0 $1$
$\beta$ 0 0
$\beta-1$ 0 1 1
2 $\beta^{2}-\beta-1$ 1 11 $\varphi=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}=1.618\cdots$
$\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-1$ 2 101 $1.465571231876768\cdots$
$\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-\beta-1$ 3 111 $1.839286755214161\cdots$
$\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-1$ 4 1001 $1.380277569097613\cdots$
$\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-1$ 6 1101 $1.7548776662466924\cdots$
$\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-\beta-1$ 7 1111 $1.9275619754829252\cdots$
$\beta^{5}-\beta^{4}-1$ 8 10001 $1.324717957244746\cdots$
$\beta^{5}-\beta^{4}-\beta^{2}-1$ 10 10101 $1.5701473121960547\cdots$
$\beta^{5}-\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-1$ 12 11001 $1.704902776041646\cdots$
$\beta^{5}-\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta-1$ 13 11011 $1.812403619268042\cdots$
$\beta^{5}-\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-1$ 14 11101 $1.888518845484414\cdots$
$\beta^{5}-\beta^{4}-\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-\beta-1$ 15 11111 $1.965948236645485\cdots$
The next table lists the acceptable polynomials for order 5, 6 and 7. Again, the coefficients appearing in the polynomial are encoded by the binary value of $2n+1$ in the sequence.
order sequence
------- -------------------------------------------------------
5 8,10,12,13,14,15
6 16,20,24,25,26,28,29,30,31
7 32,36,40,42,48,49,50,52,53,54,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63
Although there are as many of these polynomials as there are Lyndon words, there is no obvious way to write a bijection between the two. It is almost possible to do so by writing $2n$ in binary, and then reversing the order of the bits, left-to-right. One almost gets the Lyndon words in the correct order, except “in the middle”: so, for example, in the table above, one can get the Lyndon order by exchanging 10 with 12, and 13 with 14. But the table above cannot be re-ordered: the given ordering encodes the orbit of the midpoint. Apparently, although a given orbit can be cyclically rotated to obtain a Lyndon word, the initial segment of the orbit is not a Lyndon word itself.
Questions that present themselves include:
- Is there a generating function for the squence of allowed values of $n$? What is it?
- How long is the initial segment of each periodic orbit, before the orbit attains it’s Lyndon word form? What are the values of $\beta$ where the initial orbits are not in Lyndon form?
Distribution of $\beta$-Golden Roots
------------------------------------
It seems natural to assume that the real roots have some distribution. This seems not to be the case. Figure \[fig:Distribution-of-Golden\] shows the numerically computed (bin-counted) distribution of the zeros of $p_{n}\left(\beta\right)$ for $n<2^{k}$ for three different values of $k$. This suggests that, in the limit of $k\to\infty$, almost all $p_{n}\left(\beta\right)$ have roots that approach 2. Although the roots appear to be dense in $1<\beta<2$, essentially all of the weight of that density is at $2$. Since the roots are countable, the density clearly becomes very thin.
![Distribution of Golden Means\[fig:Distribution-of-Golden\]](irred){width="1\columnwidth"}
The bin-counted distribution of roots of $p_{n}\left(\beta\right)$ for three different cutoffs, and the corresponding eyeballed fit. Bin-counting proceeds by dividing the range $1<\beta<2$ into 1303 equal–width bins. Proceeding methodically to find roots for all $n<2^{k}$ for fixed $k$, each root is assigned to a bin. At the end of the counting process, the bin-counts are normalized by the width of the bin, and the total number of roots observed (*i.e.* by the Moreau counting function). For fixed $k$, the distribution appears to be approximately exponential (but not quite - there is a deviation from linearity in the graph above, just barely discernable by naked eye). Three different $k$’s are shown, and three eyeballed fits. The general trend appears to be that, for fixed $k$, the distribution is approximately $\beta^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha\simeq k+3-\log_{2}k\simeq\log_{2}M_{k+3}$. Clearly, the $k\to\infty$ limit accumulates all the measure at $\beta=2$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The local distribution of roots can be sensed from the figure \[fig:Distance-Between-Means\], which visualizes the distance between neighboring roots.
![Distance Between Means\[fig:Distance-Between-Means\]](bump){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure visualizes the inverse distance between golden means. A total of $1375=\sum_{k=1}^{12}M_{k}$ roots were obtained, and then sorted into ascending order. Letting $r_{n}$ represent the $n$’th root in this sequence, this shows the reciprocal distance $1/1375\left(r_{n+1}-r_{n}\right)$. Increasing the number of roots essentially just rescales this graph, making it progressively more vertical. In essence, almost all of the roots accumulate near ( $\beta=2$; roots become increasingly rare the smaller the $\beta$. In the limit, one might say that essentially all roots are at $\beta=2$: although the roots are dense in the interval $1<\beta<2$, the counting measure indicates that they are accumulating at $\beta=2$ only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complex Roots
-------------
What are the complex roots? Numerical work clearly indicates that they seem to be approximately cyclotomic in some sense or another. They seem to be more-or-less uniformly distributed in a circle, always. The modulus of most of the complex roots appear to be less than one. This is violated for the complex roots of $p_{2^{k}}\left(\beta\right)=\beta^{k+2}-\beta^{k+1}-1$, where some of the roots in the right-hand quadrant have a modulus larger than one. By contrast, the complex roots of $p_{2^{k}-1}\left(\beta\right)=\beta^{k+1}-\sum_{j=0}^{k}\beta^{j}$ seem to always have a modulus less than one. These two seem to be the extreme cases: in general, the polynomials appear to be “approximately cyclotomic”. Its not clear how to make this statement more precise.
These numerical results can be argued heuristically: just divide the polynomial by it’s leading order. That is, a general polynomial of this form is $$p_{n}\left(z\right)=z^{k+1}-\sum_{j=0}^{k}b_{j}z^{k-j}$$ with the convention that $b_{0}=b_{k}=1$, and the bit-sequence $n=b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots b_{p}$ corresponding to a terminating orbit. Dividing by $z^{k+1}$gives a series $$1-\frac{1}{z}-\frac{b_{1}}{z^{2}}-\frac{b_{2}}{z^{3}}-\cdots$$ Clearly, this can have a zero only when $\left|z\right|<2$ as otherwise, the terms get too small too quickly.
$\beta$-Golden $\beta$-Fibonacci Sequences
------------------------------------------
It is well known that the golden ratio occurs as limit of the ratio of adjacent Fibonacci numbers: $$\varphi=\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{F_{m}}{F_{m-1}}$$ where $F_{m}=F_{m-1}+F_{m-2}$. There is a generalization of this, which also has received attention: the tribonacci, quadronacci, *etc*. sequences, whose limits are $$\alpha_{n}=\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{F_{m}^{(n)}}{F_{m-1}^{(n)}}$$ where $F_{m}^{(n)}=F_{m-1}^{(n)}+F_{m-2}^{(n)}+\cdots+F_{m-n}^{(n)}$.
Is it possible that the real roots of the polynomials $p_{n}(\beta)$ are also the roots of such sequences? But of course they are! Given a finite string of binary digits $\left\{ b\right\} =b_{0},b_{1},\cdots,b_{k}$, write the beta-Fibonacci sequence as $$F_{m}^{\{b\}}=b_{0}F_{m-1}^{\{b\}}+b_{1}F_{m-2}^{\{b\}}+\cdots b_{k}F_{m-k}^{\{b\}}$$ The name “beta-Fibonacci” is needed because the term “generalized Fibonacci sequence” is already in wide circulation for the special case of all bits being one. The ratio of successive terms is $$\alpha^{\{b\}}=\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{F_{m}^{\{b\}}}{F_{m-1}^{\{b\}}}$$ and is given as the (positive) real root of the polynomial $$p_{n}\left(\beta\right)=\beta^{k+1}-b_{0}\beta^{k}-b_{1}\beta^{k-1}-\cdots-b_{k}=0$$ These polynomials and their roots were already enumerated and tabulated in the previous section.
The beta-Fibonacci sequences do not appear by accident: these sequences have an ordinary generating function (OGF) given by the polynomial! That is, $$\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}z^{m}F_{m}^{\{b\}}=\frac{z^{k}}{1-b_{0}z-b_{1}z^{2}-\cdots-b_{k}z^{k+1}}=\frac{1}{zp_{n}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)}$$ The factor of $z^{k}$ in the numerator serves only to initiate the sequence so that $F_{0}^{\{b\}}=\cdots=F_{k-1}^{\{b\}}=0$ and $F_{k}^{\{b\}}=1$.
These sequences are generic: they indicate how many different ways one can partition the integer $m$ into elements of the set $\left\{ b_{0},2b_{1},3b_{2},\cdots,\left(k+1\right)b_{k}\right\} $. So, for example, the entry for $n=12$ in the table below corresponds to OEIS A079971, which describes the number of ways an integer $m$ can be partitioned into 1, 2 and 5 (or that $5m$ can be partitioned into nickels, dimes and quarters). This corresponds to the bit sequence $\left\{ b\right\} =11001$; that is, $\left\{ b_{0},2b_{1},3b_{2},\cdots,\left(k+1\right)b_{k}\right\} =\left\{ 1\cdot1,2\cdot1,3\cdot0,4\cdot0,5\cdot1\right\} =\left\{ 1,2,5\right\} $. From such partitions, it appears that one can build partitions of the positive integers that are disjoint, and whose union is the positive integers. This suggests a question: can these partititions be expressed as Beatty sequences?
The previous table is partly repeated below, this time annotated with the OEIS sequence references.
$n$ binary root root identity sequence
----- -------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------
0 1 1
1 11 $\varphi=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}=1.618\cdots$ golden ratio Fibonacci A000045
2 101 $1.465571231876768\cdots$ OEIS A092526 Narayana A000930
3 111 $1.839286755214161\cdots$ tribonacci A058265 tribonacci A000073
4 1001 $1.380277569097613\cdots$ 2nd pisot A086106 A003269
6 1101 $1.754877666246692\cdots$ OEIS A109134 A060945
7 1111 $1.927561975482925\cdots$ tetranacci A086088 tetranacci A000078
8 10001 $1.324717957244746\cdots$ silver A060006 A003520
10 10101 $1.570147312196054\cdots$ pisot A293506 A060961
12 11001 $1.704902776041646\cdots$ A079971
13 11011 $1.812403619268042\cdots$ A079976
14 11101 $1.888518845484414\cdots$ A079975
15 11111 $1.965948236645485\cdots$ pentanacci A103814 A001591
All of these integer sequences and roots participate in a number of curious relations having a regular form; this is, of course, the whole point of listing them in the OEIS. This suggests a question: do the known relationships generalize to the beta-shift setting?
For example, there are various known relations for the “generalized golden means”. These are the roots of the series for which all $b_{k}=1$, that is, the roots of $$\beta^{k+1}-\beta^{k}-\beta^{k-1}-\cdots-1=0$$ In the present notation, these would be the roots of the polynomials $p_{n}\left(\beta\right)=0$ for $n=2^{k}-1$. Such roots can be rapidly computed by a series provided by Hare, Prodinger and Shallit[@Hare14]: $$\frac{1}{\alpha_{k}}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{j}{j\left(k+1\right) \choose j-1}\frac{1}{2^{j\left(k+1\right)}}$$ This series is obtained by making good use of the Lagrange inversion formula. Here, $\alpha_{k}$ is the $k$’th generalized golden mean, i.e. the solution $p_{2^{k}-1}\left(\alpha_{k}\right)=0$. Can the Hare series be extended to provide the roots $r_{n}$ of $p_{n}\left(r_{n}\right)=0$ for general $n$?
Another set of observations seem to invoke the theory of complex multiplication on elliptic curves, and pose additional questions. So:
The tribonacci root $r_{3}$ is given by $$r_{3}=\frac{1}{3}\left(1+\sqrt[3]{19+3\sqrt{33}}+\sqrt[3]{19-3\sqrt{33}}\right)\simeq1.839\cdots$$
The silver number (plastic number) $r_{8}$ is given by $$r_{8}=\frac{1}{6}\left(\sqrt[3]{108+12\sqrt{69}}+\sqrt[3]{108-12\sqrt{69}}\right)\simeq1.324\cdots$$
The Narayana’s cows number $r_{2}$ is given by $$r_{2}=\frac{1}{6}\sqrt[3]{116+12\sqrt{93}}+\frac{2}{3\sqrt[3]{116+12\sqrt{93}}}+\frac{1}{3}\simeq1.645\cdots$$
The root $r_{6}$ is related to the silver number $r_{8}$ as $r_{8}=r_{6}\left(r_{6}-1\right)$ and is given by $$r_{6}=\frac{1}{6}\sqrt[3]{108+12\sqrt{69}}+\frac{2}{\left(\sqrt[3]{108+12\sqrt{69}}\right)^{2}}\simeq1.754\cdots$$
Do the other roots have comparable expressions? To obtain them, is it sufficient to articulate the theory of “complex multiplication” on elliptic curves? The appearance of only the cube and square roots is certainly suggestive of an underlying process of points on elliptic curves.
$\beta$-Fibonacci sequences as shifts
-------------------------------------
The nature of the $\beta$-Fibonacci sequences as shift sequences can be emphasized by noting that they arise from the iteration of a $\left(k+1\right)\times\left(k+1\right)$ matrix in lower-Hessenberg form: $$B=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
b_{0} & 1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
b_{1} & 0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
b_{2} & 0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \ddots & \vdots\\
b_{k-1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 1\\
b_{k} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{array}\right]\label{eq:golden matrix}$$ That is, the $m$’th element of the sequence is obtained from the $m$’th iterate $B^{m}$. That such iteration results in integer sequences has long been observed in the theory of continued fractions. It’s useful to work an explicit example. For the golden ratio, one has $$B=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right]$$ and the iterates are $$B^{2}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 1\\
1 & 1
\end{array}\right],\;B^{3}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
3 & 2\\
2 & 1
\end{array}\right],\;B^{4}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
5 & 3\\
3 & 2
\end{array}\right],\;B^{n}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
F_{n} & F_{n-1}\\
F_{n-1} & F_{n-2}
\end{array}\right]$$ with $F_{n}$ being the $n$’th Fibonacci number, as usual. For the general case, one has that $$B^{m}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
F_{m}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & F_{m-1}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & F_{m-2}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & \cdots & F_{m-k+1}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & F_{m-k}^{\left\{ b\right\} }\\
F_{m-1}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & F_{m-2}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & F_{m-3}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & \cdots & F_{m-k}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & F_{m-k-1}^{\left\{ b\right\} }\\
F_{m-2}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & F_{m-3}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & & \cdots\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots\\
F_{m-k+1}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & & & \cdots\\
F_{m-k}^{\left\{ b\right\} } & & & \cdots & & F_{m-2k}^{\left\{ b\right\} }
\end{array}\right]$$ so that the top row consists of the latest sequence values. When multiplied by the bits, this just generates the next iterate in the sequence. The upper-diagonal 1’s just serve to shift columns over by one, with each iteration: that is why it’s a shift!
The characteristic polynomial of this matrix is, of course, the polynomial $p_{n}$: $$\det\left[B-xI\right]=\left(-1\right)^{k}p_{n}\left(x\right)$$ Thus, we can trivially conclude that the eigenvalues of $B$ are given by the roots of $p_{n}\left(x\right)$. This matrix is in lower-Hessenberg form; this makes it obvious that it’s a shift; a finite shift, in this case.
Equivalent labels for orbits
----------------------------
At this point, it should be clear that there are several equivalent ways of labeling the expressions under consideration. These are recapped here. Proofs are omitted; they are straight-forward.
### Orbits
For every given $1<\beta<2$ there is a unique orbit of midpoints $\left\{ m_{p}\right\} $ given by $m_{p}=T_{\beta}\left(m_{p-1}\right)=T_{\beta}^{p}\left(m_{0}\right)$ and $m_{0}=\beta/2$. The orbits are in one-to-one correspondence with $\beta$. The midpoints are the same as the Renyi-Parry seqence; namely $T_{\beta}^{p}\left(\beta/2\right)=t_{\beta}^{p}\left(1\right)$, recalling here the notation of eqn \[eq:beta transform\] and \[eq:invariant measure\].
### Orbit encoding
The midpoint generates a unique sequence of bits $\left\{ b_{0},b_{1,},\cdots,b_{k},\cdots\right\} $ given by the left-right move of the mid-point, as it is iterated. That is, $b_{k}=\Theta\left(m_{k}-1/2\right)$ so that $b_{k}$ is one if the midpoint is greater than half, else $b_{k}$ is zero. Each bit-sequence is in one-to-one correspondence with $\beta$.
### Monotonicity
The compressor function $w\left(\beta\right)=\sum_{k}b_{k}2^{-k}$ is a monotonically increasing function of $\beta$, so that values of $w\left(\beta\right)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with $\beta$.
### Polynomial numbering
If the orbit is periodic, then there exists a polynomial $p_{n}\left(z\right)=z^{k+1}-b_{0}z^{k}-b_{1}z^{k-1}-\cdots-b_{k-1}z-1$ with $k=1+\left\lfloor \log_{2}n\right\rfloor $ being the length of the orbit. The positive real root of $p_{n}\left(z\right)$ is $\beta$. The integer $n$ is in one-to-one correspondence with the bit sequence, and with the value of $\beta$.
### Integer sequences
If the orbit is periodic, then there exists a sequence of integers $F^{\{b\}}$, the beta-Fibonacci sequence, that is in one-to-one correspondence with the finite bit sequence $\left\{ b\right\} =b_{0},b_{1},\cdots,b_{k}$, and with the value of $\beta$.
### Shift matrix
If the orbit is periodic, then the finite bit sequence $\left\{ b\right\} =b_{0},b_{1},\cdots,b_{k}$ defines a lower-Hessenberg “golden shift” matrix $B$, as shown in eqn \[eq:golden matrix\].
### Summary
To summarize: any one of these: the integer $n$, the polynomial $p_{n}\left(x\right)$, the integer sequence $F_{m}^{\left\{ b\right\} }$, the orbit of midpoints $m_{p}=T^{p}\left(\beta/2\right)$, the orbit encoding $\left\{ b\right\} $, the shift matrix $B$, the value of the compressor function $w\left(\beta\right)$ and, of course, $\beta$ itself can each be used as a stand-in for the others. Specifying one determines the others; they all uniquely map to one-another. They are all equivalent labels. Fashionably abusing notation, $n\equiv p_{n}\left(x\right)\equiv\left\{ b\right\} \equiv F_{m}^{\left\{ b\right\} }\equiv m_{p}\equiv w\left(\beta\right)\equiv\beta\equiv B$.
An explicit expression relating the orbit encoding and the orbit can be read off directly from eqn \[eq:iterated shift\]. Plugging in, $$m_{p}=T_{\beta}^{p+1}\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)=\frac{\beta}{2}\left[\beta^{p+1}-\sum_{j=0}^{p}b_{j}\beta^{p-j}\right]\label{eq:midpoint poly}$$ for $p<k$ the length of the bit sequence, and $m_{k}=T_{\beta}^{k+1}\left(\beta/2\right)=\beta p_{n}\left(\beta\right)/2=0$ terminating, since $\beta$ is the positive root of $p_{n}\left(x\right)$.
Four of the correspondences given above ask for periodic orbits. Three of these can be extended to non-periodic orbits in an unambiguous and uncontroversial way. The extensions are covered in the next two sections. The fourth is the numbering $n$ of the finite orbits. These are countable; there is no way to extend the counting number $n$ to the non-periodic orbits. Ineed, there ae too many: the non-periodic orbits are uncountable.
Infinite-nacci integer sequences
---------------------------------
The beta-Fibonacci integer sequence can be extended to arbitrary (*viz.* infinite) length bit sequences, as $$F_{m}^{\{b\}}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}b_{j-1}F_{m-j}^{\{b\}}$$ starting with $F_{0}^{\left\{ b\right\} }=1$. The sum is always finite, but one cannot perform it without first knowing at least the first $m$ bits of the (now infinite) bit-sequence $\left\{ b\right\} $. The integer sequence still has the desirable property it had before: $$\beta=\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{F_{m}^{\{b\}}}{F_{m-1}^{\{b\}}}$$ Here, the $\beta$ value is the one associated to $\left\{ b\right\} $. So, as before, the real number $\beta$ and the bit sequence $\left\{ b\right\} $ label exactly the same orbit.
Remarkably, one can be sloppy in how one deals with periodic orbits with this extention. One has two choices that are equivalent: One choice is to truncate, so that the bit-sequence ends with all-zeros, effectively rendering it of finite length. The alternative is to allow it to continue periodically, forever. Either form results in the same $\beta$-Fibonacci sequence!
As an example, consider $\beta=1.6$, which is close to the golden ratio, but not quite. It has an infinite non-periodic (non-recurring) bit-sequence $\left\{ b\right\} =101010010100101000000100\cdots$. The generated integer sequence is $F_{m}^{\{b\}}=1,1,1,2,3,5,8,12,20,32,51,82,130,209,335,535,\cdots$ which undershoots the Fibonacci sequence (12 appears, where we expected 13, and 20 instead of 21, and so on). The ratio of the last two is $535/335=1.597\cdots$ and the previous is $335/209=1.603\cdots$ and the ratio of successive elements eventually converges to 1.6. By comparison, the Fibonacci sequence is generated by the bit-string 1010101010... of alternating ones and zeros.
The $\beta$-Fibonacci representation of the orbits has the remarkable property that one does not need some *a priori* mechanism to know if some orbit is periodic or not. This dual-representation of periodic orbits is reminiscent of a property commonly seen in Cantor space $2^{\omega}$ representations of the real number line, where the dyadic rationals (which are countable, of course) map to two distinct bit-sequences (one ending in all-ones, the other ending in all-zeros). A more general setting for this is given in symbolic dynamics, where the totally disconnected Bernoulli scheme $N^{\omega}$ can be used to represent elements of certain countable sets two different ways. For $N=10$, one famously has that 1.000...=0.999... as an example. So likewise here, one can toggle between finite and infinite-periodic strings. So, given a finite string $\left\{ b\right\} =b_{0},b_{1},\cdots,b_{k-1},b_{k}$ which has, by definition, $b_{k}=1$, create a new finite string that is twice as long: $\left\{ b^{\prime}\right\} =b_{0},b_{1},\cdots,b_{k-1},0,b_{0},b_{1},\cdots,b_{k}$ which necessarily has exactly the same beta-Fiboanacci sequence. That is, $F_{m}^{\{b^{\prime}\}}=F_{m}^{\{b\}}$. Once can repeat this process *ad infinitum*, obtaining an infinite periodic string. The difference between these two is simply the difference between a less-than-sign, and a less-than-or-equal sign used in the generation of the orbit, as noted at the very begining of this chapter. We have proven: finite orbits are exactly the same as infinite periodic orbits, at least when represented by real numbers and by integer sequences. Conversely, the difference between using $<$ and $\le$ during iteration is immaterial for describing convergents.
Infinite $\beta$-Polynomials
----------------------------
An infinite polynomial is, of course, an analytic function. The goal here is to extend the finite framework. The definition of the polynomials above requires a finite bit sequence. This can be extended to an asymptotic series, by writing first $$p_{n}\left(z\right)=z^{k+1}\left(1-b_{0}z^{-1}-b_{1}z^{-2}-\cdots-b_{k}z^{-k-1}\right)$$ Set $\zeta=1/z$ to get $$\zeta^{k+1}p_{n}\left(\frac{1}{\zeta}\right)=1-b_{0}\zeta-b_{1}\zeta^{2}-\cdots-b_{k}\zeta^{k+1}$$ which extends to the holomorphic function $$q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=1-\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}b_{j}\zeta^{j+1}$$ This is manifestly holomorphic on the unit disk, as each coefficient is either zero or one. It has a positive real zero, of course: $q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(1/\beta\right)=0$. Comparing to eqn \[eq:holomorphic-disk\], we see that this is exactly the same function, or rather, it’s negative. Indeed, following the definition, $b_{n}=d_{n}\left(1/2\right)$ and so $D\left(\beta;\zeta\right)=-q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)$.
This at last provides a foot in the door for correctly describing the eigenvalues of the $\beta$-transfer operator: they are in one-to-one correspondence with the zeros of $q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)$.
$\beta$-Hessenberg operator
---------------------------
Extending the golden shift matrix $B$ of eqn \[eq:golden matrix\] to an infinite-dimensional operator is a bit trickier. Of course, one could just declare the matrix elements of the operator to be this-and-such, but these matrix elements are with respect to what basis? Is the operator even bounded? The answer to the second question is obviously “no”.
The characteristic equation of $B$ is $p_{n}\left(\beta\right)=0$; the Frobenius-Perron eigenvalue $\beta>1$ is too large, although the $k-1=\left\lfloor \log_{2}n\right\rfloor $ other roots are conveniently arranged near the unit circle, more-or-less equidistant from one another. The solution is to rescale $B$ by $1/\beta$. The Frobenius-Perron eigenvalue is now one, and the remaining eigenvalues distributed near or on a circle of radius $1/\beta$. We may as well take the transpose as well, so that $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}=B^{T}/\beta$ is in upper-Hessenberg form. Rescaled in this way, it now seems safe to declare, by fiat, that the operator $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$ is the correct extension of the matrix $B$ to infinite dimensions. Just to be explicit: given the bit-sequence $\left\{ b\right\} $, the operator$\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$ has the matrix elements $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle 0\left|\mathcal{B}_{\beta}\right|j\right\rangle & =\frac{b_{j}}{\beta}\\
\left\langle j+1\left|\mathcal{B}_{\beta}\right|j\right\rangle & =\frac{1}{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ with all other entries being zero. This is clearly in upper-Hessenberg form, with the subdiagonal providing the shift.
Comparing to the upper-Hessenberg form of $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ of eqn \[eq:hessen-matrix-elts\], and the numerical results on it’s eigenvalues, it seems clear that $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ must surely be similar. That is, there must be an operator $S$ such that
$$\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=S^{-1}\mathcal{B}_{\beta}S$$ The invariant measure $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}\rho=\rho$ is mapped to $\sigma=S\rho$, where $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}\sigma=\sigma$ is the FP-eigenvector. It is easy to write down $\sigma$ explicitly: $\sigma=\left(1,\beta^{-1},\beta^{-2},\cdots\right)$, that is, $\sigma_{j}=\beta^{-j}$. This is obviously so: the subdiagonal entries of $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$ act as a shift on $\sigma$ and the top row is just $$1=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\left\langle 0\left|\mathcal{B}_{\beta}\right|j\right\rangle \sigma_{j}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}b_{j}\beta^{-j-1}=1-q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\frac{1}{\beta}\right)=1$$
Although $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$ is no more solvable than $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ in the wavelet basis is, it is certainly much, much easier to work with. It also re-affirms the ansatz \[eq:coherent-first-order\] for eigenfunctions. To be explicit: if $v$ is a vector satisfying $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}v=\lambda v$, with vector elements $v_{j}$, then the function $$v\left(x\right)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}d_{j}\left(x\right)v_{j}$$ is an eigenfunction of the transfoer operator: that is, $\left[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}v\right]\left(x\right)=\lambda v\left(x\right)$, or, explicitly: $$\frac{1}{\beta}\left[v\left(\frac{x}{\beta}\right)+v\left(\frac{x}{\beta}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]\Theta\left(\frac{\beta}{2}-x\right)=\lambda v\left(x\right)\label{eq:fundamental-shift}$$ which is just eqn \[eq:xfer oper\]. So, for $\lambda=1$, this is just $v=\sigma$ which is just eqn \[eq:coherent-first-order\] for $z=1$, the invariant measure, as always. But it also says more: the *only* solutions to $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}v=\lambda v$ are necessarily of the form $v=\left(1,\left(\lambda\beta\right)^{-1},\left(\lambda\beta\right)^{-2},\cdots\right)$, because the subdiagonal forces this shift. To satisfy the the top row of $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$, one must have that $$\lambda=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\left\langle 0\left|\mathcal{B}_{\beta}\right|j\right\rangle v_{j}=\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{b_{j}}{\left(\lambda\beta\right)^{j}}=\lambda\left(1-q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\frac{1}{\lambda\beta}\right)\right)=\lambda$$ and so the eigenvalue $\lambda$ is exactly the eigenvalue that solves the $\beta$-series $q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(1/\lambda\beta\right)=0$.
This falls short of being a full proof; this line of argumentation only affirms the ansatz \[eq:coherent-first-order\]. To recap: periodic orbits have an associated shift matrix $B$; this extends naturally to a shift operator $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$ for non-periodic orbits. The shift operator has a sufficiently simple form that it’s eigenvectors can be explicitly written down in closed form; they are necessarily coherent states. The top row of the shift operator defines a holomorphic function $q^{\left\{ b\right\} }$ whose zeros correspond to eigenstates of the shift operator. The holomorphic function is determined by the binary digit sequence $\left\{ b\right\} $. The binary digit sequence is obtained from the iterated midpoint, as $b_{j}=d_{j}\left(1/2\right)$ where $d_{j}\left(x\right)=1$ if $x<T^{n}\left(\beta/2\right)$. This is enough to prove eqn \[eq:fundamental-shift\] holds for the special value $x=0$ (for *any* eigenvalue $\lambda$); it is no enough to show that it holds for any $x$. For the full proof, one needs the “fundamental theorem of analytic ergodics”, which I don’t have here.
Example eigenfunctions
----------------------
The above provides a spur to further examine the spectrum of the transfer operator. Some examples are worked through here.
To recap: eigenstates of the transfer operator correspond with the zeros of $q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)$, or, more precisely, the zeros for which $\left|\zeta\right|\le1$. The reason for this limitation is that the eigenstates are explictly given by $$v\left(x\right)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}d_{m}\left(x\right)\zeta^{m}$$ for $\zeta=1/\beta\lambda$; this is absolutely convergent only for $\left|\zeta\right|<1$. One might hope to analytically extend this to the entire complex plane, but the extension depends on the digit sequence $d_{m}\left(x\right)$. We’re lacking in a tractable mechanism to perform this extension.
### Case n=1
Consider first $\beta=\varphi=1.6180\cdots$ the golden ratio. The corresponding finite beta-polynomial is $q^{\left\{ 11\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=1-\zeta-\zeta^{2}$; the infinite series is $$q^{\left\{ 1010101\cdots\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=1-\zeta-\zeta^{3}-\zeta^{5}-\cdots=\left(1-\zeta-\zeta^{2}\right)/\left(1-\zeta^{2}\right)$$ which has a positive real zero at $\zeta=1/\varphi$ and poles at $\zeta=\pm1$. The zero corresponds to the FP eigenvalue of one. The invariant measure is $$v\left(x\right)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{d_{m}\left(x\right)}{\varphi^{m}}=\begin{cases}
\varphi & \mbox{for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
1 & \mbox{for }\frac{1}{2}\le x<\varphi\\
0 & \mbox{for }\varphi\le1
\end{cases}$$ There is a negative real zero at $\zeta=-\varphi$, but the eigenfunction summation is not convergent here.
### Case n=2
The $n=2$ case has the finite bitstring $\left\{ b\right\} =101$ and the periodic bitstring $\left\{ b\right\} =1001001\cdots$. The corresponding finite beta-polynomial is $q^{\left\{ 101\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=1-\zeta-\zeta^{3}$; the infinite series is $$q^{\left\{ 1001\cdots\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=1-\zeta-\zeta^{4}-\zeta^{7}-\cdots=\left(1-\zeta-\zeta^{3}\right)/\left(1-\zeta^{3}\right)$$ which has a positive real zero at $\zeta=1/\beta=0.6823\cdots$ and three poles on the unit circle. The FP eigenvalue provides $\beta=1.4655\cdots$. The invariant measure is $$v\left(x\right)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{d_{m}\left(x\right)}{\beta^{m}}=\begin{cases}
\frac{\beta}{\beta-1} & \mbox{for }0\le x<T\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\\
\frac{1}{\beta-1} & \mbox{for }T\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
\frac{1/\beta}{\beta-1} & \mbox{for }\frac{1}{2}\le x<\beta\\
0 & \mbox{for }\beta\le1
\end{cases}$$ There are many equivalent ways to write the invariant measure; the above just selected some representatives from the coset of equivalent expressions. For example, the third entry could be written as $\beta=1/\beta\left(\beta-1\right)$.
### Case n=3
The $n=3$ case has the finite bitstring $\left\{ b\right\} =111$ and the periodic bitstring $\left\{ b\right\} =1101101\cdots$. The corresponding finite beta-polynomial is $q^{\left\{ 111\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=1-\zeta-\zeta^{2}-\zeta^{3}$; the infinite series is $$q^{\left\{ 110110\cdots\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=1-\zeta-\zeta^{2}-\zeta^{4}-\cdots=\left(1-\zeta-\zeta^{2}-\zeta^{3}\right)/\left(1-\zeta^{3}\right)$$ which has a positive real zero at $\zeta=1/\beta=0.5436\cdots$ and three poles on the unit circle. The FP eigenvalue gives $\beta=1.8392\cdots$. The invariant measure is $$v\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
\frac{\beta}{\beta-1} & \mbox{for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
\beta & \mbox{for }\frac{1}{2}\le x<T\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\\
\frac{1}{\beta-1} & \mbox{for }T\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\le x<\beta\\
0 & \mbox{for }\beta\le1
\end{cases}$$
### Case n=4,6,7
The pattern gets repetitive. There is no case $n=5$, as this is not one of the allowed orbits. The bitstrings are those previously listed in tables; they are $\left\{ b\right\} =1001$ $\left\{ b\right\} =1101$ and $\left\{ b\right\} =1111$. The infinite series is $q^{\left\{ b\cdots\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)/\left(1-\zeta^{4}\right)$. The zeros are as previously listed. The $n=4$ plateuas are at $\frac{1}{\beta-1}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\beta, & 1, & \frac{1}{\beta}, & \frac{1}{\beta^{2}}\end{array}\right]$. The $n=6$ plateaus are at $\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}, & \frac{\beta^{2}}{\left(\beta^{2}-1\right)\left(\beta-1\right)}, & \beta, & \frac{\beta}{\left(\beta^{2}-1\right)\left(\beta-1\right)}\end{array}\right]$. The $n=7$ plateaus are at $\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}, & \beta, & \frac{\beta+1}{\beta\left(\beta-1\right)}, & \frac{1}{\beta-1}\end{array}\right]$. Again, the values at the plateaus can be written in many different ways, given the finite polynomail.
### Case n=16
The $n=16$ polynomial is the first one to have complex zeros inside the unit disk. The finite bitstring is $\left\{ b\right\} =100001$ and so the polynomial is $q^{\left\{ 100001\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=1-\zeta-\zeta^{6}$. The positive real root is $\zeta=0.7780895986786\cdots$ and so $\beta=1/\zeta=1.28519903324535\cdots$. The complex zeros are located at $\zeta=0.965709509\cdots\exp\pm i\pi0.2740452363\cdots$ which corresponds to eigenvalues are $\lambda=0.525107\cdots\pm i0.611100\cdots=0.805718\cdots\exp\pm i\pi0.274045\cdots$. The correspnding eigenfunction is shown immediately below.
{width="0.6\columnwidth"}
The order of $q^{\left\{ b\right\} }$ is six, and this has six almost-plateaus; they are not quite flat, although they are close to it, presumably because $\zeta$ is close to one.
### The general case
Generalizing from the above, one finds the following:
- For a period-$k$ orbit, the infinite series is $q^{\left\{ b\cdots\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)=q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)/\left(1-\zeta^{k}\right)$.
- The first label $n$ for which $q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)$ has a complex zero within the disk is $n=16$. As a general rule, it seems that complex zeros inside the disk only appear for $\beta<\varphi$ (I beleive; have not carefully checked. This seems reasonable, as later chapters show that the region of $\beta<\varphi$ behaves very differently from larger values.)
- The invariant measure has $k$ plateaus. The plateau boundaries are given by $T^{m}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)$ for $m=\left\{ 0,\cdots,k-1\right\} $ (so that $T^{0}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2}$ and $T^{1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=\frac{\beta}{2}$, and so on).
- The left-most plateau (of the invariant measure) is at $\beta/\left(\beta-1\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}1/\beta^{n}$.
- The other plateaus appear to be at simple rational functions of $\beta$, but a precise expression is elusive.
To solve the last issue, perhaps one can find tools in Galois theory. Let $\mathbb{R}\left[\zeta\right]$ be the ring of polynomials in $\zeta$ and consider the quotient ring $L=\mathbb{R}\left[\zeta\right]/q^{\left\{ b\right\} }\left(\zeta\right)$. This $L$ is a field extension of $\mathbb{R}$ and so one expects a Galois group $\mbox{Gal}\left(L/\mathbb{R}\right)$. The plateaus of the invariant measure are presumably associated with the group elements. This seems like a promising direction to go in: perhaps this is just enough to explain the length of an orbit, the sequence of points in the orbit, the reason that some polynomials are forbidden (they don’t generate prime ideals), the appareance of Moreau’s necklace-counting function, *etc*. This remains an unfinished exercise.
Factorization
-------------
The polynomials factorize. Let $r_{n}$ denote the real positive root of $p_{n}\left(x\right)$ – that is, $p_{n}\left(r_{n}\right)=0$. Then one has the factorizations (dropping the subscript on $r$ for readability) $$p_{1}\left(x\right)=x^{2}-x-1=\left(x-r\right)\left(x+r-1\right)=\left(x-r\right)\left(x+p_{0}\left(r\right)\right)$$ where $p_{0}\left(x\right)=x-1$. Likewise, there are two order-3 polynomials. They factor as $$p_{2}\left(x\right)=x^{3}-x-1=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{2}+xp_{0}\left(r\right)+rp_{0}\left(r\right)\right)$$ while
$$p_{3}\left(x\right)=x^{3}-x^{2}-x-1=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{2}+xp_{0}\left(r\right)+p_{1}\left(r\right)\right)$$ Continuing in this way, there are three order-4 polynomials. They factor as $$p_{7}\left(x\right)=x^{4}-x^{3}-x^{2}-x-1=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{3}+x^{2}p_{0}\left(r\right)+xp_{1}\left(r\right)+p_{3}\left(r\right)\right)$$ and $$p_{6}\left(x\right)=x^{4}-x^{3}-x^{2}-1=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{3}+x^{2}p_{0}\left(r\right)+xp_{1}\left(r\right)+rp_{1}\left(r\right)\right)$$ and (noting that there is no $p_{5}$ that occurs in the series) $$p_{4}\left(x\right)=x^{4}-x^{3}-1=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{3}+x^{2}p_{0}\left(r\right)+xrp_{0}\left(r\right)+r^{2}p_{0}\left(r\right)\right)$$
There’s clearly a progression, but perhaps a bit difficult to grasp. It can be more clearly seen by writing $p_{n}=q_{2n+1}$ and then writing out $2n+1$ in binary. So, once again, from the top: $$p_{1}\left(x\right)=q_{11}\left(x\right)=\left(x-r\right)\left(x+q_{1}\right)$$ where $q_{1}=q_{1}\left(r\right)$ which adopts the shorthand that the $q$ polynomials on the right-hand side always have $r$ as an argument, which can be dropped for clarity. Note also that $q_{0}\left(r\right)=r$ was already previously observed, in an earlier section. That is, using the dropped-$r$ convention, $q_{0}=r$. Next $$p_{2}\left(x\right)=q_{101}\left(x\right)=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{2}+xq_{1}+q_{01}\right)$$ where, by definition, $q_{01}\left(x\right)\equiv rq_{1}\left(x\right)$. Next, $$p_{3}\left(x\right)=q_{111}\left(x\right)=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{2}+xq_{1}+q_{11}\right)$$ is the second factorization of order 3. For order 4, one has $$p_{4}\left(x\right)=q_{1001}\left(x\right)=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{3}+x^{2}q_{1}+xq_{01}+q_{001}\right)$$ where, this time, $q_{001}\left(x\right)=xq_{01}\left(x\right)=x^{2}q_{1}\left(x\right)$. Continuing, $$p_{6}\left(x\right)=q_{1101}\left(x\right)=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{3}+x^{2}q_{1}+xq_{11}+q_{011}\right)$$ where, by defintion, $q_{011}\left(x\right)\equiv xq_{11}\left(x\right)$. Finally, $$p_{7}\left(x\right)=q_{1111}\left(x\right)=\left(x-r\right)\left(x^{3}+x^{2}q_{1}+xq_{11}+q_{111}\right)$$ It is worth doing one more, just to clinch that the reversal of the bit sequence is indeed correct. For this purpose, $p_{12}=q_{11001}$ should serve well. One has $$\begin{aligned}
p_{12}\left(x\right)=q_{11001}\left(x\right)= & \left(x-r\right)\left(x^{4}+x^{3}p_{0}\left(r\right)+x^{2}p_{1}\left(r\right)+xrp_{1}\left(r\right)+r^{2}p_{1}\left(r\right)\right)\\
= & \left(x-r\right)\left(x^{4}+x^{3}q_{1}+x^{2}q_{11}+xq_{011}+q_{0011}\right)\end{aligned}$$
The general pattern should now be clear. Given one of the admissible bit sequences $b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots b_{k-1}b_{k}$ and recalling that $b_{k}=1$ always, (and that $b_{0}=1$ always) one has $$p_{n}\left(z\right)=q_{b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots b_{k-1}b_{k}}\left(z\right)=z^{k+1}-b_{0}z^{k}-b_{1}z^{k-1}-\cdots-b_{k-1}z-1$$ which has the factorization, with bits reversed: $$q_{b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots b_{k-1}b_{k}}\left(z\right)=\left(z-r\right)\left(z^{k}+z^{k-1}q_{b_{0}}+z^{k-2}q_{b_{1}b_{0}}+z^{k-3}q_{b_{2}b_{1}b_{0}}+\cdots+q_{b_{k-1}b_{k-2}\cdots b_{1}b_{0}}\right)$$ where, as already noted, each $q$ is a polynomial in the root $r$. Although, notationally, the root $r$ was taken as the real root, the above factorization works for any root.
The trick can be repeated. Although at first it might seem daunting, the pattern is uniform: every power of $z$ occurred in the above. Let $s\ne r$ be some other root. Then $$q_{b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots b_{k-1}b_{k}}\left(z\right)=\left(z-r\right)\left(z-s\right)\left(z^{k-1}+\left(s+q_{b_{0}}\right)z^{k-2}+\left(s^{2}+sq_{b_{0}}+q_{b_{o}b_{1}}\right)z^{k-3}+\cdots\right)$$ The coefficient of the next term being $s^{3}+s^{2}q_{b_{0}}+sq_{b_{o}b_{1}}+q_{b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}}$ and so on. From this point one, this becomes just an ordinary factorization of polynomials... well, but so was the first step, as well. What made the first step interesting was that, because the coefficients at that step were explicitly either zero or one, the corresponding reversal of the bit sequence became manifest.
One may as well bring this detour to a close. There’s nothing particularly magic in the above factorization, other than the combinatorial re-arrangement of the polynomial labels. A generic polynomial factorization looks like the below, for comparison. If $$p\left(x\right)=x^{n+1}+c_{0}x^{n}+c_{1}x^{n-1}+\cdots c_{n}$$ and if $r$ is a root of $p\left(x\right)$ *viz* $p\left(r\right)=0$ then $$\begin{aligned}
p\left(x\right)= & \left(x-r\right)\left(x^{n}+\left(r+c_{0}\right)x^{n-1}+\left(r^{2}+c_{0}r+c_{1}\right)x^{n-2}+\cdots\right)\\
= & \left(x-r\right)\left(x^{n}+a_{0}x^{n-1}+a_{1}x^{n-2}+\cdots\right)\end{aligned}$$ with $$a_{k}=r^{k+1}+\sum_{j=0}^{k}c_{j}r^{k-j}$$ There are some notable values occurring in the factorization. These are shown in the table below:
o n bin root $r$ q polynomial OEIS root of
--- --- ----- ---------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------ --------------------
2 1 11 $\varphi=1.618\cdot$ $q_{1}=0.618\cdots$
$q_{1}=0.46557123187676\cdots$ A088559 $q^{3}+2q^{2}+q-1$
$q_{01}=0.68232780382801\cdots$ A263719 $q^{3}+q-1$
$q_{1}=0.83928675521416\cdots$ $q^{3}-2q^{2}-2$
$q_{11}=0.54368901269207\cdots$ A192918 $q^{3}+q^{2}+q-1$
$q_{1}=r-1$
$q_{01}=0.52488859865640\cdots$ A072223 $q^{4}-2q^{2}-q+1$
$q_{001}=0.72449195900051\cdots$
$q_{1}=r-1$ A075778 $q^{3}+q^{2}-1$
$q_{11}=0.32471795724474\cdots$ silver - 1
$q_{011}=0.56984029099805\cdots$
$q_{1}=r-1$
$q_{11}=0.78793319384471\cdots$
$q_{111}=0.51879006367588\cdots$
As may be seen, some of these constants are already notable for various reasons. Many are also the real roots of yet other polynomials, of a not entirely obvious form. (Well, the $q_{1}$ polynomials will always be obvious expansions in binomial coefficients). The suggestion here is that these are all in turn part of some filigreed partially-ordered set of intertwining polynomials. Exactly how to express that intertwining in any sort of elegant or insightful way is not obvious.
Islands of Stability as Arnold Tongues\[subsec:Islands-of-Stability\]
=====================================================================
The trouble-spots, the eventual fixed-points of the map, can be placed in one-to-one accordance with the “islands of stability” seen in the iterated logistic map. They are, in essence, locations where periodic orbits “could be pasted”, or where they “naturally would appear”, if the map supported periodic attractors. That is, the beta shift only supports a single attractor, of period-one at $x=0$; there is no “room” for anything more. This is analogous, in a way, to the phase locked loop, at zero coupling constant. At finite coupling strength, these “trouble spots” expand out as Arnold tongues, to have a finite size, visible on the Feigenbaum diagram for the logistic map as regions where period-doubling is occurring.
The idea here can be illustrated explicitly. Basically, take the natural sawtooth shape of the map, widen the middle, and insert a slanting downward line, to create a zig-zag. That is, connect the two endpoints in the middle of the beta shift, “widening” it so that it has a finite, not infinite slope, thereby converting the iterated function from a discontinuous to a continuous one. This can be constructed directly: given some “small”, real $\varepsilon>0$, define the piecewise-linear $\varepsilon$-generalization of the map \[eq:downshift\] as $$T_{\beta,\varepsilon}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\\
\frac{\beta}{4}-\beta\left(\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon\right)w & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\le x<\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\\
\beta\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\le x\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:zig-zag map}$$ where $w$ is just a handy notation for a downward sloping line: $$w=\frac{2x-1}{2\varepsilon}$$ Observe that $w=1$ when $x=\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon$ and that $w=-1$ when $x=\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon$ so that $w$ just smoothly interpolates between +1 and -1 over the middle interval. The additional factors of $\frac{\beta}{4}-\beta\left(\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon\right)w$ just serves to insert the downward slope smack into the middle, so that the endpoints join up. The results is the zig-zag map, illustrated in the figure below
{width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In the limit of $\epsilon\to0$, one regains the earlier beta shift: $\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}T_{\beta,\varepsilon}=T_{\beta}$, as the slope of the middle bit becomes infinite. The middle segment is a straight line; it introduces another folding segment into the map. This segment introduces a critical point only when $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently large, and $\beta$ is sufficiently small, so that its slope is less than 45 degrees (is greater than -1). When this occurs, a fixed point appears at $x=1/2$. A sequence of images for finite $\varepsilon$ are shown in figure \[fig:Islands\].
![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 01 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 02 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 06 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 08 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 10 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 12 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 14 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Z-shaped Map\[fig:Islands\]](islan-0\lyxdot 15 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
This illustrates a sequence of iterated maps, obtained from eqn \[eq:zig-zag map\]. Shown are $\varepsilon=0.01,$ 0.02, 0.04 in the first row, 0.06, 0.08, 0.10 in the second row and 0.12, 0.14, 0.15 in the third row. The image for $\varepsilon=0$ is, of course, figure \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\]. The parameter $\beta$ runs from 1 at the bottom to 2 at the top. Thus, a horizontal slice through the image depicts the invariant measure of the iterated map, black for where the measure is zero, and red where the measure is largest. The sharp corner at the lower-left is located $\beta=\left(1+2\varepsilon\right)/\left(1-2\varepsilon\right)$ and $x=\varepsilon\left(1+2\varepsilon\right)/\left(1-2\varepsilon\right)$. A yellow horizontal and vertical line in the last image indicate the location of this corner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appearance of islands of stability in the Feigenbaum attractor is due to the presence of a fixed point at any parameter value. In order to “surgically add” islands of stability to the beta transform, the middle segment interpolation must also have a critical point at “any” value of $\varepsilon$. To achieve this, consider the curve
$$D_{\beta,\varepsilon}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\\
\frac{\beta}{4}-\beta\left(\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon\right)g\left(w\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\le x<\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\\
\beta\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\le x\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:soft map}$$
where the straight line has been replaced by a soft shoulder $$g(w)=1-2\cos\frac{\pi}{4}\left(1+w\right)$$ and $w$ is the same as before. This is scaled so that its a drop-in replacement for the straight line: $g\left(\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\right)=1$ and $g\left(\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\right)=-1$. A cosine was used to create this soft shoulder, but a parabola would have done just as well. It is illustrated above, with the label “soft map”.
This map also interpolates between the left and right arms of the beta transform, forming a single continues curve. The curve is smooth and rounded near $\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\apprle x$, having a slope of zero as $x$ approaches $\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon$ from above. This introduces a critical point near $\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon$. Notice that there is a hard corner at $\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon$. The interpolation is NOT an S-curve! A sequence of images for finite $\varepsilon$ are shown in figure \[fig:Critical-Z-map\].
![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 01 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 02 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 06 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 08 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 10 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 12 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 14 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Critical-Z map\[fig:Critical-Z-map\]](islad-0\lyxdot 15 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
This illustrates a sequence of iterated maps, obtained from eqn \[eq:soft map\]. The sequence of depicted $\varepsilon$ values are the same as in figure \[fig:Islands\]. The top row shows $\varepsilon=0.01,$ 0.02, 0.04, with 0.06, 0.08, 0.10 in the second row and 0.12, 0.14, 0.15 in the bottom row. The image for $\varepsilon=0$ is, of course, figure \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\]. The parameter $\beta$ runs from 1 at the bottom to 2 at the top. Working from bottom to top, one can see islands of stability forming in the $\varepsilon=0.02$ and 0.04 images. The largest island, one third from the top, corresponds to $\beta=\varphi=1.618\cdots$ the golden ratio. Moving downwards, the other prominent islands correspond to the “trouble spots” 101, 1001 and 1001, which are the Narayana’s Cows number, an un-named number, and the Silver Ratio, at $\beta=1.4655\cdots$ and so on. Moving upwards, one can see a faint island at the tribonacci number. Due to the general asymmetry of the map, these islands quickly shift away from these limiting values. For example, the primary island appears to start near $\beta=\delta+\left(2-\delta\right)\left(\varphi-1\right)$, where $\delta=\left(1+2\varepsilon\right)/\left(1-2\varepsilon\right)$. This location is indicated by a horizontal yellow line in the images in the right column. The other islands shift away in a more complicated fashion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two more variant maps can be considered. Both replace the center piece with symmetrical sinuous S-shaped curves, but in different ways. Consider $$S_{\beta,\varepsilon,\sigma}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\\
\frac{\beta}{4}-\sigma\beta\left(\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon\right)\sin\frac{\pi}{2}w & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\le x<\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\\
\beta\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\le x\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:sine map}$$ and $$H_{\beta,\varepsilon,p,\sigma}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\\
\frac{\beta}{4}-\sigma\beta\left(\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon\right)\mbox{sgn}\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right)\left|w\right|^{p} & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\le x<\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\\
\beta\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\le x\le1
\end{cases}\label{eq:hard map}$$ The $S_{\beta,\varepsilon}(x)$ replaces the central segment with a softly-rounded segment, containing two critical points: near $\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon$ and near $\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon$, where the curve flattens out to a zero slope. When $\sigma=+1$, the map as a whole is continuous. When $\sigma=-1$, the map consists of three discontinuous pieces. Different values are explored in figure \[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\].
![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islsin-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islsin-0\lyxdot 10 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islsin-0\lyxdot 15 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islsin+0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islsin+0\lyxdot 10 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islsin+0\lyxdot 15 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islha+1-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islha+1-0\lyxdot 10 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Sine Map\[fig:Interpolating-Sine-Map\]](islha+1-0\lyxdot 15 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
This illustrates a sequence of iterated maps, obtained from eqn \[eq:sine map\]. The sequence in the upper row shows $\varepsilon=0.04,$ 0.10 and 0.15; with $\sigma=+1$. The upper row is much like the sequence shown in figure \[fig:Critical-Z-map\], except that its made sinuous, thanks to symmetrical S-shape. The middle row shows the same $\varepsilon$ values, but for $\sigma=-1$. The bottom row shows eqn \[eq:hard map\] with $p=1$ and $\sigma=-1$; thus, because $p=1$ gives a straight-line segment in the middle, this bottom row is directly comparable to the zig-zap map. It should make clear that the islands appear in the middle row due to critical points in the S-curve, and not due to the tripartite map. The lower right diagram exhibits islands, but only because the middle segment has a slope of less than 45 degrees, resulting in a critical point at the middle of the map. As usual, the parameter $\beta$ runs from 1 at the bottom to 2 at the top.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $H_{\beta,\varepsilon,p,\sigma}(x)$ replaces the central segment with a segment that has a kink in the middle, when $p>1$. Note that $H_{\beta,\varepsilon,1,1}(x)=T_{\beta,\varepsilon}(x)$. Here, $\mbox{sgn}x$ is the sign of $x$. The general shape of $H_{\beta,\varepsilon,p,\sigma}(x)$ is shown above, labeled as the “kink map”. The location of the kink in $H$ is always centered; an off-center kink, as depicted in the figure, is explored below. The bifurcation diagrams for $H$ are illustrated in figure \[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\].
![Interpolating Kink Map\[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\]](islha-2-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.24\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Kink Map\[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\]](islha-3-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.24\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Kink Map\[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\]](islha-4-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.24\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Kink Map\[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\]](islha-5-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.24\columnwidth"}
![Interpolating Kink Map\[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\]](islha+2-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.24\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Kink Map\[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\]](islha+3-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.24\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Kink Map\[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\]](islha+4-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.24\columnwidth"}![Interpolating Kink Map\[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\]](islha+5-0\lyxdot 04 "fig:"){width="0.24\columnwidth"}
This illustrates a sequence of iterated maps, obtained from eqn \[eq:hard map\]. All eight images are held at $\varepsilon=0.04$. The top row has $\sigma=+1$ (and thus the map is continuous) while the bottom row has $\sigma=-1$ (and thus the map has three disconnected branches. Left to right depicts the values $p=2,3,4,5$. As usual, the parameter $\beta$ runs from 1 at the bottom to 2 at the top. In all cases, islands appear, and numerous common features are evident. Perhaps most interesting is that the islands do NOT contain period-doubling sequences. The primary sequence of islands, starting from the central largest, proceeding downwards, are located the inverse powers of two, *viz* at $\beta=\sqrt[k]{2}$. Why are the islands located at inverse powers of two, instead or, for example, the golden means? The short answer: it depends on the location of the kink in the map, as explored in the main text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize: the “trouble spots” don’t “just” break the ability to create a Hessenberg basis at certain values of $\beta$: they are more “fundamental” than that: they indicate the regions where (“phase-locked”) periodic orbits can be made to appear. The last sequence of images, shown in figure \[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\] indicate that the islands of stability need NOT consist of the period-doubling sequences seen in the Feigenbaum map. This is made explicit in figure \[fig:No-Period-Doubling\], which shows a zoom by a factor of thirty.
![No Period Doubling\[fig:No-Period-Doubling\]](islan-5-04-0\lyxdot 015625){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure is a zoom, confirming a lack of period doubling in the map $H_{\beta,\varepsilon,p,\sigma}(x)$ of eqn \[eq:hard map\]. The explored region is $0\le x\le1$, viz no zoom in the horizontal direction. Vertically, the image is centered on $\beta=1.45$, having a total height of $\varDelta\beta=0.015625$. This uses the quintic kink, so $p=5$ and $\sigma=+1$, making the the continuous variant. The value of $\varepsilon=0.04$ makes this directly comparable to other images.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interesting visualization is a Poincaré recurrence plot. The islands of stability should manifest as Arnold tongues[@WP-Arnold]. These are shown in figures \[fig:Poincar=0000E9-recurrence\] and \[fig:Arnold-Tongues\].
![Poincaré recurrence\[fig:Poincar=0000E9-recurrence\]](poinhard "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}![Poincaré recurrence\[fig:Poincar=0000E9-recurrence\]](poinlost "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
The above visualize the Poincaré recurrence times for the map $D_{\beta,\varepsilon}(x)$ of eqn \[eq:soft map\] on the left, and the map $S_{\beta,\varepsilon,1}(x)$ of eqn \[eq:sine map\] on the right. In both cases, the parameter $\beta$ runs from 1 to 2, left to right. The parameter $\varepsilon$ runs from 0 to 0.2, bottom to top. The Poincaré recurrence time is obtained by iterating on the maps, and then counting how many iterations it takes to get near an earlier point. The color coding is such that yellow/red indicates large recurrence times; green is intermediate time, blue a short time, and black corresponds to $n$ less than 3 or 4 or so. The vertical black spikes are the Arnold tongues; they correspond to parameter regions which lie in an island of stability. That is, the recurrance time is low, precisely because the the point $x$ is bouncing between a discrete set of values. The yellow/red regions correspond to chaos, where the iterate $x$ is bouncing between all possible values. The largest right-most spike is located at $\beta=\varphi=1.618\cdots$, with the sequence of spikes to the left located at the other primary golden means (*viz*, $1.3803\cdots$ and the silver mean$1.3247\cdots$ and so on). As noted earlier, the general curve of that spike appears to follow $\beta=\delta+\left(2-\delta\right)\left(\varphi-1\right)$, where $\delta=\left(1+2\varepsilon\right)/\left(1-2\varepsilon\right)$. The dramatic swallow-tail shapes in the right-hand image are identical to those that appear in the classic iterated circle map.[@WP-Arnold]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Arnold Tongues\[fig:Arnold-Tongues\]](poinc+p5 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}![Arnold Tongues\[fig:Arnold-Tongues\]](poinc-p5 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
The above visualize the Poincaré recurrence times for the map $H_{\beta,\varepsilon,p,\sigma}(x)$ of eqn \[eq:hard map\]. The parameter $\beta$ runs from 1 to 2, left to right. The parameter $\varepsilon$ runs from 0 to 0.2, bottom to top. The power $p$ is held fixed at $p=5$. The left image shows $\sigma=$-1; the right shows $\sigma=+1$. The Poincaré recurrence time is obtained by iterating on $H_{\beta,\varepsilon,p,\sigma}(x)$ and counting how many iterations it takes until $\left|x-H_{\beta,\varepsilon,p,\sigma}^{n}(x)\right|<0.009$. The shapes depicted are not sensitive to the recurrence delta 0.009; this value is chosen primarily to make the colors prettier. The color coding is such that yellow/red indicates large recurrance times $n$; green is intermediate time, blue a short time, and black corresponds to $n$ less than 3 or 4 or so. The vertical blue spikes are the Arnold tongues; they correspond to parameter regions which lie in an island of stability. That is, the recurrance time is low, precisely because the the point $x$ is bouncing between a discrete set of values. The yellow/red regions correspond to chaos, where the iterate $x$ is bouncing between all possible values. The central spike is located at $\beta=\sqrt{2}$ with the sequence of spikes to the left located at $\sqrt[k]{2}$ for increasing $k$. In that sense, the large black region dominating the right side of the figures correponds to $\beta=2$. These correspond to the black bands in figure \[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To intuitively understand the location of the islands (the location of the Arnold tongues), its easiest to examine a map with a kink in it, whose location is adjustable.
$$H_{\beta,\varepsilon,\alpha,\sigma}(x)=\begin{cases}
\beta x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\\
\frac{\beta}{4}-\sigma\beta\left(\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon\right)h_{\alpha,p} & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\le x<\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\\
\beta\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\le x\le1
\end{cases}$$ with $$h_{\alpha,p}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
\alpha+\left(1-\alpha\right)\left|w\right|^{p} & \mbox{ for }x<\frac{1}{2}\\
\alpha-\left(1+\alpha\right)\left|w\right|^{p} & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}\le x
\end{cases}$$ As before, $h_{\alpha,p}\left(x\right)$ is designed to interpolate appropriately, so that $h_{\alpha,p}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon\right)=1$ and $h_{\alpha,p}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\varepsilon\right)=-1$. The location of the kink is now adjustable: $h_{\alpha,p}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=\alpha$. Iterating on this map results in figures that are generically similar to those of figure \[fig:Interpolating-Kink-Map\], except that this time, the location of the islands is controllable by the parameter $\alpha$. Roughly, to first order, the primary series of islands are located at $\sqrt[k]{2/\left(1-\alpha\right)}$; as before, these islands do not allow period-doubling to take place.
To get islands with period doubling, one needs to re-create the “soft shoulder” of eqn \[eq:soft map\], but at a variable location.
Thus, the above presents a general surgical technique for controlling both the general form of the chaotic regions, the location of the islands of stability, and what appears within the islands.
Note to reader: I suspect that the above observations have been previously discovered by others, and might even be “well known”, *viz.* presented in some pop-sci literature on fractals. However, I am not aware of any references discussing this topic. If you, dear reader, know of such references, please drop me a line at the posted email address.
Exercise left to the reader: the above arguments should be sufficient to fully demonstrate that the circle map, which is well-known to exhibit phase locking regions called Arnold tongues, is topologically conjugate to the fattened beta shift $T_{\beta,\varepsilon}$. Or something like that. In a certain sense, this can be argued to be a “complete” solution, via topological conjugacy, of the tent map, the logistic map and the circle map. This is a worthwhile exercise to actually perform, i.e. to give explicit expressions mapping the various regions, as appropriate.
Essentially, the claim is straight-forward: topologically, all chaotic parts of a map correspond to folding (as per Milnor, 1980’s on kneading maps), into which one may surgically insert regions that have cycles of finite length. The surgical insertion can occur only at the discontinuities of the kneading map. It almost sounds trivial, expressed this way; but the algebraic articulation of the idea would be worthwhile.
Miscellaneous unfinished ideas
==============================
An ad-hoc collection of half-finished thoughts.
Multiplicative Shifts
---------------------
A multiplicative shift is a shift assembled as an product of functions. The most famous of these is the generating function for integer partitions $$P\left(z\right)=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\left(1-z^{n}\right)}$$ Similarly products occur for the necklace counting functions, most famously the cyclotomic identity $$\frac{1}{1-\beta z}=\prod_{j=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1-z^{j}}\right)^{M(\beta,j)}$$ where $M\left(\beta,j\right)$ the necklace polynomial.
A far more obscure product expresses the Minkowski measure[@Vep-mink2008], given as $$?^{\prime}\left(x\right)=\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{A^{\prime}\circ A^{n}\left(x\right)}{2}$$ with $$A\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
\frac{x}{1-x} & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
\frac{2x-1}{x} & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}\le x\le1
\end{cases}$$ with $A^{\prime}$ being the derivative of $A$ and $A^{n}$ being the $n$’th iterate. The Minkowski measure integrates to the Minkowski Question Mark function $?\left(y\right)=\int_{0}^{y}?^{\prime}\left(x\right)dx$; it is the prototypical “multi-fractal measure” (although there really is nothing “multi-” about it; the “multi-” prefix stems from a misunderstanding of its multiplicative invariance). The product structure indicates that the Minkowski measure is a Gibbs measure, viz arising from an invariant Hamiltonian on a one-dimensional lattice.
The figure \[fig:Location-of-Midpoints\] suggests that a similar product can be constructed from the midpoint sequence, namely $$\prod_{p=0}^{\infty}\frac{4m_{p}\left(\beta\right)}{\beta}$$ for the midpoints $m_{p}\left(\beta\right)=T_{\beta}^{p}\left(m_{0}\right)$.
Midpoints, revisited
--------------------
The midpoints are defined above as $m_{0}=\beta/2$, so that $m_{p}=T_{\beta}\left(m_{p-1}\right)=T_{\beta}^{p}\left(m_{0}\right)$ with $T_{\beta}\left(y\right)$ the beta shift map of eqn \[eq:downshift\]. Almost all literature uses the beta transform $t_{\beta}\left(x\right)$ of eqn \[eq:beta transform\] instead. The midpoint sequence and the iterate $t_{\beta}^{p}\left(1\right)$ are closely related: $$2m_{p}\mod1=t_{\beta}^{p+1}\left(1\right)$$ Although related, they are not the same. The difference is a sequence of bits: $$c_{p}=2m_{p}-t_{\beta}^{p+1}\left(1\right)$$ Note that $c_{p}\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} $ always. Note that $$\beta=\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}\frac{c_{p}}{\beta^{p}}$$ which is not entirely obvious!
Rauzy Fractals
--------------
Given a polynomial, one has an associated finite matrix, in Hessenberg form, that, iterated upon, generates a sequence. The projection of that sequence to a non-expanding orthogonal plane is a Rauzy fractal. What are the corresponding Rauzy fractals for this situation?
How about the general iterated sequence (e.g. the sequence of midpoints)? Is this space-filling, or not?
Bergman (Hessenberg) Polynomials
================================
Given a matrix operator in Hessenberg form, it can be interpreted as a right-shift on the space of polynomials. Such polynomials form an orthogonal basis for a certain kind of Hilbert space, called the Bergman space. They are studied in applied mathematics, as they are orthogonal over some measure on the complex plane. The Hessenberg operator is a generalization of the better-known case of the Jacobi operator, which has it’s own extensive theory, including spectra and scattering, and is important for several exactly solvable non-linear models in physics, including the Toda lattice[@Teschl00]. The Hessenberg operator presumably has an equally rich theory, but it does not appear to be currently known; the breadth and scope of existing publications is limited.
The general framework for the Hessenberg polynomials is sketched below, including a fast and informal definition of Bergman space (the space on which the polynomials are orthogonal). The Hessenberg matrix is explicitly solvable on the left, and can be explicitly brought into a from that exhibits the right-shift operator. In the general theory, the change of basis from the shift operator to the Hessenberg matrix is known to be the Cholesky decomposition of a moment matrix, and specifically, the moments of the measure on which the polynomials are orthogonal.
There are two Hessenberg operators in this text: the operator $\mathcal{L}_{\beta}$ in the wavelet basis, and the operator $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$ generated from the midpoint orbits. The second is already obviously a shift, and so everything below follows “trivially” from it. The first form is is numerically and analytically difficult. Needless to say, the section below treats the firs rather than the second. XXX TODO this should be fixed, as $\mathcal{B}_{\beta}$ is both simpler and more enlightening overall. Later ...
Working backwards from the beta shift, the first asymptotic term in the measure can be extracted. For $\beta>\varphi$, it appears to be a Dirac delta (point mass) located at $z=1$ on the complex plane, with a blancmange-like fractal curve giving the weight. For $\beta<\varphi$, it appears to be the derivative of the Dirac delta, with a different blancmange-like fractal curve giving the weight.
Bergman Space
-------------
Given a matrix operator in Hessenberg form, it can be interpreted as a right-shift on the space of polynomials. That is, given an unreduced Hessenberg matrix with matrix entries $A_{ij}$, one can write a recurrence relation that defines a sequence of polynomials as $$zp_{n}\left(z\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{n+1}A_{kn}p_{k}\left(z\right)\label{eq:Hessenberg polynomials}$$ with $p_{0}\left(z\right)=1$. This relation is easily solvable in closed form, as the recurrence relation terminates in a finite number of steps.
One important property of these polynomials is that the zeros of $p_{n}\left(z\right)$ correspond to the eigenvalues of the $n\times n$ principle submatrix of $A$. Numeric exploration of these polynomials confirms the previous results on eigenvalues obtained from direct diagonalization: the zeros of the $p_{n}\left(z\right)$ seems to lie mostly near the circle of radius $1/\beta$, distributed uniformly over all angles.
If all of the sub-diagonal entries obey $A_{n+1,n}>0$, then the polynomials form an orthonormal basis for Bergman space. That is, there exists a domain in the complex plane on which the polynomials provide a basis for a Hilbert space of holomorphic functions on that domain[@Saff12; @Tomeo11; @Escri11]. That is, one has the orthogonality relation $$\delta_{mn}=\int_{D}p_{m}\left(\overline{z}\right)p_{n}\left(z\right)d\mu\left(z\right)$$ for some domain $D\subset\mathbb{C}$ of the complex plane, and some (Borel) measure $d\mu$ on that domain.
The matrix $A$ can be interpreted as an operator with a continuous spectrum. To do this, fix a certain, specific value of $z=c$ a constant, and then notice that $\vec{p}=\left(p_{n}\left(z\right)\right)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a vector having the property that $A^{T}\vec{p}=z\vec{p}$. That is, $\vec{p}$ is a left-eigenvector of $A$; equivalently, a right-eigenvector of its transpose $A^{T}$. Clearly, the spectrum is continuous on the domain $D$.
The matrix operator $A$ can also be interpreted as a right-shift on Bergman space. To do this, define $$\mathcal{A}\left(w,z\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}p_{k}\left(w\right)A_{kn}p_{n}\left(\overline{z}\right)$$ Then, given some holomorphic function $f\left(z\right)$ decomposed in terms of the polynomials, so that $f\left(z\right)=\sum_{n}a_{n}p_{n}\left(z\right)$, one has that $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathcal{A}f\right]\left(w\right)= & \int\mathcal{A}\left(w,z\right)f\left(z\right)d\mu\left(z\right)\\
= & \sum_{k}\sum_{n}p_{k}\left(w\right)A_{kn}a_{n}\\
= & w\sum_{n}a_{n}p_{n}\left(w\right)\\
= & wf\left(w\right)\end{aligned}$$ That is, given a sequence $\left(a_{0},a_{1},a_{2},\cdots\right)$, the Hessenberg matrix acts as a right-shift, mapping it to the sequence $\left(0,a_{0},a_{1},\cdots\right)$.
This is perhaps a bit silly, as one could instead just perform the same manipulation without the $f\left(z\right)$, by observing that, formally, $$\mathcal{A}\left(w,z\right)=w\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}p_{k}\left(w\right)p_{n}\left(\overline{z}\right)$$
The above treatment is breezy and “formal”, paying no heed to summability, convergence or responding to any questions about what spaces the various vectors may live in. This is as appropriate, since the task here is to discover which spaces are the appropriate ones, when the Hessenberg matrix arises from the beta shift.
Notice that the word “operator” is a bit mis-used, here, as a vague synonym for “infinite-dimensional matrix”. Properly, the word “operator” should be reserved for an infinite-dimensional matrix acting on some given space, having general properties that are independent of the basis chosen for that space. So far, that might not be the case here: the infinite-dimensional matrices here might not be bounded operators; they might not even be continuous, viz. we have not ruled out the possibility that the space of interest is some Fréchet space or some more general topological vector space. It is well known that operators on such spaces can have “unexpected” discontinuities, unexpected in that they are not seen in ordinary Banach spaces.
At any rate, if polynomials obtained from the beta shift are orthogonal on some domain $D\subset\mathbb{C}$ that is the support of some measure $d\mu$, it is not at all clear what this measure might be. They are certainly not orthogonal on the unit disk, with uniform measure.
Notice also that the above treatment seems to be a special case of a more general principle: when an operator has a continuous spectrum, it can sometimes be interpreted as a right-shift. That is, given some arbitrary operator $\mathcal{H}$, then if one has that $\mathcal{H}f=\lambda f$ and $\lambda$ takes arbitrary values $\lambda\in D\subset\mathbb{C}$, then $\mathcal{H}$ can be taken to be a right-shift operator, provided that $f=f\left(\lambda\right)$ can be decomposed into a set of orthogonal polynomials in $\lambda$.
Beta Bergman Shift
------------------
The primary question for this section is whether the $\beta$-transform transfer operator, in the Hessenberg basis, can be considered to be a Bergman shift.
To obtain the orthogonal polynomial basis, one must satisfy the constraint that $A_{n+1,n}>0$ for the matrix elements $A_{kn}=\left\langle k\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|n\right\rangle $ of eqn \[eq:hessen-matrix-elts\]. Numeric exploration indicates that this is indeed the case, with the sub-diagonal entries all positive (none are zero), and all tend to have the same value, with sporadic exceptions. These are shown in figure \[fig:Subdiagonal-Entries\].
![Sub-diagonal Entries\[fig:Subdiagonal-Entries\]](berg-0\lyxdot 55 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}![Sub-diagonal Entries\[fig:Subdiagonal-Entries\]](berg-0\lyxdot 8 "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
These charts show the sub-diagonal matrix entries $\left\langle n+1\left|{\cal L}_{\beta}\right|n\right\rangle $ for the first $n<500$. The left graph shows $\beta=1.1$, the right shows $\beta=1.6$; other values behave similarly. A scatterplot of the location of the spikes as a function of $\beta$ does not reveal any structure. That is, except for small $n$, the location of a spike shows no smooth variation as $\beta$ is varied smoothly. There does appear to be some structure for small $n$ – some banded sequences – and so perhaps the correct statement is that the system is mixing, as $n$ increases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can one find a domain on the complex plane that would have such Bergman polynomials? The references[@Saff12; @Escri11] provide a technique for doing so, provided that the matrix is asymptotically Toeplitz. That is, if the diagonals of $A_{ij}$ have nice limits, that $\lim_{n\to\infty}A_{n-k,n}$ exists for fixed $k$, then a Jordan arc bounding a domain on the complex plane can be found. The figure \[fig:Subdiagonal-Entries\] indicates that this limit does not exist, in the strict sense: the values bounce away from an obvious limit point indefinitely. Exactly what this implies is unclear. Perhaps it is possible to extend the results of [@Saff12; @Escri11] to matrices that are where the diagonals merely have an accumulation point, as opposed to a well-defined limit?
Based on numeric exploration, it appears that the domain is the unit disk. That is, $A^{T}\vec{p}=z\vec{p}$ holds for $\left|z\right|\le1$.
Bergman Alternative
-------------------
The Bergman polynomials of eqn \[eq:Hessenberg polynomials\] define an orthonormal basis for some region of the complex plane. For the square-integrable norm, this basis is the basis of a Hilbert space, and specifically, that of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space.
Yet, something funny happens on the unit disk. Let $p_{m}\left(z\right)$ be the polynomials, and for some sequence of coefficients $\left\{ a_{n}\right\} $, consider a generic function $$f\left(z\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}a_{k}p_{k}\left(z\right)$$ Consider the case where the $\left\{ a_{n}\right\} $ are a right-eigenvector of the Hessenberg operator, that is, where
$$\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}A_{km}a_{m}=\lambda a_{k}$$ Substituting into the above, one has $$f\left(z\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\lambda}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}A_{km}a_{m}p_{k}\left(z\right)=\frac{z}{\lambda}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}a_{m}p_{m}\left(z\right)=\frac{zf\left(z\right)}{\lambda}$$ There are two alternatives to solving this; either $f\left(z\right)=0$ or $z=\lambda$. Since this is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space, then if $z=\lambda$ is part of the domain of the Bergman space, then one must conclude that $f\left(z\right)=0$ everywhere. That is, right-eigenvalues of $A$ correspond to functions $f\left(z\right)$ that are vanishing. To invent a new name, by analogy to the Fredholm alternative, perhaps this can be called the Bergman alternative.
Numerical exploration indicates that, for the matrix elements of eqn, \[eq:hessen-matrix-elts\], the function $f\left(z\right)$ vanishes inside the unit disk $\left|z\right|<1$, and is undefined (infinite) outside of it.
Left Factorization
------------------
Suppose one is given an (arbitrary) sequence of polynomials $\left(p_{n}\left(z\right)\right)_{n=0}^{\infty}$, such that the order of $p_{n}$ is $n.$ Then each individual polynomial can be expanded as or $\beta>\varphi$, $$p_{n}\left(z\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}p_{nk}z^{k}$$ This defines an infinite matrix $\mathcal{P}=\left[p_{nk}\right]$, provided that the coefficients are extended so that $p_{nk}=0$ whenever $k>n$. This matrix is manifestly lower-triangular. Writing vectors $\vec{z}=\left(z^{n}\right)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ and $\vec{p}=\left(p_{n}\left(z\right)\right)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ as before, the above is just the matrix equation $$\vec{p}=\mathcal{P}\vec{z}$$
Consider now the case where the polynomials were constructed from some irreducible Hessenberg matrix $A$. The earlier observation that $A^{T}$ is a shift, namely, that $A^{T}\vec{p}=z\vec{p}$ can now be written as $$A^{T}\mathcal{P}\vec{z}=z\mathcal{P}\vec{z}=\mathcal{P}z\vec{z}=\mathcal{PK}\vec{z}$$ In the above, the $z$ without the vector notation is just a scalar, and thus commutes (trivially) with $\mathcal{P}$. Its eliminated by explicitly making use of the right-shift (Koopman) operator, which, in this basis, is $$\mathcal{K}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ddots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ddots
\end{array}\right]$$ Since $\mathcal{P}$ is lower-triangular, it is invertible on the right, that is, the inverse $\mathcal{P}^{-1}$ exists, and so one is left with $$\mathcal{P}^{-1}A^{T}\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{K}$$ The irreducibility of $A$ is important, here; non-zero entries on the sub-diagonal are required, else trouble ensues.
Rearranging, this provides an explicit decomposition of $A$ into triangular matrices: $$A^{T}=\mathcal{PKP}^{-1}$$ Taking the transpose, this gives $$A=\left[\mathcal{P}^{-1}\right]^{T}\mathcal{K}^{T}\mathcal{P}^{T}$$ with $\mathcal{P}^{T}$ and $\left[\mathcal{P}^{-1}\right]^{T}$ both being upper-triangular, and $\mathcal{K}^{T}$ being the left-shift.
This system is solvable. Given some matrix $A$ in Hessenberg form, the matrix elements of $\mathcal{P}$ can be computed recursively, in a finite number of steps (i.e. in closed form), directly from \[eq:Hessenberg polynomials\]. The explicit expression is
$$A_{n+1,n}p_{n+1,j}=p_{n,j-1}-\sum_{k=0}^{n}A_{kn}p_{kj}$$ The starting conditions are $p_{00}=1$. To handle the $j=0$ case in the above, set $p_{n,-1}=0$.
Because $\mathcal{P}$ is lower triangular, its inverse $\mathcal{P}^{-1}\equiv\mathcal{R}=\left[r_{kn}\right]$ can be obtained explicitly. Along the diagonal, one has $r_{nn}=1/p_{nn}$ while the lower triangular form means $r_{kn}=0$ for $k<n$. For the remaining entries $m<n$, one has $$0=\sum_{k=m}^{n}p_{nk}r_{km}$$ This can be solved in a finite number of iterations on $$p_{nn}r_{nm}=-\sum_{k=m}^{n-1}p_{nk}r_{km}$$
The above avoids questions of convergence, or any notion of the spaces on which the matrices or operators might act. The norm to be used for $\vec{z}$ and $\vec{p}$ is not specified. This is appropriate at this stage: it is the algebraic manipulations that are interesting, at this point, rather than the spaces on which the matrices/operators might act. One can invent several kinds of norms that might be applicable, but there is no particular reason to believe that $\vec{p}$ might have a finite norm. Likewise, $\mathcal{P}$ may not have a finite norm. For the case of the Hessenberg operator originating with the beta shift operator, it does not; the individual matrix elements $p_{nm}$ increase without bound. That is, $\mathcal{P}$ is an infinite matrix, but it is not clear that it is also an operator. If it is, it is certainly not a compact operator.
Some of the poor behavior can be brought under control by factoring $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{DN}$ with $\mathcal{N}$ being unitriangular (all ones on the diagonal) and $\mathcal{D}$ a diagonal matrix, with entries $\left[\mathcal{D}\right]_{nk}=p_{nn}\delta_{nk}$. With this factorization, one may then write $$\mathcal{N}^{-1}A^{T}\mathcal{N}=\mathcal{DKD}^{-1}$$ so that $\mathcal{DKD}^{-1}$ has off-diagonal matrix entries $\left[\mathcal{DKD}^{-1}\right]_{nk}=\delta_{n+1,k}p_{nn}/p_{kk}$. This is a rescaling of the shift $\left[\mathcal{K}\right]_{nk}=\delta_{n+1,k}$. The scaling factor is exactly the sub-diagonal of the Hessenberg. That is, $p_{nn}/p_{n+1,n+1}=A_{n+1,n}$. The polynomials $\mathcal{N}\vec{z}$ are monic.
Beta-transform factoids
-----------------------
An assortment of observations follow, for the case of the beta shift.
First, the matrix entries of $\mathcal{P}$ grow in an unbounded fashion. It appears that $p_{nn}\sim\mathcal{O}\left(\beta^{n}\right)$; the ratio $p_{nn}/\beta^{n}$ is depicted in figure \[fig:Polynomial-Operator-Diagonal\].
![Polynomial Operator Diagonal Entries\[fig:Polynomial-Operator-Diagonal\]](poly){width="1\columnwidth"}
This depicts the ratio $p_{nn}/\beta^{n}$ of the diagonal matrix entries $p_{nn}$ of the Bergman polynomial matrix operator $\mathcal{P}$ for the beta shift with value $\beta=1.2$. Other values of $\beta$ are not dissimilar, although the spikes are pushed more closely together. The height of the spikes seems to be roughly the same, for all $\beta$. This is another way of visualizing the same information as in figure \[fig:Subdiagonal-Entries\], as the ratio $p_{nn}/p_{n+1,n+1}$ is just given by the subdiagonal entries $A_{n+1,n}$ of the Hessenberg matrix. In particular, the straight edges correspond to usually-constant values on the subdiagonal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimentation reveals two different regimes of behavior, depending on whether or not $\beta<\varphi=\left(1+\sqrt{5}\right)/2$ the Golden ratio. Exactly why there are two different regimes is unclear. Earlier sections motivated the reason for the appearance of the golden mean; why this shows up dramatically, as it does here, is unclear (to me).
One such result is that when $\beta<\varphi$, then the sum over columns of the Bergman operator vanishes. That is, $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}p_{nk}=\delta_{n0}$$ This implies that every polynomial $p_{n}\left(z\right)$ has a zero at $z=1$ (except for $p_{0}\left(z\right)=1)$ when $\beta<\varphi$.
Decaying Eigenfunctions
-----------------------
The matrix mechanics developed in the previous sections can be used to perform asymptotic expansions that rapidly converge to decaying eigenfunctions. This works most simply for the case of $\varphi<\beta$. TODO Write these down. TODO flesh out. Basically, write a vector $\vec{w}$ with elements $w_{n}=\omega^{n}$ for $1<\left|\omega\right|$ so that this is divergent. Then write the formal vector $\vec{a}=\left[\mathcal{P}^{T}\right]^{-1}\vec{w}$ which is formally divergent, but can be truncated in finite dimensions, and renormalized to be of unit length. Doing so provides an eigenfunction of $A$. The associated eigenvalue is $1$ when $\beta<\varphi$ but is less than 1 when $\varphi<\beta$ (and in fact, the eigenvalue is exactly that depicted in figure \[fig:Symmetric-Matrix-Limit-Ratio\]). TODO graph some of these, explore more thoroughly, address the issues of formal divergence.
Moment Matrix
-------------
When the Hessenberg matrix is derived from measures on the complex plane, it takes the form of $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{RR}^{T}$ with $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{P}^{-1}$, so that $\mathcal{R}$ is the Cholesky decomposition of $\mathcal{M}$. This matrix is manifestly symmetric: $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}^{T}$. Direct observation shows that it is almost positive-definite: one finds that $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{ij}>0$ for all $i,j$ except for $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{00}=0$. This result can be strengthened: when $\beta<\varphi$, then $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{ij}>1$ for all $i,j$ except for $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{00}=0$ and $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{0n}=\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{n0}=1$. But, for $\beta>\varphi$, one finds that $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{00}=0$ and $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{01}=\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{10}=\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{11}=1$, while all the rest obey $0<\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{ij}<1$.
In the standard literature, $\mathcal{M}$ is usually obtained from some moment matrix, viz, for the integral $\int\overline{z}^{m}z^{n}d\mu\left(z\right)$ for some measure $d\mu\left(z\right)$. Might that be the case here? Taking the time to numerically characterize the matrix, one finds that the ratio of successive rows (or columns as its symmetric) very quickly approaches a limit $\lim_{n\to\infty,}\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{nm}/\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{n-1,m}=C\left(\beta\right)$ for some constant $C$ that depends only on $\beta$ but not on $m$. The limit $C\left(\beta\right)$ is graphed in figure \[fig:Symmetric-Matrix-Limit-Ratio\].
![Symmetric Matrix Limit Ratio\[fig:Symmetric-Matrix-Limit-Ratio\]](cee){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure shows the limit $C\left(\beta\right)$ defined in the text. Note that $C\left(\beta\right)=1$ for $\beta<\varphi$. The jump is at about $\beta=1.83928676\cdots$. Note this is one of the “troublesome midpoints” for the Hessenberg basis expansion, specifically for $T_{\beta}^{3}\left(\beta/2\right)=0\mbox{ or }\beta/2$. This is one of the first “generalized golden means”, the positive real root of $\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-\beta-1=0$. The entire fractal structure presumably corresponds to higher iterates $p$ that satisfy $T_{\beta}^{p}\left(\beta/2\right)=0$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For $\beta<\varphi$, it appears that $\lim_{n\to\infty,}\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{nm}=B\left(\beta\right)$ a constant, independent of $m$. This limiting value $B\left(\beta\right)$ is graphed in figure \[fig:Symmetric-Matrix-Limit\].
![Symmetric Matrix Limit\[fig:Symmetric-Matrix-Limit\]](bee){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure shows the limit $B\left(\beta\right)$ defined in the text. The limit is approached fairly quickly for the larger values of $\beta$, but convergence proves difficult for $\beta\lesssim1.1$. The overall shape is that of a hyperbola, but doesn’t seem to actually be hyperbolic for either small or large $\beta$. The right-most nick in the curve appears to be at $\beta=1.465571231876768\cdots$, another “generalized golden mean”, and the only real root of $\beta^{3}-\beta^{2}-1=0$; equivalently, the root of $T_{\beta}^{3}\left(\beta/2\right)=0$. The remaining nicks are presumably located at $T_{\beta}^{p}\left(\beta/2\right)=0$ for higher iterates $p$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The asymptotic behavior of the matrix $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{ij}$ can be obtained as a moment matrix on point sources. A delta function located at $z=C$ for real $C$ has the moments $$\begin{aligned}
C_{mn}= & \int\overline{z}^{m}z^{n}\delta\left(z-C\right)dz\\
= & \int r^{m}r^{n}\delta\left(r-C\right)rdr\int\delta\left(\theta\right)e^{-im\theta}e^{in\theta}d\theta\\
= & C^{m+n+1}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $\varphi<\beta$, the asymptotic behavior of $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{ij}$ is given by the distribution $A\left(\beta\right)\delta\left(z-C\left(\beta\right)\right)$. What is $A\left(\beta\right)$? This is graphed in figure \[fig:Point-Weight\].
![Point Weight\[fig:Point-Weight\]](aee){width="1\columnwidth"}
This figure shows the value of $A\left(\beta\right)$ that gives the point weight of the moment matrix. That is, the asymptotic behavior of $\mathcal{M}$ is given by $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{mn}\to\int\overline{z}^{m}z^{n}\rho\left(z\right)dz$ with the measure given by a point mass $\rho\left(z\right)=A\left(\beta\right)\delta\left(z-C\left(\beta\right)\right)$. Clearly, there is a strong resemblance to figure \[fig:Symmetric-Matrix-Limit-Ratio\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about $\beta<\varphi$? A limiting constant distribution can be obtained from a derivative point mass located at $z=1$. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
D_{mn}= & \int\overline{z}^{m}z^{n}\delta^{\prime}\left(z-1\right)dz\\
= & \int r^{m}r^{n}\delta^{\prime}\left(r-1\right)rdr\int\delta\left(\theta\right)e^{-im\theta}e^{in\theta}d\theta\\
= & 1\end{aligned}$$ so that the asymptotic behavior of $\left[\mathcal{M}\right]_{ij}$ for $\beta<\varphi$ is given by the distribution $B\left(\beta\right)\delta^{\prime}\left(z-1\right)$. The prime superscript here means derivative, viz, in colloquial language, $\delta^{\prime}\left(z\right)=d\delta\left(z\right)/dz$.
The Jacobi Operator
===================
Given a Borel measure on the real number line, one can find a sequence of polynomials that are orthonormal with respect to that measure. These polynomials $p_{n}\left(x\right)$ are coupled together by a three-term recurrence equation $$xp_{n}\left(x\right)=a_{n+1}p_{n+1}\left(x\right)+b_{n}p_{n}\left(x\right)+a_{n}p_{n-1}\left(x\right)$$ with $p_{0}\left(x\right)=1$ and $p_{-1}\left(x\right)=0$. This recurrence relation can be taken to be an operator, known as the Jacobi operator $\mathcal{J}$, acting on vectors consisting of the polynomials $p\left(x\right)=\left\{ p_{n}\left(x\right)\right\} $ so that $$\left[\mathcal{J}p\right]\left(x\right)=xp\left(x\right)$$ so that $p$ is an eigenvector of $\mathcal{J}$ with eigenvalue $x$. The two sequences of coefficients $\left\{ a_{n}\right\} $ and $\left\{ b_{n}\right\} $ form three diagonals of the operator, with $\left\{ a_{n}\right\} $ running down the center, and $\left\{ b_{n}\right\} $ the two diagonals on either side[@Teschl00].
Given that the invariant measure for the $\beta$-transform, given by eqn \[eq:FP-eigenvector\] and visualized in figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\] is a Borel measure, it seems reasonable to ask: what is the corresponding Jacobi operator? How can the sequence of polynomials be understood?
Szegő polynomials w.r.t. $d\mu$ are a set of orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle. Applying a Cayley transform gives the Schur functions, obeying a rational recurrence relation solvable via continued fractions. Hmmm.
And then there is Favard’s theorem...
Moments
-------
Construction of the polynomial sequences require moments. Since the invariant measures (and all of the eigenfunctions) are linear combinations of the Hessenberg basis functions, it suffices to compute the moments for these. Since the basis functions are piece-wise constant, and have an explicit expression given by eqn \[eq:Hess-Haar-basis-fn\], the moments can also be given explicit expression: $$\int_{0}^{1}x^{n-1}\psi_{p}\left(x\right)dx=\frac{C_{p}}{n}\left[\frac{m_{p}^{n}-m_{l}^{n}}{m_{p}-m_{l}}-\frac{m_{u}^{n}-m_{p}^{n}}{m_{u}-m_{p}}\right]$$ with the midpoint $m_{p}$ and the lower and upper midpoints $m_{l}<m_{p}<m_{u}$ defined just as before. Clearly, the moments rapidly get small as $n\to\infty$. Likewise, for fixed $n$, these also rapidly get small as $p\to\infty$.
The Multiplication Operator
===========================
The difficulties presented in the previous section suggests that studying the multiplication operator might be simpler. Multiplication by $\beta$ is given by $$M_{\beta}\left(x\right)=\beta x\label{eq:multiplication}$$ The corresponding transfer operator is $$\left[\mathcal{M}_{\beta}f\right]\left(y\right)=\frac{1}{\beta}f\left(\frac{y}{\beta}\right)$$ The multiplication operator, superficially, in itself, is not terribly interesting; it simply rescales things. It does not generate fractals, at least, not if one confines oneself to real numbers and the canonical topology on the real-number line. If instead one works with the product topology on $2^{\omega}$, then the multiplication operator becomes rather complicated and difficult to analyze. In this sense, it is promising: it avoids the overt complexity of the logistic map, the tent map and the beta shift, yet still has a complicated behavior in the product topology. In particular, the multiplication of two numbers appear to involve chaotic dynamics of the carry bit.
Beta-shift, Revisited
---------------------
The beta shift of eqn \[eq:downshift\] takes a simple form when reinterpreted on bit-strings: it is the concatenation of multiplication, followed by a left-shift. Given a bit-string $\left(b_{n}\right)=0.b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots$ denote its left-shift by $U$ given by $$U\left(0.b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots\right)=0.b_{1}b_{2}\cdots$$ which, for real numbers, corresponds to $$U(x)=\begin{cases}
2x & \mbox{ for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
2x-1 & \mbox{ for }\frac{1}{2}\le x\le1
\end{cases}$$ which is none-other than the Bernoulli shift of eqn \[eq:Bernoulli shift\] with a change of notation. The beta shift is then $$T_{\beta}\left(x\right)=M_{\beta}\left(U\left(x\right)\right)$$ so that the iterated beta shift is an alternation between a left-shift and a multiplication. The act of discarding the most significant bit (the MSB) with each left-shift alters the dynamics of iterated multiplication.
This suggests that studying multiplication and the multiplication operator might provide fruitful insight into the beta shift.
Monomial Eigenfunctions
-----------------------
Some properties of the multiplication operator can be guessed at directly. Obviously, $f=\mbox{const.}$ is a decaying/growing eigenfunction, depending on whether $\beta>1$ or not. That is, one should imagine $f=\mbox{const.}$ as a uniform distribution of dust; with each iteration, it is spread either farther apart ($\beta>1$) or bunched closer together ($\beta<1$).
Clearly, $f\left(x\right)=x^{n}$ is an eigenfunction, with eigenvalue $1/\beta^{n+1}$. If one considers multiplication only to operate on the positive real-number line, then $n$ need not be an integer. In other words, the multiplication operator has a continuous spectrum in this situation.
If the domain of the operator is extended to functions on the non-negative real-number line, then $n$ must be positive, as otherwise $f\left(0\right)$ is ill-defined. But if $n$ is positive, then (for $\beta<1$) the multiplication operator only has eigenvalues greater than one, which is not, in general, very desirable.
If the domain of the multiplication operator is extended to the entire real-number line, then $n$ is forced to be an integer, in order to avoid issues due to multi-valued functions. Extending the domain to the complex plane leads us astray, and so we will not go there.
A Fractal Eigenfunction
-----------------------
The compressor function is also an eigenfunction. It was previously observed in eqn \[eq:compressor self-sim\] that $$\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{x}{\beta}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(x\right)$$ whenever $1<\beta\le2$ and $0\le x<1$ and so, $\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}$ is potentially be an eigenfunction of $\mathcal{M}_{\beta}$ with eigenvalue $1/2\beta$, provided that it is extended to arguments $1<x$. This can be done as follows. Define the extended function, valid for $0\le x<\infty$ and for $1<\beta\le2$ as $$\mbox{ecpr}_{\beta}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(x\right) & \mbox{if }0\le2x<\beta\\
2\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{x}{\beta}\right) & \mbox{if }\beta\le2x<\beta^{2}\\
4\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{x}{\beta^{2}}\right) & \mbox{if }\beta^{2}\le2x<\beta^{3}\\
2^{n}\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(\frac{x}{\beta^{n}}\right) & \mbox{if }\beta^{n}\le2x<\beta^{n+1}
\end{cases}$$ The extension is performed simply by treating the self-similarity as a recurrence relation, which can be iterated to move the argument into a region where the original definition was sufficient. In essence, one applies a right-shift operator to reduce the argument. Since the multiplication operator is odd about $x=0$, on can trivially extend this to negative $x$ by defining $\mbox{ecpr}_{\beta}\left(-x\right)=-\mbox{ecpr}_{\beta}\left(x\right)$.
Note that the original $\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}\left(x\right)$ also had a translation symmetry: the upper half was equal to the lower half. This translation symmetry has been lost, since after all, multiplication does not preserve translation.
The ecpr function is not square integrable; it does not have an $L_{p}$-norm for any $p$; and this is no surprise, as its hard to imagine how it could be otherwise, for a function to be self-similar under scaling.
A Generic log-periodic Eigenfunction
------------------------------------
Inspired by the above, its should be clear how to build a generic eigenfunction. Let $g\left(x\right)$ be some arbitrary function, defined on the interval $1\le x<\beta$ (given some fixed $1<\beta$). Define its extension as $$g_{w}^{\prime}\left(x\right)=w^{n}g\left(\frac{x}{\beta^{n}}\right)\;\mbox{ if }\beta^{n}\le x<\beta^{n+1}$$ This has, by construction, the self-similarity relation $g_{w}^{\prime}\left(\beta x\right)=wg_{w}^{\prime}\left(x\right)$ and so is an eigenfunction with eigenvalue $w/\beta$:
$$\left[\mathcal{M}_{\beta}g_{w}^{\prime}\right]=\frac{w}{\beta}g_{w}^{\prime}$$ This function is merely log-periodic; its not fractal. Perhaps its silly to illustrate this; it should be obvious, but just in case its not, the figure below shows such a function, for $\beta=1.6$ and $w=0.8$. It is an eigenfunction of $\mathcal{M}_{1.6}$ with eigenvalue of 1/2.
{width="0.6\columnwidth"}
There doesn’t seem to be anything particularly interesting with this particular game. There’s a simple explanation for this: The multiplication operator is generating a free monoid in one generator (the iteration itself), whereas fractals require at least two generators of self-symmetry. The (usually) free interaction of multiple generators is what forces the fractal to appear.
Note that the $\mbox{cpr}_{\beta}$ function constructed above is a special case of this: It’s self-similar, but the property that made it interesting, as a fractal, was erased in the construction. As before, note that $g_{w}^{\prime}\left(x^{n}\right)$ is an eigenfunction with eigenvalue $1/\beta w^{n}$ (for integer $n$).
Haar Basis Matrix Elements
--------------------------
The Haar basis matrix elements for the beta shift proved to be a bit unwieldy and not terribly useful. The corresponding matrix elements for the multiplication operator have the same general essence, but are slightly simpler and shorter to write down. In all other respects, they still have the same tractability issues.
The multiplication operator $\mathcal{M}_{\beta}$ has matrix elements in the standard Haar basis: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle mi\left|{\cal M}_{\beta}\right|nj\right\rangle = & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}h_{mi}\left(x\right)\left[\mathcal{M}_{\beta}h_{nj}\right]\left(x\right)dx\\
= & \frac{2^{\left(m+n\right)/2}}{\beta}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}h\left(2^{m}x-i\right)h\left(\frac{2^{n}x}{\beta}-j\right)dx\end{aligned}$$ Instead of confining oneself to the unit interval, here it is convenient to consider the entire real-number line, and thus that is the range of the integral. Likewise, $i$ and $j$ an be any integers, positive or negative. As before, matrix elements vanish unless $$\left[\frac{i}{2^{m}},\frac{i+1}{2^{m}}\right]\cap\left[\frac{\beta j}{2^{n}},\frac{\beta\left(j+1\right)}{2^{n}}\right]\ne\emptyset$$ This holds in three cases: where one of the intervals contains an edge transition (left, middle or right) of the other interval, without also containing the other two.
The Shift and Add algorithm
---------------------------
One can model the multiplication of real numbers with a number of different algorithms applied to bit strings. One of the simplest such algorithms is the shift-and-add algorithm, described here. Its just elementary-school long-form multiplication, applied to the binary expansions of the numbers.
There’s a point worth laboring on: a bit string representing a real number is not the same thing as the real number. There are more bit-strings than there are real numbers. Most famously, the two bit strings $0.0111\cdots$ and $0.1000\cdots$ are two obviously distinct bit-strings, but they represent the same real number: one-half. All real numbers of the form $j/2^{n}$ (the “dyadic rationals”) will always have dual representations; all other real numbers have a single, unique representation. These correspond to the “gaps” in the Cantor set, or, equivalently, neighboring infinite branches in the finite binary tree. Bit-strings are not real numbers. They’re just a usable model of them. The usability is somewhat limited; its OK for working with individual points, but fails miserably for the topologies: the canonical topology on the reals is sharply different than the product topology on $2^{\omega}$.
The goal is to compute the product $Kx$ with $0\le K\le1$ and $0\le x\le1$ so that the product is $0\le Kx\le1$. Both $K$ and $x$ are represented by their binary expansions. Let the binary expansions be $$x=0.b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b_{n}2^{-n-1}$$ and
$$K=0.c_{0}c_{1}c_{2}\cdots=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}c_{n}2^{-n-1}$$ where the $b_{n}$ and $c_{n}$ are either 0 or 1, always.
Define $s_{0}=0$ and $s_{n+1}$ to be the non-negative integer $$s_{n+1}=b_{n}c_{0}+b_{n-1}c_{1}+\cdots+b_{0}c_{n}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}b_{k}c_{n-k}\label{eq:carry-bits}$$ Note that $0\le s_{n}\le n$. It is useful to visualize this in terms of the elementary school shifted tabular form: $$\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & c_{0}b_{0} & c_{0}b_{1} & c_{0}b_{2} & c_{0}b_{3} & \cdots\\
& & c_{1}b_{0} & c_{1}b_{1} & c_{1}b_{2} & \cdots\\
& & & c_{2}b_{0} & c_{2}b_{1} & \cdots\\
+ & & & & c_{3}b_{0} & \cdots
\end{array}\\
\mbox{--------------------------------------------}\\
\begin{array}{cccccc}
s_{0}\;\; & \;s_{1}\;\; & \;s_{2}\;\; & \;\;s_{3}\;\; & \;\;s_{4}\;\;\; & \cdots\end{array}
\end{array}$$ This makes clear the shift-and-add form. The value of each individual $s_{n}$ can be visualized as a stack of blocks. For the special case of $K=0.111\cdots=1$ one has that $s_{n+1}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}b_{k}$, that is, it is simply the total number of one-bits in the first $n$ locations.
The final step is to reduce the the sum series $s_{n}$ to a bit-string. This is accomplished recursively, by performing a carry operation: $$d_{n}=s_{n}+\left\lfloor \frac{d_{n+1}}{2}\right\rfloor \label{eq:propagate}$$ where $\left\lfloor d\right\rfloor =d\mod1$ denotes the floor of $d$ (the integer part of $d$). The desired bit sequence is then
$$a_{n}=d_{n}\mod\,2\label{eq:remainder}$$
Equivalently, $a_{n}$ is the remainder, the part of $d_{n}$ that was not propagated to the next location. Explicitly, is is $a_{n}=d_{n}-2\left\lfloor d_{n}/2\right\rfloor $. The carry-sum propagation can be imagined as a kind of bulldozer, razing the towers $d_{n}$ until they are one block high, pushing the razed bits off to the next location. The resulting sequence $\left(a_{n}\right)$ is then the bit-string for the product $Kx$. That is, $$Kx=0.a_{0}a_{1}a_{2}\cdots=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}2^{-n-1}$$
The problem with this algorithm is that the relation \[eq:propagate\] for the $d_{n}$ is infinitely recursive, and in general is not guaranteed to terminate. One has to start at $n=\infty$ and move backwards from there. There are two plausible scenarios for computing the $a_{n}$ in practice. One is to search the $n$ until one finds that spot where $\left\lfloor d_{N+1}/2\right\rfloor =0$; one can then obtain the $a_{n}$ for all $n<N$ without issue. The problem here is to find such an $N$.
The other way to compute is to observe that the iteration is convergent. The recursion \[eq:propagate\] only depends on a finite and fixed number of bits “behind it”, roughly equal to $\log_{2}n$ bits that come after this. As noted earlier, $0\le s_{n}\le n$ and likewise, $0\le d_{n}\le2n+1$. To write down $d_{n}$, one needs at most $C=1+\left\lfloor \log_{2}\left(2n+1\right)\right\rfloor $ bits. This implies that a given $d_{n}$ can only perturb at most $C-1$ bits downstream of it. That is, $d_{n-C+1}$ depends on $d_{n}$ but $d_{n-C}$ does not. Thus, in order to correctly compute all bits $a_{k}$ for $0\le k\le n-C$, it is sufficient to set $d_{n}$ to some arbitrary value (less than $2n+2$) and then iterate (using the correct values for $s_{k}$ when $k<n$). At the end, discard all $d_{k}$ and $a_{k}$ for $n-C<k$, as they are incorrect.
Tree-view
---------
Points:
1\) adding one bit is like shifting the tree over sideways.
2\) multiplying by one bit is like shifting the tree down-left.
3\) adding a number to itself is like shifting tree up (since its just 2x)
Simplified Models of Multiplication
===================================
The shift-and-add algorithm is obviously rather complex; can it be replaced by something simpler? The particular question to ask is how much of the chaotic dynamics of the beta shift is due to the propagation of the carry bit, and how much of it is due to other parts of the algorithm? Specifically, the addition of two numbers, which requires a carry bit, can be replaced by a bit-wise XOR of their bit strings: this generates “almost” the same results as addition, when the number of 1-bits in the strings are sparse, but are wrong when 1-bits appear in the same location: the XOR discards the carry bits. Thus, a simplified model of multiplication would the the shift-and-XOR model: it proceeds the same way as shift-and-add, but replaces addition with XOR. What does this look like, and how does the equivalent of the beta shift behave under this operation?
Shift-and-XOR
-------------
The shift-and-XOR algorithm must like the shift-and-add algorithm, except that it drops the carry bits. Starting from the same spot, let $0\le K\le1$ and $0\le x\le1$ and represent both by their binary expansions: $$x=0.b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b_{n}2^{-n-1}$$ and
$$K=0.c_{0}c_{1}c_{2}\cdots=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}c_{n}2^{-n-1}$$ where the $b_{n}$ and $c_{n}$ are either 0 or 1.
Define $s_{0}=0$ and $s_{n+1}$ to be the result of XOR-ing instead of adding the bits. $$s_{n+1}=b_{n}c_{0}\oplus b_{n-1}c_{1}\oplus\cdots\oplus b_{0}c_{n}=\bigoplus_{k=0}^{n}b_{k}c_{n-k}$$ Here, the oplus symbol $\oplus$ denotes the XOR operation. Note that each $s_{n}$ is either zero or one. Reconstructing a real number from this, one defines $$K\otimes x=0.s_{0}s_{1}s_{2}\cdots$$ where the otimes symbol $\otimes$ is pressed into service to indicate the shift-and-XOR product. Note that it is symmetric: $K\otimes x=x\otimes K$ and so behaves at least a bit like ordinary multiplication. Its is not distributive over ordinary addition: $\left(a+b\right)\otimes x\ne a\otimes x+b\otimes x$ but it is distributive over XOR: $\left(a\oplus b\right)\otimes x=\left(a\otimes x\right)\oplus\left(b\otimes x\right)$. It is illustrated in figure \[fig:Shift-and-XOR\].
![Shift and XOR Algorithm\[fig:Shift-and-XOR\]](shift-xor){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
This figure shows two functions, $\left(2/3\right)\otimes x$ and $\left(4/5\right)\otimes x$ as a function of $x$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The range of the shift-and-XOR operation is fundamentally different from multiplication. First, because the carry bit is dropped, one has that $s_{0}=0$ always, and so that $K\otimes x\le1/2$ always, even when both $K\to1$ and $x\to1$. Next, for any value of $1/2<K\le1$, the range of $K\otimes x$ runs over the entire interval $[0,1/2]$ as $x$ runs over the interval $[0,1]$. The measure is not compressed (other than by a factor of 2) , as there is in ordinary multiplication. That is, if $S\subset\left[0,1\right]$ is a measurable subset of the unit interval, with measure $\mu\left(S\right)$, then one has $\mu\left(K\otimes S\right)=\mu\left(S\right)/2$. There are several ways to prove this. One formal approach is to consider the correspondence between the natural measure on the reals, and the measure of cylinder sets on the product topology. That is, the Cantor space $\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\omega}$ is endowed with a natural topology, the product topology. The open sets of this topology are called “cylinder sets”. Their measure is uniformly distributed over unit interval, precisely because the Bernoulli shift is ergodic: the one implies the other.
Indeed, the shift-and-XOR algorithm can be best thought of as a formula for shuffling the bit-strings around, without actually altering them: re-ordering them, not changing them. The intuitive key to this is to observe that subtracting $x$ from 1 just re-orders the unit interval, top to bottom, and that this is the same as flipping all zero bits to one, and v.v. That is, $1-x=x\oplus0.111\cdots$.
Another way to see this shuffling is to note that $a\oplus a=0$ and that $0\oplus x=x$. Thus, for a fixed value of $a$, the string $x$ and the string $a\oplus x$ are paired together, in a unique way, so that either can be gotten from the other. The function $a\oplus[0,1]\to[0,1]$ sending $x\mapsto a\oplus x$ is an exchange of these unique pairings of strings. It is not just a bijection, it is an involution. If the strings are given their natural lexicographic sort order, the mapping $x\mapsto a\oplus x$ is just a certain kind of shuffle of the sort order; it neither adds new strings, nor deletes any, nor changes their number. The function is one-to-one and onto. The multiply-and-XOR algorithm is just a repeated sequence of XOR’s: $$K\otimes x=\left(\frac{c_{0}x}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{c_{1}x}{4}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{c_{2}x}{8}\right)\oplus\cdots$$ and so $K\otimes x$ is nothing more than a reshuffling of strings (along with a right-shift equal to the number of leading zero-bits in the binary expansion of $K$; the right-shift commutes with the measure on the product topology.) Thus, $K\otimes x$ preserves the measure on the unit interval (up to a factor of $2^{-n}$ due to the above-mentioned right-shift). That is, for $1/2<K\le1$, this discussion shows that $\mu\left(K\otimes S\right)=\mu\left(S\right)/2$.
Self-similarity
---------------
There are several self-similarity properties of the shift-XOR worth noting. It behaves very much like a classic dyadic fractal. Thus, one has that
$$K\otimes\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(K\otimes x\right)=\frac{1}{2}K\otimes x$$ In addition... TODO: illustrate the other symmetry.
Similarity Transformations
--------------------------
The shift-and-XOR algorithm acts as a permutation on bit-strings. As a result, the XOR-analogs of the beta shift and the tent map become uniformly ergodic, behaving exactly as the Bernoulli shift. The Frobenius-Perron solution to these is just the uniform distribution, which is featureless. All of the structure visible in figures \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\] and \[fig:Tent-Map-Bifur\] is entirely due to the dynamics of the carry bit. Effectively, the carry-bit algorithm alters the uniform distribution of the Bernoulli shift (equivalently, the uniform distribution associated with the natural measure on Cantor space.)
Define the XOR-analog of the beta shift as $$c_{\beta}\left(x\right)=\begin{cases}
2\beta\otimes x & \mbox{for }0\le x<\frac{1}{2}\\
2\beta\otimes\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right) & \mbox{for }\frac{1}{2}\le x<1
\end{cases}$$ The factor of 2 makes up for the fact that shift-XOR effectively drops the top bit; thus the goal is to map each half of the unit interval into the entire interval $[0,1]$.
Given a fixed $\beta$, define $\boxtimes_{\beta}:\left[0,1\right]\to\left[0,1\right]$ as $$\boxtimes_{\beta}\left(x\right)=\beta\otimes x$$ As observed previously, $\boxtimes_{\beta}$ is an automorphism of the unit interval, and more: it is a permutation on Cantor space. Let $b(x)$ be the Bernoulli shift of eqn \[eq:Bernoulli shift\]; then one has that $c_{\beta}=\boxtimes_{\beta}\circ b$. Taken together, this implies that the ergodic properties of iterating on $c_{\beta}$ follow directly from the ergodic properties of the Bernoulli shift; a shuffle, any shuffle on the Cantor set should not alter these ergodic properties.
TODO: similarity transforms on the transfer operator... and the non-alteration of the eigenspectrum, even as the eigenfunctions are altered.
Multiplication on the Cantor Space
----------------------------------
The previous set of results indicates that all of the structure in the bifurcation diagrams of \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\] and \[fig:Tent-Map-Bifur\] is entirely due to the dynamics of the propagation of the carry sum. To explore this, the notation needs to be improved on.
The beta shift can be decomposed into multiple distinct stages. First, there is a conversion from the unit interval to the Cantor space; this was defined at the very start, but now we need a less awkward notation for it. Let $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\pi:2^{\omega} & \to & \left[0,1\right]\\
0.b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots & \mapsto & x
\end{array}$$ be the projection from the Cantor space to the real-number unit interval, given by eqn \[eq:bernoulli-bits\]. Note that it is a surjection: dyadic rationals (rationals of the form $m/2^{n}$) correspond to two distinct bit strings. For example, $1/2$ can be represented as both $0.1000\cdots$ and as $0.0111\cdots$. Cantor space covers the unit interval. Write the inverse mapping as $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\pi^{-1}:\left[0,1\right] & \to & 2^{\omega}\\
x & \mapsto & 0.b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots
\end{array}$$ As a function, it is injective but not surjective. It is usually convenient to ignore this, and to pretend that both $\pi$ and $\pi^{-1}$ are bijections, even though they are not. This rarely leads to practical difficulties, as long as one stays conceptually tidy. Better yet, just perform all work on the Cantor space, and project to the unit interval only when needed.
Next, turn to multiplication. This has three parts. First, the summation of the carry bits: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
S_{\beta}:2^{\omega} & \to & \mathbb{N}^{\omega}\\
0.b_{0}b_{1}b_{2}\cdots & \mapsto & \left(s_{0},s_{1},s_{2},\cdots\right)
\end{array}$$ where the summation is given by eqn \[eq:carry-bits\]. Here, $\mathbb{N}^{\omega}$ is Baire space, the space of all infinite-length sequences of non-negative integers. In number theory, this would be called the space of arithmetic functions. The second part of multiplication is the propagation of the carry bits. Denote this as $$\begin{array}{ccc}
C:\mathbb{N}^{\omega} & \to & \mathbb{N}^{\omega}\\
\left(s_{0},s_{1},s_{2},\cdots\right) & \mapsto & \left(d_{0},d_{1},d_{2},\cdots\right)
\end{array}$$ which is defined in eqn \[eq:propagate\]. Finally, one extracts the remainder, after propagation: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
A:\mathbb{N}^{\omega} & \to & 2^{\omega}\\
\left(d_{0},d_{1},d_{2},\cdots\right) & \mapsto & \left(a_{0},a_{1},a_{2},\cdots\right)
\end{array}$$ which is given by eqn \[eq:remainder\]. Of the three parts into which we’ve decomposed multiplication, only the first part is parameterized by $K$. Thus, multiplication, on Cantor space, can be written as $M_{\beta}=A\circ C\circ S_{\beta}$. The shift-and-XOR algorithm omits the propagation of the carry sum. On Cantor space, it is just $\boxtimes_{\beta}=A\circ S_{\beta}$: the XOR is just modulo-2 of the carry sum.
To obtain multiplication on the real-number unit interval, we need merely to re-project from Cantor space to the reals. Thus, multiplication, given in eqn \[eq:multiplication\], decomposes into $$M_{\beta}=\pi\circ A\circ C\circ S_{\beta}\circ\pi^{-1}$$ The beta shift of eqn \[eq:downshift\] is then $$T_{\beta}=\pi\circ A\circ C\circ S_{\beta}\circ\pi^{-1}\circ b$$ where $b$ is the Bernoulli shift. To simplify notation, it is convenient to go ahead and provide a symbol for the shift operator: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
B:2^{\omega} & \to & 2^{\omega}\\
\left(b_{0},b_{1},b_{2},\cdots\right) & \mapsto & \left(b_{1},b_{2},\cdots\right)
\end{array}$$ so that $b=\pi\circ B\circ\pi^{-1}$. The corresponding beta shift on the Cantor space is $$B_{\beta}=A\circ C\circ S_{\beta}\circ B$$ which eliminates the pesky projection $\pi$. It should be clear that $S_{\beta}$ is an injection, the propagation operation $C$ and the remainder $A$ are both surjections.
As noted, the shift-and-XOR algorithm can be written as $\boxtimes_{\beta}=A\circ S_{\beta}$; the step where the carry bits are propagated is dropped. The XOR-version of the beta shift is
$$c_{\beta}=\boxtimes_{\beta}\circ B=A\circ S_{\beta}\circ B$$ Thus, in this new notation, it reaffirms that $B$ is the true source of ergodicity, and that $A\circ S_{\beta}$ being a permutation does not alter the basic ergodic property of $B$. All of the structure in the bifurcation diagrams can be blamed on the propagation operator $C$.
Propagation games
-----------------
Pinning the “blame” of complex dynamical structure on the propagation of the carry bits seems to be an open invitation to replace the propagation operator $C$ by just about anything, to see what happens. Figure \[fig:Carry-bit-propagation\] illustrates some of the things that can happen.
![Carry-bit propagation\[fig:Carry-bit-propagation\]](mang-carry-mod-2 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Carry-bit propagation\[fig:Carry-bit-propagation\]](mang-carry-1-more "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Carry-bit propagation\[fig:Carry-bit-propagation\]](mang-carry-1-less "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
![Carry-bit propagation\[fig:Carry-bit-propagation\]](mang-carry-1 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Carry-bit propagation\[fig:Carry-bit-propagation\]](mang-carry-2 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}![Carry-bit propagation\[fig:Carry-bit-propagation\]](mang-carry-3 "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
Two triptychs of different carry-bit behaviors. Define $F:\mathbb{N}^{\omega}\to\mathbb{N}^{\omega}$ by $F=f\times f\times f\times\cdots$ and then iterate on $A\circ C\circ F\circ S_{\beta}\circ B$. For $f\left(n\right)=n$ one obtains, of course, the standard beta shift of figure \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\]. The top-left image shows $f\left(n\right)=n\mod2$, which is the same as iterating on the shift-XOR function $c_{\beta}$. Here, $\beta$ runs from 0 at the bottom, to 2 at the top; $x$ runs from 0 to 1, left to right. The uniform red square simply indicates that the iteration is completely independent of $\beta$ when $1<\beta\le2$: it is fully uniform and ergodic in the same way that the Bernoulli shift is. The top-middle image shows $f\left(n\right)=n+1$, that is, pretending that there is one carry bit too many. The top-right shows $f\left(n\right)=\max\left(0,n-1\right)$, that is, having one carry-bit too few.\
The bottom three shows a progression of $f\left(n\right)=\max\left(n,1\right)$, $f\left(n\right)=\max\left(n,2\right)$ and $f\left(n\right)=\max\left(n,3\right)$, allowing more and more carry bits to propagate. In the limit, this becomes figure \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\] once again. Except for the top-left image, the rest seem pointlessly goofy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewing the images there makes it clear that although fiddling with the carry bit fundamentally alters point trajectories, it completely fails to open any doors that would provide insight into the structure of the transfer operator. The pictures are pretty, but appear to be meaningless.
Sci-fi day-dreaming
===================
This section provides two day-dreams inspired by this material. They are just that: daydreams. If you don’t like fictional daydreaming, you won’t like the material here. Sorry about that.
Limits to computation
---------------------
There are many limits to computation. One limit is the speed of light. In current generation CPU chips, clock rates in the vicinity of 3 gigahertz$=3\times10^{9}$ cycles per second. By comparison, the speed of light in a vacuum is about $3\times10^{8}$ meters per second. Dividing, one finds that light can travel about $3\times10^{8}/3\times10^{9}=10^{-1}$ meters, or about four inches: a bit bigger than the actual physical dimensions of a chip (typically around half-an-inch on a side), but not by much. Of course, the speed of light in a metal conductor is lower – about half the speed in a vacuum. And transistors are small – more than twenty-thousand times smaller. So, measured in terms of the size of the transistor, the speed of light is about ten or twenty transistor-widths per clock-cycle. So, OK, its still fast, at that length scale. But not really all that fast. The point here is that the speed of light is a potential limit to the speed of computation, and it is not all that far away.
In this setting, one can imagine the situation where the speed of propagating the carry bit during multiplication becomes a limiting factor. The above work hints at a somewhat boggling idea: can multiplication be effectively parallelized by working with transfer operators instead? That is, the multiplication of two numbers corresponds to point-wise particle dynamics: a discrete particle following a chaotic path through a complex numerical computation. By contrast, the transfer operator describes how a distribution propagates through a computation: it effectively performs “an infinite number” of multiplications at the same time, in parallel. That is, rather than asking how single values propagate, one could, and perhaps should, ask how distributions propagate – parallelize multiplication (for example) to an “infinite” degree. It is this rather ridiculous idea that suggests that the above explorations are not purely abstract, but have a potentially practical application. As I suggested – its a bit of science-fiction day-dreaming at this point. But it does hint at an alternate model of computation.
Variants of this model have already been explored, for decades. For example, Crutchfeld defined “geometric state machines” as generalizations of finite state machines, where, instead of having a finite matrix (a “transition matrix”) act on a finite vector (the “state vector”), one instead considers operators acting on homogeneous spaces – that is, applying a sequence of such operators on homogeneous space. The most famous and celebrated such space would the $\mathbb{CP}^{n}$ – complex projective space, with the operators that act on it being the the unitary ones: $U(n)$ – such a system defining the $n$-qubit quantum state machine. Distributions on $\mathbb{CP}^{n}$ are mixed states – and the idea of quantum computing is to evolve such states through a set of operations.
The point here is that computation, by means of the time-like evolution of distributional densities, is already being explored, but in a rather different context than the one explored here. Here, it seems like we are bowled over by the complexities of a seemingly much simpler system.
Wave function collapse
----------------------
There is also a different, bizarrely hypothetical way in which all of this apparatus could manifest itself. Currently, in order to avoid the rather severe issues associated with the concept of quantum-mechanical wave-function collapse, the (vast?) majority of practicing physicists believe in the many-worlds hypothesis. Clearly, this belief is entirely correct for microscopic systems, isolated from the usual thermodynamic hustle and bustle (chlorophyll, rhodopsin and the magnetically sensitive cryptochromes notwithstanding). But it seems to fly in the face of daily experience, where we are aware of just one reality. One of my favorite hypotheses is that this is the result of the (rapid) decay of macroscopic quantum states down to a probability of zero. The mechanism is presumably that of decaying subshift measures. Penrose argues that this has something to do with gravity; but we can go one better: the natural setting for shift spaces are hyperbolic spaces, as that is where there is enough room to “fit everything” in a uniform way consistent with a metric. Curiously, the world we live in – Minkowski space, is hyperbolic. This suggests that the Many Worlds interpretation is exactly right, as long as one truly is in Minkowski space, but that gravitation, which essentially bends or distorts it, squeezes down the room available for multiple quantum states, effectively forcing the collapse in this way.
Put another way: the standard treatment for quantum field theory is the Feynman functional integral; it can be viewed as an integral over all possible paths that a “particle” might take. The daydream is to equate a specific path with the idea of point-dynamics in an iterated function. As long as one considers only points, and there movement, one can be completely unaware of either the invariant measure, or of the decaying eigenstates of the shift operator. In a standard QFT textbook, all equations appear microscopically time-reversible. There’s almost no idea of a measure, except for the $\exp-i\hbar S$ in the Feynman integral. The incorporation of gravity into this is famously difficult. The daydream here is that gravity manifests itself as eigenfunctions that live off of the shell of unitary evolution.
There is some practical hope of bringing this daydream to fruition: the theory of subshifts has seen dramatic advances over the last few decades, getting increasingly abstract, and gaining a firm footing in very general settings: viz not just in metric spaces, but even in more general topological vector spaces, and specifically in stereotype spaces, where most of the devices used in analysis can be exercised in reasonably safe manner. The point here is that most of QFT can be formulated using these more-or-less conventional tools and notations. The trick is to locate and extract those parts that renormalize to zero, not unlike some of the formally divergent sums explored above, which can none-the-less be regulated and made to give reasonable answers. Or at least, that’s the daydream. Clearly, got far to got before it can be reality.
Topological Push-Forward
========================
The transfer operator is most generally and correctly defined as an operator acting on the topology of a space, and specifically, as the push-forward of the (uniform) measure by the iterated function. That is, given any open set belonging to the topology, the transfer operator assigns a different open set of the topology: it is a map of sets to sets. For iterated maps on the unit interval, it is essentially a map of cylinder sets, the open sets of the product topology. The shift-XOR experiment shows that the ergodic properties arise from the Bernoulli shift, and that all other properties, commonly called “chaotic”, are really the side effect of something else, entirely: the internal structure of the transfer operator. Fiddling with the carry-bits cannot reveal this structure; instead, they just define other, pointlessly goofy iterated functions. Point trajectories fail to reveal the internal structure of the transfer operator, and at best point in a misleading direction. To understand the transfer operator, it must be tackled for what it is: one must look at how intervals are mapped to intervals, and what sort of symmetries can be discovered in this mapping. (I’ve given one sketch of a proof of the transfer operator as a push-forward in this reference:[@Vep-mink2008]. There are must surely be better, more accessible and more formal and mathematically refined presentations; if you, reader, know of such, please drop me a line.)
The action of the transfer operator on the sets belonging to the topology of the reals reveals several distinct kinds of actions. The topology on the reals can be generated from a basis consisting of connected sets. The transfer operator will map some connected sets to other connected sets, simply moving them around, shrinking or expanding them. In other cases, a connected set will be split into two disjoint parts. For maps that are continuous, there must be regions that have fixed-points and period-doubling routes to chaos: these correspond to the (countable number of) “trouble spots” illustrated in section \[subsec:Islands-of-Stability\].
It seems reasonable to argue that each of these different kinds of moves creates a distinct group (or monoid) of transformations: in a certain sense, those transforms that do not change th connectivity, nor do any folding, are all similar to one-another. It should be possible to write down exactly which sets belong to this type, and then give explicit transformation properties between them. Likewise, those connected sets which are split in two are all similar. It seems like there should be a prototype: a generic split, followed by some re-arrangement of the two parts. How can this classification be written in an insightful, useful way?
I believe that there has been a sufficient number of advances in the theory of subshifts so that the above vague sketch can be presented in a fairly concrete way. Unfortunately, most of the relevant material remains rather arcane and abstract, lacking in direct accessibility to casual students. I am not currently aware of any adequate yet accessible treatment.
Conclusion
==========
What, exactly, is the point of analytic mathematics, especially in the computational age? Can’t one just get a fast computer, iterate on the logistic map, and find out everything there is to find? Well, of course, yes, and no: these questions can be taken as either silly or as deeply philosophical, and it is worth the effort to understand them and address them properly.
First, lets dispose of some obvious mis-perceptions. If one carefully scrutinizes figure \[fig:Undershift-Density-Distribution\], one will find signs of a slight unevenness in the horizontal bars. These are numerical artifacts due to statistical under-sampling: they smooth out and fade away with additional sampling of the iterated equations. There is a way to obtain this same figure, far more rapidly, and without this particular form of numerical noise: one can instead iterate on equation \[eq:eigen-eqn\]. This suggests one philosophical answer: the goal of mathematics is to find faster ways of computing things; to discover better algorithms.
A uniting theme between this, and the other text that I have written on fractal issues, is that they are all explorations of the structure of the Cantor set, the structure of the space of infinite sequences of symbols, and the structure of the continuum. That is, we know the continuum in two different ways: one way is by means of the natural topology on the real number line; the other is the product topology on the space of binary strings. The former is suggested by the physical universe that we actually live in: a continuum with spatial extents. The latter is suggested by the notion of time and repetition: the making of choices naturally leads to a tree structure; tree structures necessarily embed in hyperbolic spaces; the Minkowski space that we live in is hyperbolic, and this is why, every day, as time passes on, we get to make new choices precisely because the amount of room for possibilities is ever-increasing as time flows forward.
What, exactly, do the words “exactly solvable” really mean? So, for example, equation \[eq:not de Rham curve\] involves summation and multiplication, which has this aura of comfortable preciseness that an iterated function somehow does not. Where does this sensation come from? When performing arbitrary-precision numerical computations, it should be clear that neither addition nor multiplication are simple or easy: they both require fairly complex algorithms to implement, and have not-insignificant run-times. To be more precise: the algorithms are non-trivial because one is using a binary digit expansion to provide a model for a real number. Different representations of the real numbers potentially offer different algorithms and performance profiles. One could represent reals by rationals, but then two issues arise. One is that the rationals are not evenly distributed across the real number line: rationals with small denominators cluster about in a fractal fashion, studied deeply in number theory. As a result, one promptly gets stuck in a quagmire of trying to understand what a “uniform distribution” should be. Binary expansions are more “obviously” uniform. A more basic issue is that, if working with rationals, one must somehow accomplish the addition or multiplication of two integers. To accomplish this, one has to represent the integers as sequences of bits, which only takes us back to where we started. There is no computational oracle that automatically knows the sum or product of integers: it has to be computed. The analysis being done in this text is a kind of a game, where not only is one algebraic arrangement of symbols is being compared to another, but also one computational algorithm is being compared for another. Unfortunately, this latter comparison is very nearly opaque and hidden. If only it could be made visible in some simple fashion.
The situation here is more easily illustrated in a different domain. The hyper-geometric series was presented and studied by Gauss; then Kummer, Pfaff and Euler observed various identities yoking together different series. By the 1950’s, thousands of relations were known, along with some algorithms that can enumerate infinite series of relations. The curious situation is that there is no known algorithm that can enumerate all such relations; there is no systematic way to classify them. The situation does seem to make clear that there is an interplay between infinite series and algorithmic relationships between them. Stated a different way: hyper-geometric series are self-similar, and the identities relating them are expressions of that self-similarity.
To further sharpen this idea: the dyadic monoid is the generator of self-symmetry in many common fractals; this is “well-known”, and I have explored this in other texts. A more general setting for fractal self-similarities is given by tilings of the hyperbolic surface: to each tiling, there are corresponding fractals, the self-similarity of which are given by the tiling. The figures \[fig:Undershift-Bifurcation-Diagram\], \[fig:Tent-Map-Bifur\] and \[fig:Logistic-Map-Bifurcation\] are clearly self-similar in some obscure way: it is visually clear, but providing a simple algebraic expression describing the similarity is difficult; I have not been successful in this. None-the-less, it seems self-evident that it will be the dyadic monoid that is somehow responsible for the symmetries, underlying them (unless, of course, there is some other, as yet undiscovered structure).
The meta-question is: what is the correct framework by which one can best understand the interplay between symmetries, infinite series and algorithms? The current tool-set seems impoverished: it does not “solve” the systems in this text. Worse, current mathematical practice reifies addition and multiplication into oracular operations that magically obtain “the right answer”, when it is clear from numerical methods that addition and multiplication are necessarily algorithmic operations performed on finite truncations of infinite series. It would be nice to place these operations on equal footings, so as to expose the true nature of this beast.
Bibliography
============
The references below provide a bibliography that attempts to touch on all the different ways in which the beta transform and beta expansions have been studied. Search engines exist to help you find the things you don’t know, and want to find out more about.
[^1]: Formal mathematics distinguishes between many different kinds of chaotic number sequences: those that are ergodic, those that are weakly or strongly Bernoulli, weakly or strongly mixing. The beta transform is known to be ergodic,[@Renyi57] weakly mixing[@Parry60] and weakly Bernoulli.[@Dajani97]
[^2]: This was confirmed with both GSL gsl\_eigen\_nonsymmv() and Lapack DHSEQR solvers, exploring the principle submatrix of various sizes, up to about $2000\times2000$ entries. Both systems agree to at least six decimal places, if not more. Both show sporadic eigenvalues off the circle, but these are not numerically stable; ergo, the only valid eigenvalues are those on the circle. The matrix entries were constructed using the midpoint algorithm, described in the last section. To verify that they are accurate, several techniques were used: numerical integration to confirm orthogonality, and the use of the GnuMP multi-precision library to push up accuracy.
[^3]: A hypothesis presented in a later section suggests that each orbit should be thought of as a Galois group, with the length of the orbit corresponding to the number of elements in the Galois group. It seems that this might explain much of the structure.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Fractional revival occurs between two vertices in a graph if a continuous-time quantum walk unitarily maps the characteristic vector of one vertex to a superposition of the characteristic vectors of the two vertices. This phenomenon is relevant in quantum information in particular for entanglement generation in spin networks. We study fractional revival in graphs whose adjacency matrices belong to the Bose-Mesner algebra of association schemes. A specific focus is a characterization of balanced fractional revival (which corresponds to maximal entanglement) in graphs that belong to the Hamming scheme. Our proofs exploit the intimate connections between algebraic combinatorics and orthogonal polynomials.
[*Keywords*]{}: Quantum walk, association scheme, Bose-Mesner algebra, Hamming scheme, Krawtchouk polynomials.
[*MSC*]{}: 05E30, 05C50. 33C05, 15A16, 81P40.
author:
- |
Ada Chan\
\
- |
Gabriel Coutinho\
\
- |
Christino Tamon\
\
- |
Luc Vinet & Hanmeng Zhan\
\
title: Fractional Revival and Association Schemes
---
Introduction
============
Quantum walk on graphs is a fundamental area in quantum information and computation. In quantum computation, it provides a natural generalization of Grover’s celebrated algorithm to arbitrary graphs (see [@nc00]). In quantum information, it is important for studying transport problems in quantum spin networks. This was initiated by Bose [@b03] in the context of perfect state transfer in quantum spin chains.
A quantum transport problem that is relevant for entanglement generation is fractional revival. It is known that entanglement is a useful resource in quantum information theory with many applications (for example, the teleportation protocol). Fractional revival is also interesting since it captures both aspects of perfect state transfer and periodicity which are two well-known quantum transport phenomena (see Godsil [@g12]).
Prior to our work, Genest [[*et al. *]{}]{}[@gvz16] and Christandl [[*et al. *]{}]{}[@cvz17] had analytically studied the fractional revival phenomenon in quantum spin chains. The graphs they studied may be viewed as weighted paths with (possibly) additional edges connecting vertices at distance two from each other. Based on techniques from orthogonal polynomials, they observed spectral conditions for fractional revival to occur in these weighted graphs.
In this work, we study quantum fractional revival mainly on unweighted graphs. Our motivation is to understand the role of the underlying graph structure on fractional revival without the benefit of arbitrary real-valued weights. To this end, we study fractional revival from a graph-theoretic perspective and develop some algebraic machinery useful for analyzing this phenomenon. Other works with a similar focus include Bernard [[*et al. *]{}]{}[@bcltv18] and our prior work [@cctvz].
The main combinatorial object we focus on is an association scheme. An association scheme is a set of matrices that satisfy strong regularity relations, which allow for a fairly combinatorial treatment of their spectral properties. More details will be presented in Section \[sec:assoc\]. We present a full characterization of when fractional revival occurs in a graph that belongs to an association scheme — a result that provides a way of easily and efficiently checking whether or when it occurs. Additionally, fractional revival in association schemes always features a partition of the vertex set of the graph into pairs of vertices, all of which exhibit fractional revival at the same time.
Following our general description of fractional revival in association schemes, we make a connection to distance-regular graphs and orthogonal polynomials, which in turn leads to our treatment of fractional revival in graphs whose adjacency matrices belong to a special association scheme — the binary Hamming scheme ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$. Our main result is a necessary and sufficient condition for balanced fractional revival to occur in this scheme. We then use this to provide constructions of explicit families of graphs with balanced fractional revival. Balanced fractional revival is a natural choice since it corresponds to the generation of maximally entangled states (which are crucial for many quantum information theory protocols).
Preliminaries
=============
We review some background from algebraic graph theory (see Godsil and Royle [@gr01]). A graph $X$ is given by a set of its vertices $V(X)$ and a set of it edges $E(X)$. The adjacency matrix of $X$, which we denote by $A(X)$, is a $01$ matrix whose $ab$ entry is $1$ if $ab \in E(X)$ and is $0$ otherwise. For a vertex $a \in V(X)$ where $|V(X)| = n$, we use ${\mathbf{e}}_{a}$ to denote the unit (characteristic) vector of dimension $n$ that is $1$ at position indexed by $a$ and is $0$ elsewhere.
For a graph $X$, the continuous-time quantum walk (or transition) matrix of $X$ is given by $$U(t) = e^{-{\mathtt{i}}t A(X)}$$ where $t$ ranges over the reals. This was originally studied by Farhi and Gutmann [@fg98] in the context of decision trees.
Let $a$ and $b$ be two distinct vertices of $X$. We say that $X$ admits [*fractional revival from $a$ to $b$*]{} at time $\tau > 0$ if for some $\alpha, \beta \in {\mathbb{C}}$, with $\beta \neq 0$ and $|\alpha|^2 + |\beta|^2 = 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:fr_def}
U(\tau) {\mathbf{e}}_a = \alpha {\mathbf{e}}_a + \beta {\mathbf{e}}_b. \end{aligned}$$ In this case, we also say [*$(\alpha,\beta)$-revival occurs from $a$ to $b$ at time $\tau$*]{}. By factoring a common unimodular phase factor, we may assume $\alpha$ is real. So, we say $e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha,\beta)$-revival occurs where $\alpha$ and $\zeta$ are real scalars and $\beta$ is complex. The fractional revival is called [*balanced*]{} if $|\alpha| = |\beta| = 1/\sqrt{2}$. In this case, we may simply say balanced fractional revival occurs with phase $\zeta$.
We say $X$ has $(\alpha,\beta)$-revival if it has $(\alpha,\beta)$-revival from [*every*]{} vertex at the same time. This holds if there is a permutation matrix $T$ (with no fixed points) where for some time $\tau$ we have $$U(\tau) = \alpha I + \beta T.$$
We define several other quantum transport properties. The graph $X$ is called [*periodic at vertex $a$*]{} at time $\tau$ if $\beta = 0$ in . We say $X$ has [*perfect state transfer*]{} from $a$ to $b$ at time $\tau$ if $\alpha = 0$ in . See Godsil [@g12] for a survey of these notions.
Association Schemes {#sec:assoc}
===================
A [*symmetric association scheme*]{} is a set of $n\times n$ symmetric $01$-matrices $\{A_0,...,A_d\}$ satisfying the following properties:
(i) $\sum_{i = 0}^d A_i = J$, the all $1$s matrix.
(ii) The identity matrix is one of them, and we always assume $A_0 = I$.
(iii) $A_i A_j$ is a linear combination of the matrices in the scheme, for all $i$ and $j$.
Each matrix in the association scheme is called a [*class of the scheme*]{}. As the classes are symmetric, property (iii) implies that they all commute. By taking products and linear combinations, it follows that the matrices $\{A_0,...,A_d\}$ generate a commutative algebra of matrices, called the Bose-Mesner algebra of the scheme, which we denote by $\cal A$. The association scheme always forms a basis for its Bose-Mesner algebra. This is an algebra of symmetric commuting matrices, thus it can be simultaneously diagonalized. The projectors onto the eigenspaces are also a basis for the algebra, therefore there are $d+1$ of those, which we typically denote by $\{E_0,...,E_d\}$. The Bose-Mesner algebra is closed under ordinary matrix product, and $\{E_0,...,E_d\}$ are the minimal idempotents. It is also closed under the entrywise product of matrices, and the association scheme $\{A_0,...,A_d\}$ is a basis of minimal idempotents for this product. Two square $(d+1)\times (d+1)$ matrices $P$ and $Q$ are typically defined in order to record the relationship between these two bases, as follows:
- for all $i$, $A_i = \sum_{j = 0}^d P_{ji} E_j$; and
- for all $j$, $E_j = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 0}^d Q_{ij} A_i$.
Note that $PQ = nI$. We refer the reader to [@bcn89] for a complete introduction to association schemes, and to [@cggv15] for an application of the concept related to quantum walks.
For the result that follows, let $X$ be a graph that belongs to an association scheme, which is to say, $A = A(X)$ is a sum of some of the matrices in an association scheme. Thus $A$ belongs to the Bose-Mesner algebra, and so does $U(t)$, for any $t$. Hence it is a linear combination of matrices in the scheme, and this shall be sufficient for a fairly restricted description of when and how fractional revival can occur.
\[thm:fr\_in\_scheme\] Let $X$ be a graph with $A=A(X)$ in the Bose-Mesner algebra of an association scheme $\{A_0,A_1,\ldots,A_d\}$ with minimal idempotents $\{E_0,E_1,\ldots,E_d\}$. Suppose the eigenvalues of $A$ are given by $\theta_0 \ge \theta_1 \ge \ldots \ge \theta_d$.
There are real scalars $\alpha,\zeta$ and a complex scalar $\beta$ so that the graph $X$ has $e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha,\beta)$ fractional revival from $a$ to $b$ at time $\tau$ if and only if both the following conditions hold.
(a) the unique class $A_{q}$ of the scheme which is non-zero in the $(a,b)$ entry is a permutation matrix of order $2$ (and so its eigenvalues are $\pm 1$); and \[cond:1\]
(b) for all $r \in \{1,...,d\}$, if $A_q E_r = E_r$, then $(\theta_r - \theta_0) \tau \equiv 0 \pmod{2\pi}$, and if $A_q E_r = -E_r$, then $$\label{eqn:fr_in_scheme}
(\theta_r - \theta_0)\tau
\equiv
2\cos^{-1}(\alpha) \pmod{2\pi}$$ \[cond:2\]
Note that if the conditions hold, then fractional revival occurs between all pairs of vertices determined by $A_q$, as in fact, $$\begin{aligned}
U(\tau) = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta} (\alpha I + \beta A_q). \label{eq:1}\end{aligned}$$
We first show Condition is necessary. Assume $X$ has $e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha,\beta)$ fractional revival from $a$ to $b$ at time $\tau$, where $\alpha \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Thus, $U(\tau){\mathbf{e}}_{a} = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha{\mathbf{e}}_{a} + \beta{\mathbf{e}}_{b})$. Since $U(\tau)$ belongs to the Bose-Mesner algebra of the scheme, we have $U(\tau) = \sum_{r = 0}^d \eta_{r}A_{r}$ for some constants $\eta_{r}$ (which depend on $\tau$). Suppose $A_{q}$ is the unique matrix in the scheme for which $(A_{q})_{b,a} = 1$. Thus, $\eta_{0} = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}\alpha$, $\eta_{q} = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}\beta$, and $\eta_{\ell} = 0$ for $\ell \neq 0,q$. This shows that $$\label{eqn:local2global}
U(\tau) = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha A_{0} + \beta A_{q}).$$ As $A_{q}$ commutes with $J$, it is a symmetric matrix with row and column sums equal $1$. Hence $A_{q}$ is a permutation matrix of order $2$.
Now we assume Condition holds. Fractional revival between $a$ and $b$ is equivalent to Equation , which we now show to be equivalent to Condition .
Let $A_q = \sum_{r = 0}^d \sigma_r E_r$. Again, observe that $\sigma_r = \pm 1$. We have $$\label{eqn:local3global}
U(\tau) = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha A_{0} + \beta A_{q}).$$ if and only if, for all $r \in \{0,...,d\}$, $$e^{-{\mathtt{i}}\theta_r \tau} = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha + \beta \sigma_r).$$ This is true because the idempotents $\{E_0,...,E_r\}$ form a basis. Now, as $|e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha \pm \beta)| = 1$ and $\alpha \in {\mathds{R}}$, we have $\beta \in {\mathtt{i}}{\mathds{R}}$, and since $|\alpha|^{2} + |\beta|^{2} = 1$, we may assume $\alpha = \cos \vartheta$ and $\beta = {\mathtt{i}}\sin \vartheta$. Hence Equation is equivalent to, for all $r$, $$e^{-{\mathtt{i}}\theta_r \tau} = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta} e^{\sigma_r {\mathtt{i}}\vartheta}.$$ Fixing $-\theta_0 \tau = \zeta + \vartheta$ (as $\sigma_0 = 1$), the equation above, for each $r \neq 0$, is equivalent to
(i) if $\sigma_r = 1$, then $(\theta_r - \theta_0) \tau \equiv 0 \pmod{2\pi}$; and
(ii) if $\sigma_r = -1$, then $(\theta_r - \theta_0)\tau
\equiv 2\vartheta \pmod{2\pi}$,
which is precisely Condition of the statement.
We can say a bit more. If there is fractional revival between two vertices in a graph in an association scheme, the result above says that there is a permutation matrix in the scheme that swaps these two vertices. Thus they are strongly cospectral (see [@godsilsmith Theorem 11.2]). As a consequence, we can apply [@cctvz Corollary 5.6], and because $\theta_0$ is always an integer if $X$ is regular, we have the corollary below.
\[cor:integral\] If fractional revival occurs in a graph $X$ belonging to an association scheme at time $\tau$, then all eigenvalues of $X$ are integers, and $\tau$ is a rational multiple of $\pi$.
This takes us immediately to the following characterization.
\[thm:frchar\] Let $\{A_0,...,A_d\}$ be an association scheme whose set of minimal idempotents is given by $\{E_0,...,E_d\}$. Assume one of its classes is a permutation matrix of order two, say $A_q$ for some $q$, with spectral decomposition $A_q = \sum_{r = 0}^d \sigma_s E_s$. Let $X$ be a graph in this scheme, with integer eigenvalues $\theta_0 \geq ... \geq \theta_d$. Define $$g = \gcd\big\{(\theta_0 - \theta_s)\big\}_{s = 1}^d.$$ Then for all integers $m \ge 1$ satisfying the properties
(i) $\{(\theta_0 - \theta_s)/g\}_{\sigma_s = -1}$ are all congruent to the same integer $\mu$ modulo $m$, and
(ii) $\{(\theta_0 - \theta_s)/g\}_{\sigma_s = 1}$ are all congruent to $0$ modulo $m$,
it follows that $X$ admits $e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\alpha,\beta)$ fractional revival at time $\tau = 2 t \pi /m g$, for any integer $t$, where $$\zeta = t\pi \left(\frac{-2\theta_0 - \mu g}{m g}\right)\quad , \quad \alpha = \cos \left( \frac{t\mu \pi}{m}\right) \quad \text{and} \quad \beta = {\mathtt{i}}\sin \left(\frac{t\mu \pi}{m} \right)$$ Moreover, if fractional revival occurs at time $\tau$, then there are integers $m$ and $\mu$ such that (i) and (ii) above hold.
Note that if $\mu \neq 0$, then $g \cdot \gcd(\mu,m)$ divides $\theta_0-\theta_s$ for $s=1,\ldots, d$, so we either have $\gcd(\mu,m)=1$ or $\mu=0$. In particular, if $\mu = 0$ in the theorem, it describes periodicity (and it always happens choosing the degenerate case $m = 1$ as, after all, the eigenvalues are integers). If $\mu = 1$ and $m = 2$, the theorem describes perfect state transfer. For any other $m$, as long as $\mu \neq 0$, we have fractional revival with both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ different than $0$. If $m=4$ and $\mu = \pm 1$, we have balanced fractional revival.
If $m$ and $\mu$ exist satisfying properties $(i)$ and $(ii)$, then clearly Condition of Theorem \[thm:fr\_in\_scheme\] is satisfied at $\tau$, and parameters $\zeta$ (modulo $2 \pi$), $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are determined. Now assume fractional revival occurs at a time $\tau$, which, by Corollary \[cor:integral\], we may assume satisfies $\tau = (a/b) \pi$ for some (positive) integers $a$ and $b$. We may further assume $a < 2b$, because a graph with integer eigenvalues is periodic at time $2 \pi$. Let $m$ be the smallest integer so that for some integer $t$, the equality below holds $$\frac{a}{b} \pi = \frac{2t}{mg} \pi.$$ We must show now that conditions (i) and (ii) hold for some $\mu$. From Condition of Theorem \[thm:fr\_in\_scheme\], for all $s$ with $\sigma_s = 1$, we have $$(\theta_0 - \theta_s)\frac{2t}{mg} \pi \equiv 0 \pmod{2 \pi},$$ and as $t$ and $m$ are coprime, this is equivalent to $(\theta_0 - \theta_r)/g \equiv 0 \pmod{m}$. Likewise, for all $s$ with $\sigma_s = -1$, we have, for some $\vartheta$, $$(\theta_0 - \theta_s)\frac{2t}{mg} \pi \equiv 2 \vartheta \pmod{2 \pi},$$ and as $t$ and $m$ are coprime, this is equivalent to the existence of an integer $\mu$ with $(\theta_0 - \theta_s)/g \equiv \mu \pmod{m}$.
The conditions in Theorem \[thm:frchar\] are quite descriptive, but we can do better in terms of providing an efficient way of checking whether fractional revival (or its variants) occur.
\[lem:frchar\] Let $\{A_0,...,A_d\}$ be an association scheme whose set of minimal idempotents is given by $\{E_0,...,E_d\}$. Assume one of its classes is a permutation matrix of order $2$, say $A_q$ for some $q$, with spectral decomposition $A_q = \sum_{r = 0}^d \sigma_s E_s$. Let $X$ be a graph in this scheme, with integer eigenvalues $\theta_0 \geq ... \geq \theta_d$. Define $$g = \gcd \big\{(\theta_0 - \theta_s)\big\}_{s = 1}^d.$$ Let $h$ be the integer satisfying $$hg = \gcd\big\{(\theta_r - \theta_s)\big\}_{\sigma_r = \sigma_s}.$$ Then a positive integer $m$ satisfies Theorem \[thm:frchar\] if and only if it divides $h$.
The integer $m$ satisfies the properties of Theorem \[thm:frchar\] if and only if, for $\sigma_s=\sigma_r$, $$\frac{\theta_r - \theta_s}{g} = \frac{\theta_0 - \theta_s}{g} - \frac{\theta_0- \theta_r}{g} \equiv 0 \pmod m,$$ the last equivalence being true because either $0-0 \equiv 0 \pmod m$ or $\mu - \mu \equiv 0 \pmod m$. This equation holds exactly when $m$ divides $h$.
\[thm:frchar\_gh\] Let $X$ be a graph in an association scheme containing a permutation matrix of order two. Let $g$ and $h$ be defined as in Lemma \[lem:frchar\]. Then
(a) $h = 1$ if and only if the graph $X$ does not admit fractional revival nor perfect state transfer.
(b) $h > 2$ if and only if the graph $X$ admits fractional revival that is different from perfect state transfer. In particular, $\frac{2\pi}{hg}$ is the minimum time when fractional revival occurs in $X$
(c) $h$ is even if and only if the graph $X$ admits perfect state transfer. In particular, when $h=2$, $X$ admits perfect state transfer but no other form of fractional revival.
(d) $h$ is doubly even if and only if the graph $X$ admits balanced fractional revival.
Distance-Regular Graphs
-----------------------
Association schemes can be constructed in several distinct ways. One of them comes from certain graphs and their distance matrices. If $X$ is a graph, let $A_k$ be the $01$ symmetric matrix indexed by vertices with $(i,j)$ entry equal to $1$ if and only if vertex $i$ is at distance $k$ from vertex $j$. Note that $A_0 = I$ and $A_1$ is simply the adjacency matrix. To a graph of diameter $d$ we can associate the set $\{A_0,...,A_d\}$ of its distance matrices. Now in very few special cases, the set of distance matrices of a graph form an association scheme. When this happens, the graph is called [*distance-regular*]{}. See [@bcn89] for more background on distance-regular graphs.
A distance-regular graph $X$ is called [*primitive*]{} if each of the graphs $X_{k}$ whose adjacency matrix coincide with the $k$-th distance matrix of $X$, $A_k$, are connected. If any of them is disconnected, $X$ is called [*imprimitive*]{}. If $X$ is imprimitive and $k$-regular with $k \ge 3$, then $X$ is bipartite or $X_{d}$ is a disjoint union of $\ell$-cliques, for some $\ell$. In the latter case, $X$ is called [*antipodal*]{}, the cliques in $X_{d}$ are called the fibres of $X$, and the fibre size is $\ell$. (See Theorem 4.2.1 in [@bcn89].)
\[prop:fr\_in\_drg\] Let $X$ be a distance-regular graph of diameter $d > 1$. If $X$ has $(\alpha,\beta)$ fractional revival from $a$ to $b$ at time $\tau$, then $$U_{X}(\tau) = \alpha A_{0} + \beta A_{d},$$ where $A_{d}$ is the adjacency matrix of $\frac{d}{2}K_{2}$.
By Theorem \[thm:fr\_in\_scheme\], we know that $U_{X}(\tau) = \alpha A_{0} + \beta A_{q}$ for some $1 \le q \le d$, and that $A_q$ is a permutation matrix of order two with no fixed points. By reasoning exactly as in [@cggv15 Theorem 4.1], it must be that $q = d$.
If $X$ is a distance-regular graph with corresponding distance matrices $\{A_0,...,A_d\}$, it is not hard to see that there are polynomials $p_0,...,p_d$, with $p_k$ having degree $k$, so that $p_k(A_1) = A_k$. These polynomials are all orthogonal according to a standard choice of inner product, because the Schur product between $A_i$ and $A_j$ vanishes, that is, $A_i \circ A_j = 0$, for $i \neq j$, and thus $\operatorname{tr}A_i A_j = 0$. If $X$ is antipodal with eigenvalues $\theta_0 > ... > \theta_d$ and corresponding projectors $\{E_0,...,E_d\}$, and $A_d$ is a permutation matrix of order $2$, then [@brouwerhaemers Proposition 11.6.2] tells us that $$A_d = \sum_{r = 0}^d (-1)^r E_r.$$ Along with the characterization in Theorem \[thm:frchar\_gh\], this provides a very efficient and easy method to check whether a distance-regular graph (DRG) admits fractional revival (FR). We use PST to abbreviate perfect state transfer in the table below. We summarize the results for the families of distance-regular graphs studied in [@cggv15].
Hamming Scheme
==============
In this section, we focus on the Hamming scheme and provide characterization when balanced fractional revival occurs.
Consider families of graphs whose vertices are the binary sequences of length $n$, where $n \ge 1$. The graph $X_{r}$, for $r=0,\ldots,n$, has edges connecting all pairs of vertices with Hamming distance $r$. The graph $X_1$ is also known as the $n$-cube. Let $A_{r} = A(X_{r})$ be the adjacency matrix of $X_{r}$. This describes the well-known Hamming scheme ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$. So, the Bose-Mesner algebra of ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ is spanned by the set of matrices $\mathcal{A} = \{A_{0},A_{1},\ldots,A_{n}\}$. Let $\{E_0,\ldots,E_n\}$ be the set of minimal idempotents of this scheme, where $$A_1 E_s= (n-2s)E_s
\quad \text{and} \quad
A_n E_s = (-1)^s E_s, \quad \text{for $s=0,\ldots,n$.}$$ Then, we have (see Stanton [@s01], Section 2) $$A_{r} = \sum_{s=0}^{n} p_{r}(s)E_{s},
\ \hspace{.5in} \
r = 0,\ldots,n.$$ where $p_{r}(x)$ is the Krawtchouk polynomial of degree $r$. A more customary notation for the Krawtchouk polynomial is $p_r(x,q,n)$ which specifies the arity $q$ and the dimension $n$. We suppress $q$ since we focus exclusively on $q=2$ and we will include $n$ only if necessary.
It is known that (see Stanton [@s01], Equation (2.3a)) $$p_{r}(s) = \binom{n}{r}
{}_{2}F_{1}\left( \begin{tabular}{c|} $-r,-s$ \\ $-n$ \end{tabular} \ 2 \right),
\ \mbox{ where } \
{}_{2}F_{1}\left( \begin{tabular}{c|} $a,b$ \\ $c$ \end{tabular} \ x \right) =
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{a^{\overline{m}}b^{\overline{m}}}{c^{\overline{m}}} \frac{x^{m}}{m!}.$$ Here, ${}_{2}F_{1}$ is the Gaussian hypergeometric function and $z^{\overline{m}} = z(z+1) \ldots (z+m-1)$ is the $m$-th rising factorial power of $z$.
We state some useful properties of the Krawtchouk polynomials.
\[prop:krawtchouk\] For $n \ge 2$, the Krawtchouk polynomials $p_{r}(s)$ satisfy:
(i) (MacWilliams and Sloane [@ms77], Chapter 5, Section 7, Theorem 15)\
For $0 \le r \le n$, $$\label{eqn:krawtchouk}
p_{r}(s) = \sum_{h=0}^{r} (-2)^{h} \binom{n-h}{r-h} \binom{s}{h}
\ \hspace{.5in} \
s = 0,\ldots,n.$$ Therefore, $$p_{r}(1) - p_{r}(0) = -2\binom{n-1}{r-1}$$.
(ii) (Chihara and Stanton [@cs90], Proposition 2.1)\
For $1\le r\le n$, $$\label{eqn_rec_1}
p_r(s, n) - p_r(s+1, n) = 2p_{r-1}(s, n-1),
\ \hspace{0.5in} \
s = 0, \ldots, n-1.$$
(iii) (Chihara and Stanton [@cs90], Proposition 2.3)\
For $1 \le r \le n$, $$\label{eqn_rec_2}
p_{r}(s,n) - p_{r}(s+2,n) = 4p_{r-1}(s,n-2),
\ \hspace{0.5in} \
s = 0, \ldots, n-2.$$ Therefore, $$p_{r}(s) - p_{r}(s+2) = 4\sum_{h=0}^{r-1} (-2)^{h}\binom{n-2-h}{r-1-h} \binom{s}{h},
\ \hspace{0.5in} \
s = 0, \ldots, n-2.
\qed$$
From Theorem \[thm:frchar\_gh\], we see that for a graph $X$ with eigenvalue $\theta_0,\ldots,\theta_r$, the parameters $$\gcd \big\{(\theta_0-\theta_s)\big\}_{s=1}^n$$ and $$\gcd \big\{(\theta_r - \theta_s)\big\}_{\sigma_r = \sigma_s}.$$ play a role in characterizing fractional revival. If, in addition, $X$ is a class of the binary Hamming scheme ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$, then we can express these two parameters using the eigenvalues of the scheme.
To simplify the computation in the following proof, we define $p_r(s,n)=0$ if $r<0$ or $r>n$. We can then extend Equations (\[eqn\_rec\_1\]) and (\[eqn\_rec\_2\]) to any integer $r$.
\[lem:gcd\] Let $A=A_{r_1}+ \cdots + A_{r_{\ell}}$, where $0 < r_1 < \cdots < r_{\ell}\le n$, in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$. Suppose $A \neq A_{n}$ and $A=\sum_{s=0}^n \theta_s E_s$, where $E_0,\ldots, E_n$ are the minimal idempotents of ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$. Define $$g = \gcd \big\{(\theta_0-\theta_s)\big\}_{s=1}^n,$$ and $h$ to be the integer satisfying $$hg = \gcd\big\{(\theta_s-\theta_{s+2})\big\}_{s=0}^{n-2}.$$ Then $$g = \gcd\Big\{2^j \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} p_{r_i-j}(0, n-j)\Big\}_{j=1}^{r_{\ell}},$$ and $$hg =
\gcd\Big\{2^{j+1} \sum_{i=1}^{\ell'} p_{r_i-j}(0,n-j-1)\Big\}_{j=1}^{r_{\ell'}},
\quad
\text{where}
\
\ell' = \begin{cases} \ell & \text{if $r_{\ell}<n$,}\\ \ell-1 & \text{if $r_{\ell}=n$.}\end{cases}$$ In particular, $g$ is even and divides $2^{r_{\ell}}$, and $hg$ is doubly even and divides $2^{r_{\ell'}+1}$.
First we have $$g = \gcd\Big\{\theta_s - \theta_{s+1}\Big\}_{s=0}^{n-1}
= \gcd\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \big(p_{r_i}(s,n)-p_{r_i}(s+1,n)\big)\Big\}_{s=0}^{n-1}.$$ Applying Equation (\[eqn\_rec\_1\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
g&=&\gcd\Bigg\{2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-1),2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-1}(1,n-1),\ldots,2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-1}(n-1,n-1)\Bigg\}\\
&=& \gcd\Bigg\{2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-1),
\gcd\Big\{2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \big(p_{r_i-1}(s,n-1)-p_{r_i-1}(s+1,n-1)\big)\Big\}_{s=0}^{n-2}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Equation (\[eqn\_rec\_1\]) repeatedly gives $$\begin{aligned}
g &=& \gcd\Bigg\{2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-1),
\gcd\Big\{2^2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} p_{r_i-2}(s,n-2)\Big\}_{s=0}^{n-2}\Bigg\}\\
&=&\gcd\Bigg\{2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-1), 2^2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} p_{r_i-2}(0,n-2),\gcd\Big\{2^2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \big(p_{r_i-2}(s,n-2)-p_{r_i-2}(s+1,n-2)\big)\Big\}_{s=0}^{n-3}\Bigg\}\\
&&\\
&=& \cdots\\
&&\\
&=& \gcd\Bigg\{2 \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-1),
2^2 \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-2}(0,n-2),\cdots,2^{r_{\ell}-1}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-r_{\ell}+1}(0,n-r_{\ell}+1),\\
&& \qquad
2^{r_{\ell}} \gcd\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-r_{\ell}}(s,n-r_{\ell})\Big\}_{s=0}^{n-r_{\ell}}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $p_{r_i-r_{\ell}}(s,n-r_{\ell})=0$ for $i=1,\ldots, \ell-1$, and $p_{r_{\ell}-r_{\ell}}(s,n-r_{\ell})=p_0(s,n-r_{\ell})=1$ for $s=0,1,\cdots,n-r_{\ell}$, the last equation reduces to $$g=\gcd\Bigg\{2 \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-1),
2^2 \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-2}(0,n-2),\cdots,2^{r_{\ell}-1}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{r_i-r_{\ell}+1}(0,n-r_{\ell}+1), 2^{r_{\ell}}\Bigg\}.$$ In particular, $2$ divides $g$ and $g$ divides $2^{r_{\ell}}$.
To compute $hg$, first observe that $p_n(s,n)=p_n(s+2,n)$, for $s=0,\ldots,n-2$. Hence $$\theta_s-\theta_{s+2} = \sum_{i=1}^{\ell'} \big(p_{r_i}(s,n) - p_{r_i}(s+2,n) \big),
\quad \text{where}\ \ell' = \begin{cases} \ell & \text{if $r_{\ell}<n$,}\\ \ell-1 & \text{if $r_{\ell}=n$.}\end{cases}$$ By Equation (\[eqn\_rec\_2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
hg &=& \gcd\Bigg\{4\sum_{i=1}^{\ell'}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-2),4\sum_{i=1}^{\ell'}p_{r_i-1}(1,n-2),\cdots, 4\sum_{i=1}^{\ell'}p_{r_i-1}(n-2,n-2)\Bigg\}\\
&=&
\gcd\Bigg\{2^2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell'}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-2), \gcd\Big\{2^2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell'}\big(p_{r_i-1}(s,n-2)-p_{r_i-1}(s+1,n-2)\big)\Big\}_{s=0}^{n-3}\Bigg\}.
\\\end{aligned}$$ Similar to the computation of $g$, we apply Equation (\[eqn\_rec\_1\]) repeatedly to get $$hg = \gcd\Big\{2^2 \sum_{i=1}^{\ell'}p_{r_i-1}(0,n-2),2^3 \sum_{i=1}^{\ell'} p_{r_i-2}(0,n-3),\cdots,
2^{r_{\ell'}}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell'}p_{r_i-r_{\ell'}+1}(0,n-r_{\ell'}),2^{r_{\ell'}+1}\Big\}.$$ In particular, $4$ divides $hg$ and $hg$ divides $2^{r_{\ell'}+1}$.
For a positive integer $m$, let $\alpha_2(m)$ denote the largest $k$ such that $2^k$ divides $m$. We now give formulas for $g$ and $hg$ in terms of binomial coefficients.
Let $A=A_{r_1}+ \cdots + A_{r_{\ell}}$, where $0 < r_1 < \cdots < r_{\ell}\le n$, in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$. If $A\neq A_n$ then $$\log_2(g) = \min\left\{j + \alpha_2 (\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\binom{n-j}{r_i-j}): j=1,2,\cdots,r_{\ell}\right\},$$ and $$\log_2(hg) = \min\left\{j + 1 + \alpha_2(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell'}\binom{n-j-1}{r_i-j}): j=1,2,\cdots,r_{\ell'}\right\},$$ where $$\ell'=
\begin{cases}
\ell & \text{if $r_{\ell}<n$,}\\
\ell-1 & \text{if $r_{\ell}=n$.}
\end{cases}$$
The result follows since $g$ and $hg$ are powers of $2$ and $p_r(0,n)= \binom{n}{r}$, for $r=0,1,\ldots,n$.
Using Theorem \[thm:frchar\_gh\], we get the following characterization of simple graphs in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ that have fractional revival and the minimum time fractional revival can occur.
Let $X=X_{r_1}\cup \cdots \cup X_{r_{\ell}}$, where $0< r_1< \cdots < r_{\ell}\le n$, in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$, and $$\ell'=
\begin{cases}
\ell & \text{if $r_{\ell}<n$,}\\
\ell-1 & \text{if $r_{\ell}=n$.}
\end{cases}$$ Suppose $X\ne X_n$. Then $X$ has fractional revival if and only if $$\min\left\{j + \alpha_2(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell'} \binom{n-j-1}{r_i-j}): j=1,2,\cdots,r_{\ell'}\right \} \ge \min\left\{j + \alpha_2(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\binom{n-j}{r_i-j}): j=1,2,\cdots,r_{\ell}\right\}.$$ Moreover, if equality holds, then $X$ has perfect state transfer but no other form of fractional revival, and if strict inequality holds, then $X$ has perfect state transfer, as well as balanced fractional revival.
\[thm:gfr\_tight\] Let $X=X_{r_1}\cup \cdots \cup X_{r_{\ell}}$, where $0< r_1< \cdots < r_{\ell}\le n$, in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$, and $$\ell'=
\begin{cases}
\ell & \text{if $r_{\ell}<n$,}\\
\ell-1 & \text{if $r_{\ell}=n$.}
\end{cases}$$ Suppose $X\ne X_n$. If $X$ has fractional revival at minimum time $\tau$, then $\tau = \pi/2^k$ for some positive integer $k\le r_{\ell'}$.
From Theorem \[thm:frchar\_gh\], $2\pi/hg$ is the minimum time when fractional revival occurs in $X$, and by Lemma \[lem:gcd\], $hg$ divides $2^{r_{\ell'}+1}$.
The Importance of Being Balanced
--------------------------------
Balanced fractional revival is the most natural and relevant variant of fractional revival useful for generating maximally entangled states in quantum networks. In this section, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for balanced fractional revival to occur in a union of graphs in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$.
\[prop:fr\_hamming\] Let $X=X_{r_1}\cup \cdots \cup X_{r_{\ell}}$, where $0< r_1< \cdots < r_{\ell}\le n$, in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ Suppose $X\ne X_n$. Then $X$ has $e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\cos\pi/4, \pm{\mathtt{i}}\sin\pi/4)$-revival at time $\pi/2^{k}$ if and only if the following conditions hold.
(i) \[eqn:uno\] $$\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \binom{n-1}{r_{i}-1} \equiv \pm 2^{k-2}\pmod{2^{k}}.$$
(ii) \[eqn:dos\] For all $j = 1, \ldots, k-1$, $$\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \binom{n-1-j}{r_{i}-j} \equiv 0 \pmod{2^{k-j}}.$$
(iii) \[eqn:tres\] The phase $e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}$ satisfies $$\zeta + \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \binom{n}{r_{i}}\pi}{2^k} \equiv \mp \frac{\pi}{4} \pmod{2\pi}.$$
Let $g$ and $h$ be as defined in Lemma \[lem:gcd\]. Then both $g$ and $hg$ are powers of $2$.
Suppose $X$ has $e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\cos\pi/4, \pm{\mathtt{i}}\sin\pi/4)$-revival at time $\pi/2^{k}$. Then by Theorem \[thm:gfr\_tight\] $$k \leq r_{\ell'} \quad \text{where}\
\ell'=
\begin{cases}
\ell & \text{if $r_{\ell}<n$,}\\
\ell-1 & \text{if $r_{\ell}=n$.}
\end{cases}$$ By Theorem \[thm:frchar\], there exist integers $m$, $t$ and $\mu$ such that $$\frac{t\mu\pi}{m} \equiv \pm \frac{\pi}{4} \pmod{2\pi}, \quad \frac{2t\pi}{mg}=\frac{\pi}{2^k} \quad \text{and}\quad \gcd(\mu,m)=1.$$ Hence $m/t=4$, $g=2^{k-1}$ and, by Theorem \[thm:frchar\_gh\], $hg \equiv 0 \pmod{2^{k+1}}$.
Since $$\theta_0-\theta_s =
\begin{cases}
(\theta_0-\theta_1) + (\theta_1-\theta_3) + \cdots + (\theta_{s-2}-\theta_s) & \text{if $s$ is odd,}\\
(\theta_0-\theta_2) + \cdots + (\theta_{s-2}-\theta_s) & \text{if $s$ is even,}
\end{cases}$$ we have $$g=\gcd( \theta_0-\theta_1, gh) = 2^{k-1}.$$ Consequently, $$\theta_0-\theta_1 = 2\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \binom{n-1}{r_i-1} \equiv \pm 2^{k-1} \pmod{2^{k+1}}$$ and Condition (\[eqn:uno\]) holds.
Condition (\[eqn:dos\]) follows directly from the expression of $hg$ given in Lemma \[lem:gcd\] and $k \leq r_{\ell'}$. Condition (\[eqn:tres\]) comes from the expression of $\zeta$ given in Theorem \[thm:frchar\].
Conversely, if Conditions (\[eqn:uno\]) to (\[eqn:tres\]) hold then $g=2^{k-1}$, $hg \equiv 0 \pmod{2^{k+1}}$ and $$\frac{\theta_0-\theta_1}{g} \equiv \mu \pmod{4} \quad \text{for some odd integer $\mu$.}$$ Hence $m=4$, $t=1$ and $\mu$ satisfy Theorem \[thm:frchar\].
Distance Graphs
---------------
In this section, we focus on balanced fractional revival on a single distance graph in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$. In particular, we characterize all distance graphs $X_r$ that admit balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/4$ and $\pi/8$, respectively, in terms of $n$ and $r$.
We first cite a useful result from number theory.
\[thm:kummer\] (Kummer; see Dickson [@dickson], page 270)\
Let $p$ be a prime. The largest integer $k$ so that $p^{k}$ divides $\binom{n}{m}$ is the number of carries in the addition of $n-m$ and $m$ in base $p$ representation.
Recall that, for positive integer $m$, $\alpha_2(m)$ denotes the largest $k$ such that $2^k$ divides $m$. Let $(m)_2$ denote the binary representation of $m$. The next result gives a necessary condition for balanced fractional revival to occurs at $X_r$.
Let $X_r$ be a connected graph in $\mathcal{H}(n,2)$. If $X_r$ has balanced fractional revival, then $n$ is odd, and $\alpha_2(n-1) = \alpha_2(r-1)$.
If $X_r$ has balanced fractional revival, then by Proposition \[prop:fr\_hamming\] $$\alpha_2(\binom{n-1}{r-1}) = k-2 \quad \text{and}\quad \alpha_2(\binom{n-2}{n-1}) \geq k-1, \quad \text{for some $k \leq r$.}$$ First suppose $n$ is even. Since $X_r$ is connected, $r$ is odd. Thus the last digit of $(n-1-(r-1))_2$ is $1$, while the last digit of $(r-1)_2$ is $0$. Therefore, the number of carries when adding $(n-r)_2$ with $(r-1)_2$ is equal to the number of carries when adding $(n-r-1)_2$ with $(r-1)_2$. Thus, $$\alpha_2(\binom{n-1}{r-1}) = \alpha_2(\binom{n-2}{r-1}),$$ and balanced fractional revival does not occur in $X_r$.
To see $\alpha_2(n-1) = \alpha_2(r-1)$, it suffices to show that $\alpha_2(n-1-(r-1))>\alpha_2(r-1)$. Suppose otherwise. Then there is an $m<\alpha_2(r-1)$ such that the $m$-th digit of $(n-2-(r-1))_2$ is $1$. It follows that the number of carries when adding $(n-r-1)_2$ with $(r-1)_2$ is less than or equal to the number of carries when adding $(n-r)_2$ with $(r-1)_2$, hence $\alpha_2(\binom{n-2}{r-1}) \leq \alpha_2(\binom{n-1}{r-1})$ and $X_r$ does not have balanced fractional revival.
For balanced fractional revival times of $\pi/4$ and $\pi/8$, we obtain tight characterizations.
$X_r$ is a connected graph in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ with balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/4$ if and only if the following hold.
(i) $n$ is odd, and $n-1$ is not a power of 2.
(ii) $(r-1)_2$ is obtained from $(n-1)_2$ by replacing some $1$’s with $0$’s, except at the $\alpha_2(n-1)$-th position.
By Proposition \[prop:fr\_hamming\], $X_r$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/4$ if and only if the following hold:
(a) $\binom{n-1}{r-1}$ is odd, and
(b) $\binom{n-2}{r-1}$ is even.
Suppose $X_r$ is a connected graph in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ with fractional revival at time $\pi/4$. Then $r$ is odd and $r<n$.
To see (i), assume for a contradiction that $n-1$ is a power of $2$. Then $(n-1)_2$ has exactly one digit of $1$, that is, the leading digit. By (a), for every $\ell$ such that the $\ell$-th digit of $(n-1)_2$ is $0$, the $\ell$-th digit of $(r-1)_2$ must also be $0$. Thus $r=1$, which contradicts the fact that $X_1$ does not have balanced fractional revival.
Next we prove (ii). Clearly, $\alpha_2(n-1)$ is the rightmost position at which $(n-1)_2$ is $1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(n-1)_2 &=1 \cdots 1 0 0 \cdots 0\\
(n-2)_2 &=1 \cdots 0 1 1 \cdots 1\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for both (a) and (b) to hold, $(r-1)_2$ must be $1$ at the $\alpha_2(n-1)$-th digit, and $0$ wherever $(n-1)_2$ is $0$.
The converse statement follows from reversing the argument.
Recall that $X_1$ has no fractional revival and $X_2$ is not connected. In contrast, there are infinite many schemes where $X_3$ has fractional revival, as a corollary to the above result.
\[cor:3mod4\] For $n \equiv 3\pmod{4}$, $X_{3} \in {\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ has balanced fractional revival at $\pi/4$.
$X_r$ is a connected graph in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ with balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/8$ if and only if the following hold.
(i) $n$ is odd.
(ii) $\alpha_2(n-1) = \alpha_2(r-1)$.
(iii) $\binom{n-1}{r-1} \equiv 2 \pmod{4}$.
By Proposition \[prop:fr\_hamming\], $X_r$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/8$ if and only if
(a) $\alpha_2(\binom{n-1}{r-1})=1$,
(b) $\alpha_2(\binom{n-2}{r-1})\ge 2$,
(c) $\alpha_2(\binom{n-3}{r-2})\ge 1$.
Since $\binom{n-3}{r-2}+\binom{n-3}{r-1}=\binom{n-2}{r-1}$, (b) and (c) hold if and only if (b) and $\alpha_2(\binom{n-3}{r-1})\ge 1$. On the other hand, since $n$ and $r$ are odd, $n-r-1$ is odd, so $$\alpha_2(\binom{n-2}{r-1})=\alpha_2(\binom{n-3}{r-1}).$$ Therefore, (a), (b) and (c) hold if and only if (a) and (b) hold.
Finally, since $$\binom{n-2}{r-1}+\binom{n-2}{r-2}=\binom{n-1}{r-1},$$ (a) and (b) hold if and only if (a) holds and $$\alpha_2(\binom{n-2}{r-2})=1.$$ Given that $\alpha_2(n-1)=\alpha_2(r-1)$, (a) holds if and only if $$\alpha_2(\binom{n-2}{r-2})=1.$$ Therefore (i), (ii) and (iii) are necessary and sufficient conditions for $X_r$ to be connected and have balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/8$.
$X_r$ is a connected graph in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ with balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/8$ if and only if the following hold.
(i) $n$ is odd, and $n-1\ne 2^a(2^b-1)$ for any non-negative integers $a$ and $b$.
(ii) $(r-1)_2$ is obtained from $(n-1)_2$ by
1. keeping the $j$-th digit, for $j=0,1,\cdots,\alpha_2(n-1)$;
2. replacing exactly one substring “$10$" with “$01$";
3. replacing some “$1$"s with “$0$"s.
First recall that for positive integers $a>b$, $$\binom{a}{b}\equiv 2 \pmod{4}$$ if and only if there is exactly one carry, say to the $\ell$-th position, when adding $(a-b)_2$ and $(b)_2$. Note that this happens if and only if
- the $(\ell-1)$-th digit of $(a)_2$ is $0$, the $(\ell-1)$-th digit of $(b)_2$ is $1$;
- the $\ell$-th digit of $(a)_2$ is 1, the $\ell$-th digit of $(b)_2$ is $0$;
- $(a)_2$ is larger than $(b)_2$ at all other digits.
If in addition, $\alpha_2(a)=\alpha_2(b)$, then $\ell-1>\alpha_2(a)$, so $(a)_2$ cannot be a string of $1$’s followed by a string of $0$’s. Applying the above argument to $a=n-1$ and $b=r-1$ yields (i) and (ii).
\[cor:11mod16\] For $n \equiv 11\pmod{16}$, $X_{7} \in {\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ has balanced fractional revival at $\pi/8$.
In what follows, we show that for every integer $k \ge 2$, there are families of distance graphs which exhibit fractional revival at time $\pi/2^k$ in some binary Hamming scheme. This should not be interpreted to mean that fractional revival could be implemented increasingly faster by growing $k$; physically the transport time is also proportional to the inverse of the scaling factor of the adjacency matrix (the Hamiltonian) that must decrease with $n$ to keep the energy bounded (see the remark in [@cvz17]). However, in order to focus on the combinatorial nature of our constructions, we opt to work with unnormalized matrices.
For $k \ge 4$, let $n = (2^{k-1}+1)2^{k+2}+3$ and $r = 2^{k+3}+3$. Then $X_{r} \in {\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/2^{k}$.
We first show that Condition (\[eqn:uno\]) of Proposition \[prop:fr\_hamming\] holds. By Kummer’s theorem, it suffices to show there are $k-2$ carries generated in the binary addition of $n-r$ and $r-1$. We write the binary representations of the numbers: $$\begin{aligned}
(n-1)_{2} & = & 10^{k-3} 0 \cdot 10^{k}10 \\
(r-1)_{2} & = & 00^{k-3} 1 \cdot 00^{k}10 \\
(n-r)_{2} & = & 01^{k-3} 1 \cdot 10^{k}00\end{aligned}$$ Note there are exactly $k-2$ carries in the binary addition of $n-r$ and $r-1$, and $$\binom{n-1}{r-1}\equiv \pm 2^{k-2} \pmod{2^k}.$$
To show that Condition (\[eqn:dos\]) of Proposition \[prop:fr\_hamming\] holds, it suffices to show that there are at least $k-j$ carries generated in the binary addition of $n-r-1$ and $r-j$, for $j=1,\ldots,k-1$. The binary representations of $n-r-1$ and of $r-1$, $r-2$, and $r-3$ are $$\begin{aligned}
(n-r-1)_{2} & = & 01^{k-3} 1 \cdot 01^{k}11 \\
(r-1)_{2} & = & 00^{k-3} 1 \cdot 00^{k}10 \\
(r-2)_{2} & = & 00^{k-3} 1 \cdot 00^{k}01 \\
(r-3)_{2} & = & 00^{k-3} 1 \cdot 00^{k}00 \end{aligned}$$ Note that at least $k-j$ carries are generated in the binary addition of $n-r-1$ and $r-j$, where $j=1,2,3$. Now, we consider the binary representations of $n-r-1$ and of $r-j$, for $j =4,\ldots,k-1$: $$\begin{aligned}
(n-r-1)_{2} & = & 01^{k-3} 1 \cdot 01^{k}11 \\
(r-4)_{2} & = & 00^{k-3} 0 \cdot 11^{k}11 \end{aligned}$$ Note there are at least $k+2$ carries in the binary addition of $n-r-1$ and $r-4$. Moreover, the number of ones in the binary representation of $r-j$ decreases by at most one as $j$ increases from $4$ to $k-1$. Therefore, there are at least $k+2-(j-4) \ge k-j$ carries generated in the binary addition of $n-r-1$ and $r-j$, for $j=1,\ldots,k-1$.
So, by Proposition \[prop:fr\_hamming\], $X_{r}$ has fractional revival at time $\pi/2^{k}$.
Consecutive Unions
------------------
Now we proceed to construct consecutive unions of distance graphs that admit balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/4$.
For every $r\ge 2$, let $\ell$ be the positive integer such that $2^{\ell-1} <r \le 2^{\ell}$. Then for $n\equiv r+1 \pmod{2^{\ell}}$, the consecutive union $X_1 \cup X_2 \cup \cdots \cup X_r$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/4$.
By Proposition \[prop:fr\_hamming\], it suffices to prove the following:
(i) $\sum_{j=1}^{r} \binom{n-1}{j-1}$ is odd, and
(ii) $\sum_{j=1}^{r} \binom{n-2}{j-1}$ is even.
Let $a$ and $b$ be two positive integers with $a\ge b$. From Theorem \[thm:kummer\], we see that $\binom{a}{b}$ is even if and only if there is at least one $i$ such that the $i$-th digit of $(a)_2$ is $0$ and the $i$-th digit of $(b)_2$is $1$. Thus, if $c$ is an integer with $2^c \ge a$, then for any positive integer $d$ we have that $\binom{a+2^c d}{b}$ is even if and only if $\binom{a}{b}$ is even.
Now, since $n-1 \equiv r \pmod{2^{\ell}}$, it follows that $$\sum_{j=1}^r\binom{n-1}{j-1} \equiv \sum_{j=1}^r\binom{r}{j-1}\equiv 1 \pmod{2},$$ and $$\sum_{j=1}^r \binom{n-2}{j-1} \equiv \sum_{j=1}^r \binom{r-1}{j-1} \equiv 0\pmod{2}.$$ Hence conditions (i) and (ii) hold.
Weighted Graphs
===============
In this section, we turn our attention to balanced fractional revival in graphs (possibly weighted) which lie in the span of the Hamming graphs. We first give a characterization of balanced fractional revival that occurs at time $\pi/\Omega$.
\[prop:gfr\_tight\] For an integer $n \ge 2$, let $X$ be a graph whose adjacency matrix $A$ is in the Bose-Mesner algebra of ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$. Suppose the eigenvalues of $A$ are $\theta_0, \theta_1,\ldots, \theta_n$. Then $X$ has $e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\cos\pi/4, \pm{\mathtt{i}}\sin\pi/4)$-revival at time $\pi/\Omega$ if and only if for some integers $h,h_{0},\ldots,h_{n-2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{0} - \theta_{1} & = & \left(h + \tfrac{1}{2}\right)\Omega \\
\theta_{s} - \theta_{s+2} & = & 2h_{s}\Omega, \hspace{0.5in} \mbox{ for $s=0,\ldots,n-2$} \end{aligned}$$ and $\zeta + \theta_{0}\pi/\Omega \equiv \mp \pi/4 \pmod{2\pi}$.
Let $A = \sum_{s=0}^{n} \theta_{s}E_{s}$ where $E_{s}$ are the minimal idempotents of the scheme. Note $A_{0} = \sum_{s} E_{s}$ and $A_{n} = \sum_{s} (-1)^{s}E_{s}$. Suppose $e^{-{\mathtt{i}}A\pi/\Omega} = e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta}(\cos(\pi/4) A_{0} \pm {\mathtt{i}}\sin(\pi/4) A_{n})$. Then, for $s=0,\ldots,n$, we have $$e^{-{\mathtt{i}}\theta_{s}\pi/\Omega}
= e^{{\mathtt{i}}\zeta} (\cos(\pi/4) \pm {\mathtt{i}}\sin(\pi/4)(-1)^{s}).$$ For $s=0$, we get $\zeta \equiv -\theta_{0}\pi/\Omega \mp \pi/4 \pmod{2\pi}$. We have $$e^{-{\mathtt{i}}(\theta_{0}-\theta_{1})\pi/\Omega}=\mp {\mathtt{i}}$$ and $$e^{-{\mathtt{i}}(\theta_{s}-\theta_{s+2})\pi/\Omega} = 1,
\quad \text{for $s=0,\ldots,n-2$.}$$ So, there exist integers $h, h_{0},\ldots,h_{n-2}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{0}-\theta_{1} & = & \left(h + \tfrac{1}{2}\right)\Omega \\
\theta_{s}-\theta_{s+2} & = & 2h_{s}\Omega, \qquad \text{for $s=0,\ldots,n-2$.}\end{aligned}$$ This yields the claim.
Revisiting $\operatorname{span}\{A_1,A_2\}$
-------------------------------------------
Fractional revival was first studied on weighted paths [@gvz16]. In [@cvz17] and [@bcltv18], the authors constructed analytically examples with fractional revival in $\operatorname{span}\{A_1, A_2\}$ of the Hamming scheme. We rediscover some of their results in this section.
The spectra of the Hamming graphs $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$ are given by the Krawtchouk polynomials $p_{1}(s) = n-2s$ and $p_{2}(s) = \binom{n}{2} - 2s(n-1) + 4\binom{s}{2}$, respectively. Using Proposition \[prop:gfr\_tight\], we may classify the values $\omega_{1},\omega_{2}$ for which the graph $\omega_{2} A_{2} + \omega_{1} A_{1}$ has fractional revival. Recall that $A_{1}$ alone has no fractional revival [@cvz17]. We shall consider two cases based on whether $\omega_{1}$ is zero or not.
First, we consider the case when $\omega_{1} \neq 0$. Here, we may consider instead $\tilde{A} = \omega A_{2} + A_{1}$, where $\omega = \omega_{2}/\omega_{1}$. Let $\tilde{A} = \sum_{s=0}^{n} \theta_{s}E_{s}$ with $\theta_{s} = \omega p_{2}(s) + p_{1}(s)$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:spacing}
\theta_{0} - \theta_{1} & = & 2(\omega(n-1) + 1) \\
\theta_{s} - \theta_{s+2} & = & 4\big(\omega(n-2s-2) + 1\big).\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \[prop:gfr\_tight\], for fractional revival to occur at time $\pi/\Omega$, it suffices to require $$\label{eqn:inductive}
2(\omega(n - 2s - 2) + 1) = {\mathbb{Z}}\Omega$$ $$\label{eqn:base}
2(\omega(n-1) + 1) = ({\mathbb{Z}}+ \tfrac{1}{2})\Omega.$$ Taking the difference of the last two equations, for each $s$, we have $$\label{eqn:constraint1}
2(2s+1)\omega/\Omega = {\mathbb{Z}}+ \tfrac{1}{2}.$$ This shows $\omega/\Omega$ is rational. Moreover, $4\omega/\Omega$ must be an odd integer.
In ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$, $\omega A_2+A_{1}$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/\Omega$ if and only if $4\omega/\Omega$ is an odd integer and $4/\Omega$ is an integer that has the same parity as $n$.
Let $4\omega/\Omega=2m+1$ for some integer $m$. If $4/\Omega$ and $n$ have the same parity, then $4(\omega(n-1)+1)/\Omega = 2h+1$ for some integer $h$. Then the integers $h$ and $h_s= h-2ms-s-m$, $s=0,\ldots,n-2$, satisfy the equations in Proposition \[prop:gfr\_tight\].
The converse follows from Equations (\[eqn:base\]) and (\[eqn:constraint1\]).
Suppose $\omega A_2+A_1$, for some $\omega\neq 0$, has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/\Omega$. Then $\omega\in {\mathbb{Q}}$ and $\pi/\Omega = q\pi/4$, for some $q$ with the same parity as $n$.
The following corollaries provide natural examples of [*signed*]{} (multi-)graphs in the Hamming scheme which exhibit fractional revival.
For any integer $m$, $A_{2} \pm 2A_{1}$ in the Bose-Mesner algebra of ${\mathcal{H}}(2m,2)$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/4$. (Also, $\frac{1}{2} A_2 \pm A_1$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/2$.)
For any integer $m$, $A_{2} \pm A_{1}$ in the Bose-Mesner algebra of ${\mathcal{H}}(2m+1,2)$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/4$.
Finally, we consider $\omega_{2}A_{2} + \omega_{1}A_{1}$ when $\omega_{1} = 0$. The graph $A_2 \in {\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ has two connected components, one with vertices of even weights while the other consists of vertices of odd weights. We call the component containing vertices with even weights the [*halved $n$-cube*]{} [@bcn89].
In ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$, $X_2$ has balanced fractional revival if and only if $n$ is even. The time of balanced fractional revival is $\pi/4$.
From Proposition \[prop:fr\_hamming\], $X_2$ has balanced fractional revival at time $\pi/2^k$ if and only if $$n-1 \equiv \pm 2^{k-2} \pmod{2^k}
\quad\text{and} \quad n-2 \equiv 0 \pmod{2^{k-1}}.$$ These equations hold exactly when $n$ is even and $k=2$.
When $n$ is odd, each vertex $a$ and its antipodal pair $\bar{a}$, (that is, the neighbour of $a$ in $X_n$) belong to different components of $A_2$; thus, fractional revival does not occur. When $n$ is even, fractional revival occurs on each connected component of $A_{2}$. (See Bernard [[*et al. *]{}]{}[@bcltv18] for a similar treatment.)
Larger Spans
------------
We consider balanced fractional revival on the larger spans involving the first four Hamming graphs, namely, $\operatorname{span}\{A_1,A_2,A_3\}$ and $\operatorname{span}\{A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4\}$.
For $n \equiv 3 \pmod{4}$, the sum $A_1 + \frac{1}{2} A_2 + \frac{1}{4} A_3$ in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ has fractional revival at time $\pi$.
By Corollary \[cor:3mod4\], it suffices to show that $A_1$ and $A_2$ are periodic at time $\pi$ and $\pi/2$, respectively. Since $$p_1(s) = n-2s$$ and $$p_2(s) = \binom{n}{2} - 2s(n-1) + 4\binom{s}{2},$$ we see that $2$ divides $$\gcd\big\{p_1(s) - p_1(0)\big\}_{s=0}^n,$$ and $4$ divides $$\gcd\big\{p_2(s) - p_2(0)\big\}_{s=0}^n.$$
For $n\equiv 3\pmod{8}$, the sum $A_1 + \frac{1}{2} A_2 + \frac{1}{4} A_3 + \frac{1}{8} A_4$ in ${\mathcal{H}}(n,2)$ has fractional revival at time $\pi$.
From the previous result, it suffices to show that $X_4$ is periodic at time $\pi/8$. Since $$p_4(s) = \sum_{j=0}^4 (-2)^j\binom{n-j}{4-j}\binom{s}{j},$$ we have $$p_4(s) - p_4(0) = -2\binom{n-1}{3}s + 4\binom{n-2}{2}\binom{s}{2} - 8(n-3)\binom{s}{3} +16\binom{s}{4}.$$ If $n=8m+3$, then $$2\binom{n-1}{3} = \frac{(8m+2)(8m+1)(8m)}{3},\quad
4\binom{n-2}{2}=2(8m+1)(8m), \quad \text{and}\quad
8(n-3)$$ are all divisible by $16$.
Conclusion
==========
The main achievement of this work is the characterization of graphs in association schemes admitting quantum fractional revival in terms of their spectra, and the discovery of several infinite families of graphs exhibiting quantum fractional revival. From the mathematical point of view, we are bridging the fields of algebraic graph theory, specifically what concerns association schemes and orthogonal polynomials, to elementary number theory and the study of certain periodic functions that arise naturally in quantum information. For quantum information theory, our findings may turn to be quite useful for entanglement generation procedures or other tasks that require a network of many interacting qubits to be put in a state with several pairs of maximally entangled qubits.
Following the work in this paper, we raise the following questions:
(1) Study the more general notion of fractional revival among several vertices in association schemes. We are preparing an upcoming publication related to this topic.
(2) Extend the results for the Hamming Scheme to other cubelike graphs.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The research of L.V. is supported by a discovery grant from the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.
[99]{}
, [A. Chan]{}, [É. Loranger]{}, [C. Tamon]{}, [L. Vinet]{}. A graph with fractional revival. , [**382**]{}(5):259-264, 2018.
. Quantum Communication through an Unmodulated Spin Chain. , [**91**]{}(20):207901, 2003.
, [A.M. Cohen]{}, [A. Neumaier]{}. . Springer-Verlag, 1989.
A.E. Brouwer and W.H. Haemers. . Universitext. Springer, New York, 2012.
, [C. Godsil]{}, [D. Mallory]{}, [A. Raz]{}, [C. Tamon]{}. Perfect State Transfer on Signed Graphs. (5&6):511-530, 2013.
. Complex Hadamard Matrices, Instantaneous Uniform Mixing and Cubes. arXiv:1305.5811 \[math.co\].
, [G. Coutinho]{}, [C. Tamon]{}, [L. Vinet]{}, [H. Zhan]{}. Quantum Fractional Revival on Graphs. , doi:10.1016/j.dam.2018.12.017
, [A. Granville]{}. On the residues of binomial coefficients and their products modulo prime powers. (English Series) [**18**]{}(2):277-288, 2002.
, [C. Godsil]{}, [K. Guo]{}, [F. Vanhove]{}. Perfect state transfer on distance regular graphs and association schemes. , [**478**]{}:108-130, 2015.
, [D. Stanton]{}. Zeros of generalized Krawtchouk polynomials. (1):43-57, 1990.
, [L. Vinet]{}, [A. Zhedanov]{}. Analytic next-to-nearest-neighbor XX models with perfect state transfer and fractional revival. , [**96**]{}(3), 032335, 2017.
. . Chelsea, 1952.
, [S. Gutmann]{}. Quantum computation and decision trees. , [**58**]{}:915, 1998.
, [L. Vinet]{}, [A. Zhedanov]{}. Quantum spin chains with fractional revival. :348-367, 2016.
. . , [**312**]{}, 123-147, 2012.
, [G. Royle]{}. . Springer, 2001.
, [J. Smith]{}. Strongly Cospectral Vertices. arXiv:1709.07975 \[math.co\].
, [N.J.A. Sloane]{}. . North-Holland, 1977.
, [I. Chuang]{}. . Cambridge University Press, 2000.
, [A. Kay]{}. Perfect Quantum Routing in Regular Spin Networks. , 020503, 2011.
. . In [*Special Functions 2000: Current perspective and future directions*]{}, J. Boustoz, M.E.H. Ismail, S. Suslov (eds.), NATO science series, Vol. 30, 389-409, Springer, 2001.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In a projective space we fix some set of points, a horizon, and investigate the complement of that horizon. We prove, under some assumptions on the size of lines, that the ambient projective space, together with its horizon, both can be recovered in that complement. Then we apply this result to show something similar for Grassmann spaces.'
author:
- 'K. Petelczyc and M. Żynel'
title: The complement of a point subset in a projective space and a Grassmann space
---
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 51A15, 51A45.\
Keywords: projective space, affine space, Grassmann space, slit space, complement.
Introduction
============
Our goal
--------
Two definitions of an affine space are known: it is a projective space with one of its hyperplanes removed, or it is a projective space with one of its hyperplanes distinguished. It is also known that these two definitions are equivalent, since the removed hyperplane can be recovered in terms of so obtained affine space. A general question arises: how big the remaining fragment of a projective space must be so as the surrounding space can be recovered in terms of the internal geometry of this fragment? Analogous question could be asked in the context of projective Grassmannians. In this paper we propose a solution involving parallelism, imitating the affine parallelism, valid under certain assumptions on the size of improper parts of lines. Our solution is just [*a*]{} solution: there are fragments of projective spaces (e.g. ruled quadrics) which do not satisfy our requirements and from which the surrounding spaces are recoverable, but with completely different methods.
Motivations and references
--------------------------
In this paper we deal with a point-line space $\A$ where a subset $\W$ of points, a horizon, and those lines that are entirely contained in $\W$ are removed. We call such a reduct of $\A$ the complement of $\W$ in $\A$ and denote it by $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$. As for which lines to remove from $\A$ our approach is not unique and there are different complements considered in the literature, e.g. in [@sulima], where all the lines that meet $\W$ are deleted.
The most classic and vivid example of a complement $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$, aforementioned at the beginning, is an affine space i.e. the complement of a hyperplane $\W$ in a projective space $\A$. There are more examples where removing a hyperplane is also successful and where in result we get some affine geometries. In a polar space deleting its geometric hyperplane yields an affine polar space (cf. [@cohenshult], [@afpolar], [@csaffpolar]). In a Grassmann space, in other words, in a space of pencils, this construction produces an affine Grassmannian (cf. [@cuypers]). When $\W$ is any subspace, not necessarily a hyperplane, in a projective space $\A$, then so called slit space arises as the complement $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$ possessing both projective and affine properties (cf. [@KM67], [@KP70]).
In [@kradzisz] (see also [@kradzisz2]) there is introduced an axiom system of semiaffine partial linear spaces (SAPLS in short) that are, without going into details, weak geometries with parallelism. It is astonishing that the set of directions of lines in a SAPLS form a subspace $\W$ of some projective space $\A$ so, we can treat this SAPLS as the complement $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$. More precisely, it is proved in [@kradzisz], that the class of semiaffine linear spaces coincides with the class of forementioned slit spaces. In other words, semiaffine linear spaces are slit spaces with parallelism that is not necessarily reflexive.
Another remarkable example is a spine space (cf. [@spinesp], [@autspine]), that emerges from a Grassmann space over a vector space by taking only those points which as $k$-dimensional vector subspaces meet a fixed vector subspace $W$ in a fixed dimension $m$. In case $m=0$ and $k$ is the codimension of $W$ we get a pretty well known space of linear complements (cf. [@lincomp] and also [@blunck-havlicek]).
Now we turn back to our major question: is it possible to recover the underlying space $\A$ and the horizon $\W$ in the complement $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$? This is not a completely new question and there are some papers devoted to such recovery problem. In [@slitgras] projective Grassmannians are successfully recovered from complements of their Grassmann substructures. The concept of two-hole slit space is introduced in [@sulima]. It is a point-line space whose point set is the complement of the set of points of two fixed complementary subspaces, not hyperplanes, in a projective space and the line set is the set of all those lines which do not intersect any of these two subspaces. This is not exactly what we have used to call a complement as lines are taken differently. Nevertheless, using very similar methods to ours the recovery problem has been solved here in incidence geometry settings. It has been also solved in chain geometry associated with a linear group approach. In [@partaffine] a partial linear space with parallelism embeddable in an affine space with the same point set is studied. On the other hand, it can be considered as an affine space with some lines deleted. As it was mentioned, an affine space is a complement of a projective space, and thus there is a correspondence between [@partaffine] and our research. To restore missing lines (and preserve parallelism) the authors introduce some additional combinatorial condition. Namely, all investigations in [@partaffine] are done under assumption, that on every line $k$, for any point $p\notin k$, there is more points collinear with $p$ than those not collinear with $p$. Likewise, we require that on every line of $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$ there is less points of $\W$ than the other.
Results
-------
The purpose of this paper is to give an answer to the above question for projective spaces and Grassmann spaces where a set of points, under some restrictions, has been removed. In the first part we focus on a projective space as $\A$. Purely in terms of the complement of $\W$ in $\A$ we reconstruct the removed points and lines as well as the relevant incidence. An affirmative answer to our question is given in Theorem \[thm:main-proj\].
In the second part we investigate a Grassmann space as $\A$. It is known that every maximal strong subspace of a Grassmann space is a projective space. This, together with some additional assumptions, lets us apply the result obtained for projective spaces to recover the whole $\A$ and its horizon $\W$ in terms of the complement $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$. That way another affirmative answer to our question is formulated in Theorem \[thm:main-grass\].
At the end we give some examples where our results can be applied or not.
Generalities
============
A point-line structure $\A=\struct{S, \lines}$, where the elements of $S$ are called *points*, the elements of $\lines$ are called *lines*, and where $\lines\subset2^S$, is said to be a *partial linear space*, or a *point-line space*, if two distinct lines share at most one point and every line is of size (cardinality) at least 2 (cf. [@cohen]). The incidence relation between points and lines is basically the membership relation $\in$.
For distinct points $a, b\in S$ we say that they are *adjacent* (*collinear*) and write $a\adjac b$ if there is a line in $\lines$ through $a, b$. The line through distinct points $a, b$ will be written as $\LineOn(a, b)$. For distinct lines $k, l\in\lines$ we say that they are *adjacent* and write $k\adjac l$ if they intersect in a point from $S$. We say that three pairwise distinct points $a_1, a_2, a_3\in S$ (or lines $k_1, k_2, k_3\in\lines$) form a *triangle* in $\A$ if they are pairwise adjacent and not collinear (or not concurrent respectively), which we write as $\triangle(a_1, a_2, a_3)$ (or $\triangle(k_1, k_2, k_3)$ respectively). The points $a_1, a_2, a_3$ are called vertices and the lines $k_1, k_2, k_3$ are called sides of the triangle. A *subspace* of $\A$ is any set $X\subseteq S$ with the property that every line which shares with $X$ two or more points is entirely contained in $X$. We say that a subspace $X$ of $\A$ is *strong* if any two points in $X$ are collinear. If $S$ is strong then $\A$ is said to be a *linear space*.
Complements
-----------
Let us fix a subset $\W\subset S$. By the *complement of $\W$ in $\A$* we mean the structure $$\fixoutf(\A,\W) := \struct{\pointsout, \linesout},$$ where $$\pointsout := S\setminus\W \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\linesout := \{ k\in\lines\colon k\nsubseteq\W\}.$$ Here, the incidence relation is again $\in$, inherited from $\A$, but limited to the new point set and line set. It should not lead to confusion, as it will be clear from context which incidence is which. Following a standard convention we call the points and lines of the complement $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$ *proper*, and those points and lines of $\A$ that are not in $\pointsout$, $\linesout$ respectively are said to be *improper*. The set $\W$ will be called the *horizon of $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$*. Among proper lines of $\A$ we distinguish those which intersect the horizon $\W$ and call them *affine*. A triangle in $\A$ is said to be *proper* if all its vertices and sides are proper.
Let us introduce, quite critical for our study, the notion of *the index of $\W$ in $\A$*. It will be denoted by $\indf(\A,\W)$ and
$\indf(\A,\W)=\lambda$ iff there exist a line with $\lambda$ improper points\
and every line either has at most $\lambda$ improper points or it is contained in $\W$.
For $\indf(\A,\W) = 0$ we get $\fixoutf(\A,\W)=\A$. We assume in the sequel that $$\label{eq:non-zero-ind}
0 < \indf(\A,\W) < \infty$$ and $\indf(\A,\W)$ is a well defined integer. There is one more caveat yet. The complement $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$ is not a partial linear space in general as there could be one-element sets in $\linesout$. This defect is ruled out by the assumption that $$\label{eq:size-of-line}
\text{\itshape every line of\/ $\A$ has size at least\/ $2\indf(\A,\W)+2$},$$ which is obviously too strong for this specific purpose but will become essential later. Now, the very first observation.
\[fact:basic\]
\[fact:basic:proper\] Every line through a proper point is proper.
\[fact:basic:min\] There are at least $\fixind +2$ proper points on a proper line.
\[fact:basic:notall\] $\W \neq S$.
The consequence of \[fact:basic\] is that there are at least 3 proper points on every line of the complement $\fixoutf(\A,\W)$, thus it is a partial linear space.
Grassmann spaces
----------------
Let $V$ be a vector space of dimension $n$ with $3\le n<\infty$. The set of all subspaces of $V$ will be written as $\Sub(V)$ and the set of all $k$-dimensional subspaces (or $k$-subspaces in short) as $\Sub_k(V)$. The most basic concept for us here is a *$k$-pencil* that is the set of the form $$\penc(H, B) := \{ U\in\Sub_k(V)\colon H\subset U\subset B\},$$ where $H\in\Sub_{k-1}(V)$, $B\in\Sub_{k+1}(V)$, and $H\subset B$. The family of all such $k$-pencils will be denoted by $\peki_k(V)$. We consider a *Grassmann space* (also known as a *space of pencils*) $$\M = \PencSpace(V, k) = \struct{\Sub_k(V), \peki_k(V)},$$ a point-line space with $k$-subspaces of $V$ as points and $k$-pencils as lines (see [@polargras], [@slitgras] for a more general definition, see also [@mark]). For $0 < k < n$ it is a partial linear space. For $k=1$ and $k=n-1$ it is a projective space. So we assume that $$1< k < n-1.$$
It is known that there are two classes of maximal strong subspaces in $\M$: *stars* of the form $$\starof(H) = [H)_k = \{U\in\Sub_k(V)\colon H\subset U\},$$ where $H\in\Sub_{k-1}(V)$, and *tops* of the form $$\topof(B) = (B]_k = \{U\in\Sub_k(V)\colon U\subset B\},$$ where $B\in\Sub_{k+1}(V)$. Although non-maximal stars $[H, Y]_k$ and non-maximal tops $[Z, B]_k$, for some $Y, Z\in\Sub(V)$, make sense but in this paper when we say ‘a star’ or ‘a top’ we mean a maximal strong subspace. It is trivial that every line, a $k$-pencil $p=\penc(H, B)$, of $\M$ can be uniquely extended to the star $\starof(p):=\starof(H)$ and to the top $\topof(p):=\topof(B)$.
Numerous intrinsics properties of Grassmann spaces are very well known or can be easily verified (cf. [@mark]). Let us recall some of them and prove a couple of technical facts that will be needed later.
\[fact:lineinstartop\] Let $S$ be a star and $T$ be a top in $\M$. If $S\cap T\neq\emptyset$, then $S\cap T$ is a line and if additionally $U_1\in S\setminus T$, $U_2\in
T\setminus S$, then $U_1, U_2$ are not collinear in $\M$.
\[cor:starcaptop\] Let $S$ be a star and $T$ be a top in $\M$. If $U_1\in S$, $U_2\in T$, and $U_1\adjac U_2$, then either $S\cap T = \emptyset$, or $U_1\in S\cap T$, or $U_2\in S\cap T$.
We say that a subspace of $\M$ is a *plane* if it is (up to an isomorphism) a projective plane. It is known that every strong subspace of $\M$ carries the structure of a projective space. For a star $S = [H)_k$ a plane contained in $S$ is of the form $[H, Y]_k$, where $Y\in\Sub_{k+2}(V)$, while for a top $T = (B]_k$ a plane contained in $T$ is of the form $[Z, B]_k$, where $Z\in\Sub_{k-2}(V)$.
\[lem:top-star-top\] Let $U$ be a point and $T_i = (B_i]_k$, $i=1,2$ be distinct tops of $\M$ with $U\in T_1\cap T_2$.
If $\Pi = [Z, B_1]_k$ is a plane through $U$ contained in $T_1$, then $$\{ \starof(p)\cap T_2\colon p\in\peki_k(V),\ U\in p\subset \Pi\}$$ is the set of lines through $U$ on the plane $[Z, B_2]_k$ contained in $T_2$. Consequently, we have a bijection $f$ that maps planes through $U$ contained in $T_1$ to planes through $U$ contained in $T_2$.
Let $\Pi_i$ for $i=1,2,3$ be pairwise distinct planes through $U$ contained in $T_1$. If $\Pi_1\cap\Pi_2\cap\Pi_3$ is a line, then $f(\Pi_1)\cap f(\Pi_2)\cap f(\Pi_3)$ is a line.
Note first that $T_1\cap T_2 = \{U\}$ and $U=B_1\cap B_2$.
(i): For the plane $\Pi$ observe that $Z\in\Sub_{k-2}(V)$ and $Z\subset U$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
X := \{ \starof(p)\cap T_2\colon p\in\peki_k(V),\ U\in p\subset \Pi\} = \\
\{ \starof(p)\cap T_2\colon p = \penc(H, B_1),\ H\in[Z, U]_{k-1} \} =
\{ \penc(H,B_2)\colon H\in[Z, U]_{k-1} \}
\end{gathered}$$ as $H\subset U\subset B_2$. So, $X$ is the set of lines through $U$ on the plane $[Z, B_2]_k$ contained in $T_2$, which completes this part of the proof.
(ii): Let $\Pi_i = [Z_i, B_1]_k$, where $Z_i\in\Sub_{k-2}(V)$ and $Z_i\subset U$ for $i=1,2,3$. By assumption $H := Z_1+Z_2+Z_3\in\Sub_{k-1}(V)$ and $$\Pi_1\cap\Pi_2\cap\Pi_3 = \penc(H, B_1).$$ Since $f(\Pi_i) = [Z_i, B_2]_k$ for $i=1,2,3$ and $H\subset U\subset B_2$, we get that $$f(\Pi_1)\cap f(\Pi_2)\cap f(\Pi_3) = \penc(H, B_2)$$ and we are through.
Dually to \[lem:top-star-top\] we have the following for stars.
Let $U$ be a point and $S_i = [H_i]_k$, $i=1,2$ be distinct stars of $\M$ with $U\in S_1\cap S_2$.
If $\Pi = [H_1, Y]_k$ is a plane through $U$ contained in $S_1$, then $$\{ \topof(p)\cap S_2\colon p\in\peki_k(V),\ U\in p\subset \Pi\}$$ is the set of lines through $U$ on the plane $[H_2, Y]_k$ contained in $S_2$. Consequently, we have a bijection $f$ that maps planes through $U$ contained in $S_1$ to planes through $U$ contained in $S_2$.
Let $\Pi_i$ for $i=1,2,3$ be pairwise distinct planes through $U$ contained in $S_1$. If $\Pi_1\cap\Pi_2\cap\Pi_3$ is a line, then $f(\Pi_1)\cap f(\Pi_2)\cap f(\Pi_3)$ is a line.
Complements in projective spaces {#sec:proj}
================================
Let $\fixproj=\struct{S, \lines}$ be a projective space of dimension at least $3$ and let $\W\subset S$ such that is satisfied. We will investigate the complement of $\W$ in $\fixproj$, that is the structure $\fixout := \fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$.
Note that in the case where $\W$ is a hyperplane, the complement $\fixout$ is an affine space, while if $W$ is not necessarily a hyperplane but a proper subspace of $\fixproj$, then $\fixout$ is a slit space (cf. [@KM67], [@KP70], [@slitgras]).
The goal of the first part of our paper is as follows.
\[thm:main-proj\] If $\fixproj$ is a projective space of dimension at least $3$ and $\W$ is its point subset satisfying , then both $\fixproj$ and $\W$ can be recovered in the complement $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$.
More in vein of Klein’s Erlangen Program this theorem can be rephrased to the language of collineations.
Under assumptions of \[thm:main-proj\] for every collineation $f$ of the complement $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$ there is a collineation $F$ of $\fixproj$, leaving $\W$ invariant, such that $f = F|\pointsout$.
Parallelism
-----------
In affine structures parallelism is a key notion for projective completion. We are going to use it here in a similar way.
Usually, two lines are said to be parallel if they meet on the horizon. Following this idea we define *parallelism* $\parallel$ so that for lines $k_1, k_2\in\lines$ $$\label{eq:parallel}
k_1\parallel k_2 :\iff \emptyset\neq k_1\cap k_2\subseteq\W.$$ In case $\fixout$ is a slit space our requirement that lines are of size at least 3 makes good sense as it is known that in an affine space with lines of size 2 parallelism cannot be defined in terms of incidence.
Definition involves the incidence relation of the ambient projective space $\fixproj$. To give an internal definition of our parallelism, expressible purely in terms of the complement $\fixout$, we begin by proving a variant of Veblen (Pasch) axiom for $\fixout$.
\[prop:veblen\] If proper lines $k_1, k_2, k_3$ form a triangle in $\fixproj$ with at least one improper vertex, then there is a proper line that intersects $k_1, k_2, k_3$ in pairwise distinct proper points.
Let $a_m\in k_i\cap k_j$, where $\{m,i,j\} = \{1,2,3\}$, be the vertices of our triangle. Without loss of generality we can assume that the point $a_3$ is improper. By \[fact:basic\] we can take proper points $a\in k_1$ and $b_1,\dots, b_{\fixind+1}\in k_2$ such that $a\neq a_2$ and $b_i\neq a_1$ for all $i=1,\dots,\fixind+1$. Consider the lines $l_i := \LineOn(a, b_i)$ for $i=1,\dots,\fixind+1$. All these lines are proper and all they intersect the line $k_3$. As there are only up to $\fixind$ improper points on $k_3$, one of $l_i$ is the required line.
Now, we are able to give a definition of $\parallel$ purely in terms of $\fixout$.
\[prop:parallel\] Let $k_1, k_2\in\linesout$ with $k_1\neq k_2$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{parallel:veblen}
k_1\parallel k_2 :\iff (\exists k_3, l\in\linesout) (\exists c_1, c_2, c_3\in\pointsout)
\bigl[\, \triangle(k_1, k_2, k_3) \Land \\
c_1\in l, k_1 \Land c_2\in l, k_2 \Land c_3\in l, k_3 \,\bigr]
\Land (\nexists\; x\in\pointsout)[\, x\in k_1, k_2 \,].
\end{gathered}$$
Since $k_1, k_2$ are parallel we have $\emptyset\neq k_1\cap k_2\in\W$. So, $k_1, k_2$ share an improper point. Take two proper points $a_1\in k_1$ and $a_2\in k_2$. They must be distinct and the line $k_3 := \LineOn(a_1, a_2)$ is proper. We have $\triangle(k_1, k_2, k_3)$ with one improper vertex. Hence, by \[prop:veblen\] there is a required line $l\in\linesout$ and points $c_1, c_2, c_3\in\pointsout$.
Note that the lines $k_1,k_2$ intersect in an improper point, i.e. $\emptyset\neq k_1\cap k_2\in\W$. So, $k_1\parallel k_2$ by .
Thanks to \[prop:parallel\] we can distinguish affine lines using the internal language of $\fixout$.
\[fact:affinelines\] A line $k\in\linesout$ is affine iff there exists a line $l\in\linesout$ such that $l\neq k\parallel l$.
Planes
------
By analogy to proper line we introduce the term *proper plane*. Namely we say that a plane $\Pi$ of $\fixproj$ is proper (or is a *plane of $\fixout$*) if $\Pi\not\subset\W$. In the following lemma we try to justify this terminology.
\[lem:triangle-plane\] There is a proper triangle on every plane of $\fixout$.
Let $\Pi$ be a plane of $\fixout$. There is a proper point $a$ on $\Pi$, since $\Pi\not\subset\W$. Every line through $a$ is proper by \[fact:basic\]. There are at least $2\fixind +2$ lines through $a$ on $\Pi$ by . So, take two distinct lines $l_1,l_2$ with $a\in l_1,l_2\subset\Pi$, and consider two points $b,c\neq a$ such that $a\in l_1$, $b\in l_2$. Then $a,b,c$ and $l_1, l_2, \LineOn(b,c)$ form the required triangle.
By \[lem:triangle-plane\] we have a proper triangle on a plane $\Pi$ of $\fixout$. Now we prove that this triangle spans $\Pi$.
\[triangle-span\] Let $\Pi$ be a proper plane and let $k_1, k_2, k_3$ be the sides of a proper triangle on $\Pi$. For every (proper or improper) point $a\in\Pi$ there is a proper line through $a$ that intersects two of the sides $k_1,k_2,k_3$ in two distinct proper points.
Let $a_1, a_2, a_3$ be the vertices of our triangle of sides $k_1, k_2, k_3$ with $a_i\notin k_i$ for $i = 1, 2, 3$ and let $a\in\Pi$. If $a\in k_i$ for some $i=1,2,3$, then $k_i$ is the required line. So, assume that $a\notin k_1,k_2,k_3$.
By \[fact:basic\] there are at least $\fixind$ proper points on $k_1$ distinct from $a_2, a_3$. Let $p_1,\dots, p_\lambda$ be such points where $\fixind\le\lambda$. Take $l_i := \LineOn(a, p_i)$ for $i=1,\dots, \lambda$. Each line $l_i$ is proper and intersect $k_2$ in some point $q_i$. Note that all these points $q_i$ are pairwise distinct. If $\fixind < \lambda$, then there is $j=1,\dots, \lambda$ such that $q_j$ is a proper point as by there are only up to $\fixind$ improper points on $k_2$. Thus, the line $l_j$ is the required one and we are through. If $\fixind = \lambda$, then either $q_j$ is a proper point for some $j=1,\dots, \lambda$ and $l_j$ is the required line, or all the points $q_i$, and only those, are improper points of $k_2$. In the latter case take $l := \LineOn(a, a_2)$. It is a proper line as $a_2$ is proper and it intersect $k_2$ in a point distinct from $q_i,\dots, q_\lambda$ thus, in a proper point as required.
Immediately from \[triangle-span\] we get
\[cor:planes\] Proper planes are definable in terms of $\fixout$.
Next lemmas may look technical and superfluous until Section \[sec:cliques\].
\[lem:bundle\] There are at least three pairwise distinct non-coplanar proper lines through every (improper) point of $\fixproj$.
Let $a$ be a point of $\fixproj$. If $a$ is proper, then the claim follows directly by \[fact:basic\]. So, assume that $a$ is improper. By \[fact:basic\] there is some proper point $a_1$, thus $a\neq a_1$. Every line through $a_1$ is proper so, it is $k_1 := \LineOn(a, a_1)$. Take another line $l$ through $a_1$ distinct from $k_1$. By \[fact:basic\] there is a proper point $a_2\in l$ with $a_1\neq a_2$. The line $k_2 := \LineOn(a, a_2)$ is proper, $k_1\neq k_2$, and $a\in k_1, k_2$. So, we have a proper plane $\Pi = \gen{k_1, k_2}$. Now, as $\fixproj$ is at least $3$ dimensional, take a point $p$ not on $\Pi$. Regardless of whether $p$ is proper or not, there is a proper point $a_3$ on the line $\LineOn(p, a_1)$ with $a_3\neq a_1$ (possibly $a_3 = p$) by \[fact:basic\]. Lines $k_1$, $k_2$, $k_3 := \LineOn(a, a_3)$ are the required lines.
A straightforward outcome of \[lem:bundle\] is as follows.
\[lem:cosik\]
\[lem:cosik:a\] There is a proper line through every point of $\fixproj$.
\[lem:cosik:b\] There is a proper plane through every point of $\fixproj$.
\[lem:affine-lines\] There are at least $\fixind+2$ affine lines through every improper point on a proper plane.
Consider an improper point $a$ and a plane $\Pi$ of $\fixout$ through $a$. By there are at least $2\fixind+2$ lines through $a$ on $\Pi$. Assume that there are $\lambda$ improper lines $k_1,\dots,k_\lambda$ contained in $\Pi$ through $a$. Take a proper point $b$ of $\Pi$ and a point $a_i\in k_i$ for some $i=1,\dots,\lambda$ distinct from $a$. The line $l:=\LineOn(a_i, b)$ is proper by \[fact:basic\], and intersects every of $k_1,\dots,k_\lambda$. There are up to $\fixind$ improper points on $l$, thus $\lambda\leq \fixind$. The remaining lines through $a$ are affine.
\[impintersec\] For every improper line $k$ there are at least $\fixind+2$ proper planes containing $k$.
Consider the bundle $\cal F$ of all the planes in $\fixproj$ containing the line $k$ and let $a\in k$. By \[lem:bundle\] we have three proper lines $k_1, k_2, k_3$ through $a$ that span three pairwise distinct proper planes. Note that the line $k$, as an improper one, can be contained in at most one of those planes. Take $\Pi$ to be one of the other two, thus $\Pi$ is a proper plane with $a\in\Pi$ and $k\not\subset\Pi$.
Every plane from the family $\cal F$ intersects $\Pi$ in a line of $\fixproj$. All these lines form a pencil through $a$ on $\Pi$. There are at least $\fixind+2$ proper lines in that pencil by \[lem:affine-lines\]. Each of these proper lines together with $k$ span a proper plane from $\cal F$ which completes the proof.
Cliques of parallelism {#sec:cliques}
----------------------
Let $\pclique$ be a maximal clique of $\parallel$ in $\fixout$. There are two possibilities:
there is an improper point $a$ such that $a\in k$ for all $k\in\pclique$, or
there is a plane $\Pi$ in $\fixout$ such that $k\subset\Pi$ for all $k\in\pclique$.
A maximal $\parallel$-clique in the first case will be called a *star direction*, and a *top direction* in the second.
\[prop:cliques\] There are two disjoint classes of maximal $\parallel$-cliques in $\fixout$: star directions and top directions.
Let $\pclique$ be a maximal $\parallel$-clique. Take $k_1, k_2\in\pclique$ with $k_1\neq k_2$. These are proper lines that meet in some improper point $a$. In view of \[lem:bundle\] the set $\{k_1, k_2\}$ is never a maximal clique so, there must be a line in $\pclique$ distinct from $k_1, k_2$. We have two possible cases: there is a line $l\in\pclique$ that intersects $k_1, k_2$ in two distinct improper points or not. In the first case all the lines of $\pclique$ need to intersect $k_1, k_2$, and $l$ in improper points, thus they need to lie on the plane $\gen{k_1, k_2}$. In the second case all the lines of $\pclique$ go through $a$.
The condition:
- every two distinct proper lines, sharing two distinct points with lines of a maximal $\parallel$-clique each, intersect each other or are parallel.
characterizes top directions.
\[prop:stars\] A maximal $\parallel$-clique satisfies $(\ast)$ iff it is a top direction.
Let $\pclique$ be a maximal $\parallel$-clique satisfying $(\ast)$. Suppose to the contrary that $\pclique$ is a star direction. By \[lem:bundle\] take three pairwise distinct non-coplanar lines $k_1, k_2, k_3\in\pclique$ and assume that $a\in k_1, k_2, k_3$ is the improper point that determines $\pclique$. Let $a_1\in k_1$, $a_2\in k_2$ be proper points and let $l_1 := \LineOn(a_1, a_2)$. Now, in view of \[fact:basic\], take a proper point $b_2\in k_2$ with $b_2\neq a_2$. Then, take a proper point $b_3\in k_3$ and $l_2:=\LineOn(b_2, b_3)$. Lines $l_1, l_2$ are proper and skew, a contradiction.
Let $\pclique$ be a top direction and let $l_1, l_2$ be distinct proper lines sharing two distinct points with lines of $\pclique$ each. Every two lines intersect each other on a projective plane. Hence, the lines $l_1, l_2$ share a proper or an improper point, and accordingly, $l_1$ intersects $l_2$ or $l_1\parallel l_2$.
Consequences of \[prop:cliques\] and \[prop:stars\] together with \[prop:parallel\] are quite essential for our future construction and will be put down as follows.
\[cor:star-directions\] Star directions are definable in terms of $\fixout$.
Moreover, every star direction $\pclique$ can be identified with the improper point shared by all the lines of $\pclique$. We will write $\stardir(a)$ for the star direction determined by an improper point $a$.
On a side note, in $(\ast)$ we can claim, equivalently, that every two distinct proper lines, each of which shares two distinct points with lines of a top direction, are coplanar as planes are definable in $\fixout$ by \[cor:planes\]. As for top directions they need not to exist on every plane. If for example from a plane $\Pi$ we remove a single point, two points, a single line, a line and a point, or two lines then there is no top direction on $\Pi$.
The main reasoning {#sec:main}
------------------
We are going to reconstruct the horizon $\W$ in $\fixout$.
In view of \[cor:star-directions\], as it has been already stated, to every improper point $a$ of $\fixproj$ we can uniquely associate the star direction $\stardir(a)$. Hence we formally have $$S = \pointsout \cup S^\infty,$$ where $S^\infty = \bset{ \pclique\colon \pclique \text{ is a maximal $\parallel$-clique that fails $(\ast)$} }$. The incidence relation of $\fixout$ can be extended now to the set of improper points as follows. If $a$ is an improper point and $k\in\linesout$, then $$\label{eq:incinfty}
a\in k :\iff k\in\stardir(a).$$ Let us summarize what we have so far.
The structure $\struct{S, \linesout}$ is definable in $\fixout$.
To get the entire projective space $\fixproj$ we need to recover improper lines and tell what does it mean that a point, proper or improper, lies on such an improper line, everything in terms of $\fixout$.
Thanks to \[cor:planes\] we are allowed to use the term *proper plane* in the language of $\fixout$. Taking into account we can express what does it mean that a proper line is contained in such a plane. Moreover, by \[lem:affine-lines\] there is a proper line through an improper point on every proper plane. Therefore, for an improper point $a$ and a proper plane $\Pi$ we can make the following definition $$a\in\Pi :\iff (\exists k\in\linesout)\bigl[\, a\in k \Land k\subseteq\Pi \,\bigr],$$ where the formula on the right hand side is a sentence in the language of $\fixout$.
Now, for improper points $a, b$ we define *improper adjacency* which means that $a, b$ lie on an improper line, formally: $$\label{eq:impadjac}
a\impadjac b :\iff (\nexists\; k\in\linesout)\bigl[\,
k\in\stardir(a) \Land k\in\stardir(b)\,\bigr].$$ Let $\pplanes$ be the class of proper planes in $\fixproj$. Consider three points $a, b, c$ of $\fixproj$. In view of \[impintersec\], with the formula $$\begin{gathered}
\label{collinearity}
\operatorname{L^\infty}(a, b, c) :\iff \impadjac(a, b, c) \Land (\exists \Pi_1, \Pi_2\in\pplanes)
\bigl[\; \Pi_1\neq\Pi_2 \Land
a, b, c\in \Pi_1, \Pi_2 \,\bigr]\end{gathered}$$ we define *improper collinearity* relation. An improper line in $\fixproj$ is an equivalence class of that relation $\operatorname{L^\infty}$ with two distinct points fixed. That is, if $a, b$ are two distinct improper points then $[a,b]_{\operatorname{L^\infty}}$ is the improper line through $a, b$. So $$\label{eq:implines}
\lines^\infty := \bset{ [a,b]_{\operatorname{L^\infty}}\colon a,b\in S\setminus\pointsout }$$ is the set of all improper lines of $\fixproj$. Now, the incidence between an improper point $a$ and an improper line $k$ may be formally expressed as follows: $$a\in k\iff (\exists b,c\in S)\bigl[\, k = [b,c]_{\operatorname{L^\infty}} \Land \operatorname{L^\infty}(a,b,c) \,\bigr].$$ Finally the underlying projective space $$\fixproj = \struct{S,\linesout\cup \lines^\infty}$$ and the horizon $\bstruct{S^\infty, \lines^\infty}$ are both definable in $\fixout$ which constitutes our main theorem \[thm:main-proj\].
Partial projective spaces {#sec:pps}
=========================
Following the idea of partial projective planes founded in [@hall], as well as the idea of partial affine spaces investigated in [@partaffine], a *partial projective space* $\pps$ can be defined as a projective space $\fixproj=\struct{S, \lines}$ with a family $\rlines$ of its lines deleted. Hence $\pps = \struct{S, \ppslines}$, where $\ppslines = \lines\setminus\rlines$ is the set of undeleted lines. Further we assume that $\fixproj$ is at least 3-dimensional and $$\label{eq:pps}
\text{\itshape there is a line in $\ppslines$ through every point on every plane of\/ $\fixproj$.}$$ The condition is equivalent to requirement that for every point $a$ and a line $l$ of $\fixproj$ such that $a\notin l$ there is a line in $\ppslines$ through $a$ that meets $l$. We are going to recover all the deleted lines strictly in terms of $\pps$.
\[thm:pps\] If is satisfied, then every line of $\rlines$ can be recovered in $\pps$.
The proof of this theorem is split into a series of the following lemmas.
There is a triangle of $\pps$ on every plane of $\fixproj$.
Let $\Pi$ be a plane of $\fixproj$. Take a point $a$ on $\Pi$. By there is a line $k_1\in\ppslines$ on $\Pi$ through $a$. Now, take a point $b$ on $\Pi$ but not on $k_1$. Again by there is a line $k_2\in\ppslines$ on $\Pi$ through $b$. The lines $k_1, k_2$ meet each other. Finally, take a point $c$ on $\Pi$ not on $k_1\cup k_2$. By we have a line $k_3\in\ppslines$ through $c$ that meets $k_1$ and so, it meets $k_2$ as well. The lines $k_1, k_2, k_3$ form the required triangle.
\[lem:pps-planes\] Let $\Pi$ be a plane of $\fixproj$ and let $k_1, k_2, k_3$ be the sides of a triangle of $\pps$ contained in $\Pi$. Then $$\Pi = \Bigl\{ a\in S\colon (\exists k\in\ppslines) \Bigl[\, a\in k
\Land \Bigl(\mathop{\wedge}\limits_{i=1}^3 k\cap k_i\neq\emptyset\Bigr) \,\Bigr]\Bigr\}.$$
$\subseteq\colon$ Let $a\in\Pi$. If $a$ lies on one of $k_1, k_2, k_3$ we are through. Otherwise, by there is a line $k\in\ppslines$, through $a$ that meets $k_1$. On the projective plane $\Pi$ the line $k$ meets also $k_2, k_3$.
$\supseteq\colon$ Straightforward.
\[cor:pps-planes\] Planes of $\fixproj$ are definable in terms of $\pps$.
Consider a line $l\in\rlines$ and take two planes $\Pi_1, \Pi_2$ of $\fixproj$ that contain $l$. The points on $l$ are not collinear in $\pps$ but they all are contained in both $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$. This, in view of \[cor:pps-planes\], lets us define in terms of $\pps$ a ternary collinearity relation whose equivalence classes are the deleted lines $\rlines$ (cf. , , ). Now the proof of \[thm:pps\] is complete.
Nevertheless, it is worth to make a comment regarding the condition . By \[cor:pps-planes\] all planes containing a line $l\in\rlines$ are definable, although to recover $l$ two of them are sufficient. Hence, one can prove \[thm:pps\] under an assumption weaker significantly than . We need to require the existence of a few points on every line, such that there are lines in $\ppslines$ through these points, which yield two triangles in distinct planes (see Figure \[fig:cond-star\]). This condition is not so intuitive and as straight as . In the next section we use \[thm:pps\] to recover improper lines in a maximal strong subspace of a Grassmann space. From this point of view it is crucial to note, that all examples of complements in the Grassmann space, considered in Section \[sec:app\], not fulfilling would not satisfy the new assumption either. For this reason and for simplicity we abandon the idea of a weaker, though more complex, assumption and continue our research using .
![A weaker version of the assumption .[]{data-label="fig:cond-star"}](cond-star.eps)
Complements in Grassmann spaces {#sec:complgrass}
===============================
Throughout this section we deal with the Grassmann space $\M = \PencSpace(V, k)$ introduced in the beginning, together with a fixed set $\W\subset\Sub_k(V)$. More precisely the complement $\fixoutf(\M,\W)$ is investigated. Two assumptions seem to be essential here. First of all we assume that the condition is satisfied, i.e. every line of $\M$ has size at least $2\indf(\M,\W) + 2$. To recover improper lines we assume additionally that $$\label{eq:pps-grass}
\begin{gathered}
\text{\itshape if\/ $U$ is a point and $p$ is a line of\/ $\M$ such that}\\
\text{$U\notin p$ and\/ $U,p$ span some strong subspace, then there is}\\
\text{a proper maximal strong subspaces through\/ $U$ that meets $p$.}
\end{gathered}$$ Our goal now is to prove an analogue of \[thm:main-proj\]:
\[thm:main-grass\] If $\M = \PencSpace(V, k)$ is a Grassmann space and $\W$ is its point subset satisfying and , then both $\M$ and $\W$ can be recovered in the complement $\fixoutf(\M,\W)$.
Let us start with straightforward consequences of our assumptions.
\[lem:prop-line-thr\] There is a proper line through every point of $\M$.
Let $U$ be a point of $\M$. In case $U$ is proper every line through $U$ is proper. So, assume that $U$ is improper. Take any star or top $X$ through $U$ and any line $p\subset X$. By there is a proper maximal strong subspace $Y$ through $U$. So there is a proper point $U'\in Y$. As $U\neq U'$ the required line is $\LineOn(U, U')$.
We used to make a distinction between objects that are contained in the horizon $\W$ and those that are not. The latter are called proper and the former improper. Following this convention we say that a subspace $X$ of $\M$ is *proper* when $X\not\subset\W$, otherwise it is said to be *improper*.
\[prop:stillstrong\]
If $X$ is a strong subspaces of $\M$ then $X\setminus\W$ is a strong subspace of $\fixoutf(\M,\W)$.
If $Y$ is a strong subspace of $\fixoutf(\M,\W)$, then there is a strong subspace $X$ of $\M$ such that $Y = X\setminus\W$.
\(i) Let $U_1, U_2$ be distinct points of $X\setminus\W$. As $X$ is a strong subspace, there is a line $p$ in $\M$ that joins $U_1, U_2$. The line $p$ is proper since the points $U_1, U_2$ are proper.
\(ii) The set $Y$ is a clique of adjacency of $\M$. Take $X$ to be the maximal strong subspace of $\M$ containing $Y$. Note that $Y\subseteq X\setminus\W$ as $Y$ contains no points of the horizon $\W$. Now, consider a point $U\in X\setminus\W$. This is a proper point and it is collinear in $\M$ with every point of $Y$ as a subset of $X$. All the lines through $U$ are proper, so $U\in Y$ as $Y$ is a maximal clique of $\fixoutf(\M,\W)$.
Note that from the inside of a Grassmann space it is not straightforward to tell whether a strong subspace is a star or a top (in case $2k=n$ it is even impossible). We can make distinction between two types of strong subspaces however, as two stars (and two tops) are either disjoint or meet in a point while a star and a top are either disjoint or meet in a line. The names ‘star’ and ‘top’ come from the outer space, usually a vector space or a projective space, within which our Grassmann space is defined. So, in view of \[prop:stillstrong\], we say that a strong subspace $Y$ of $\fixoutf(\M,\W)$ is a star (a top) if there is a star (respectively a top) $X$ in $\M$ such that $Y = X\setminus\W$.
\[fact:rec-strong\] Let $X$ be a strong subspace of $\M$, then $X$ and $\W\cap X$ can be recovered in $\fixoutf(X,{\W\cap X}) = \fixoutf(\M,\W) | X$.
First of all, note that $\indf(X,{\W\cap X}) \le \indf(\M,{\W})$ and every line of $X$ has size at least $2\indf(X,{\W\cap X}) + 2$. Since every strong subspace $X$ of $\M$ carries the structure of a projective space, we can apply \[thm:main-proj\] locally in $X$.
Let $U\in\W$. Consider the family $M_U$ of all proper maximal strong subspaces through $U$ in $\M$. Since every line of $\M$ is extendable to a star and to a top, in view of \[lem:prop-line-thr\] the set $M_U$ has at least two elements. As we prove in Section \[sec:main\], every improper point $U$ in a projective space $X\in M_U$ can be uniquely identified with the bundle $\stardirin(U,X)$ (star direction) of parallel lines that pass through $U$ and are contained in $X$. Let
S\^ := {(U,X)XM\_U, U}.
We introduce the relation $\mathord{\uzg}\subseteq S^{\ast\infty}\times S^{\ast\infty}$ as follows: in case $X_1, X_2$ are of different types (a top and a star up to ordering)
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{uzg:startop}
\stardirin(U_1, X_1)\uzg \stardirin(U_2, X_2) :\iff
U_1, U_2 \in X_1\cap X_2 \Land \\
\bigl(\exists p_1\in\stardirin(U_1, X_1)\bigr)\bigl(\exists p_2\in\stardirin(U_2, X_2)\bigr)
\bigl[\, p_1, p_2\neq X_1\cap X_2 \Land \\
\topof(p_1)\cap\starof(p_2) \text{ or } \starof(p_1)\cap\topof(p_2)
\text{ is a proper line distinct from } X_1\cap X_2\,\bigr]\end{gathered}$$
and in case $X_1, X_2$ are of the same type (two stars or two tops) $$\begin{gathered}
\label{uzg:starstar}
\stardirin(U_1, X_1)\uzg \stardirin(U_2, X_2) :\iff
(\exists U\in\W)
(\exists X \in M_U \\ \text{ of the other type than } X_1,X_2)
\bigl[\, \stardirin(U_1, X_1)\uzg \stardirin(U, X) \uzg \stardirin(U_2, X_2) \,\bigr].\end{gathered}$$ The relation $\uzg$ lets us identify improper points shared by a top and a star.
\[prop:uzgadniacz\] Let $X_1, X_2$ be two proper maximal strong subspaces of different types in $\M$, and let $U_1,U_2\in \W$. The following conditions are equivalent:
\[first\] $U_1=U_2\in X_1\cap X_2$,
\[second\] $\stardirin(U_1, X_1)\uzg \stardirin(U_2, X_2)$.
Without loss of generality we can assume that $S := X_1$ is a star and $T := X_2$ is a top.
(i)$\implies$(ii): Let $U_1=U_2=:U$. As $U\in S\cap T$, by \[fact:lineinstartop\], $l := S\cap T$ is a line of $\M$. From \[lem:bundle\] there are lines $p_1\in\stardirin(U_1,S)$ and $p_2\in\stardirin(U_2,T)$ distinct from $l$. Note that $U\in\topof(p_1)\cap\starof(p_2)$. Hence $\topof(p_1)\cap\starof(p_2)$ is always a line $p$ in $\M$. Assume to the contrary that for all $p_1, p_2\neq l$ every such a line $p$ is improper.
Consider a line $p_1\in\stardirin(U, S)$ with $p_1\neq l$. Note that $U\in T\cap\topof(p_1)$. Take the set of proper planes $${\cal F} = \{ \Pi\colon l\subset\Pi\subset T\}.$$ If $l$ is proper, then all the planes containing $l$ are proper. If $l$ is improper, then we apply \[impintersec\]. In both cases the cardinality of $\cal F$ is at least $\indf(\M,\W)+2$.
Let $\Pi\in{\cal F}$. In view of our assumptions all of the lines $p=\starof(p_2)\cap\topof(p_1)$, for any line $p_2$ through $U$ contained in $\Pi$, are improper. By \[lem:top-star-top\] these lines lie on the plane $f(\Pi)$ contained in $\topof(p_1)$. Now, the question is if any of planes $f(\Pi)$ is proper. To answer this question consider the set $f({\cal F})$. By \[lem:top-star-top\](ii) $f({\cal F})$ is the set of planes that share a single line $l'$. In case $l'$ is proper all the planes in $f({\cal F})$ are proper. In case $l'$ is improper, by \[impintersec\], there are proper planes in $f({\cal F})$. Any way we can take a proper plane $\Pi'\in f({\cal F})$. Every line intersecting all of these lines on $\Pi'$ would have more than $\indf(\M,\W)$ improper points, a contradiction.
(ii)$\implies$(i): Assume to the contrary that $U_1\neq U_2$. Note, by , that $l := S\cap T$ is a line. From we have $U_1\in\topof(p_1)$, $U_2\in\starof(p_2)$, and $U_1\adjac U_2$. By \[cor:starcaptop\], $l\subset\topof(p_1)$ or $l\subset\starof(p_2)$. Thus $\topof(p_1)=\topof(l)=T$ or $\starof(p_2)=\starof(l)=S$. In both cases $S$ and $T$ share two distinct lines, a contradiction.
We need to identify improper points common for two tops or two stars as well.
\[prop:uzgadniacz1\] Let $X_1, X_2$ be two proper maximal strong subspaces of the same type in $\M$, and let $U_1,U_2\in \W$. The following conditions are equivalent:
\[first1\] $U_1=U_2\in X_1\cap X_2$,
\[second1\] $\stardirin(U_1, X_1)\uzg \stardirin(U_2, X_2)$.
We restrict our proof for two stars $S_1:=X_1$, $S_2:=X_2$, as the case involving two tops is dual.
(i)$\implies$(ii): Let $U_1=U_2=:U\in S_1\cap S_2$. By \[lem:prop-line-thr\] we take a proper line $l$ through $U$. Then the top $T(l)$ is proper and $U\in S_1\cap S_2\cap T(l)$. Thus, from (i)$\implies$(ii) of \[prop:uzgadniacz\] we obtain $\stardirin(U, S_1)\uzg \stardirin(U, T)$ and $\stardirin(U, T)\uzg \stardirin(U, S_2)$, that in view of means that $\stardirin(U, S_1)\uzg \stardirin(U, S_2)$.
(ii)$\implies$(i): Straightforward by (ii)$\implies$(i) of \[prop:uzgadniacz\].
Recovering in \[thm:main-grass\] goes in the following two steps:
#### Step I
Applying results of Section \[sec:main\], we recover the points of $\W$ and improper lines of $\M$ that are contained in proper stars or tops. The condition stated in \[lem:prop-line-thr\] is critical here.
In view of \[prop:uzgadniacz\] and \[prop:uzgadniacz1\] the relation $\uzg$ is an equivalence relation. Thanks to \[lem:prop-line-thr\] we have $M_U\neq\emptyset$ for every improper point $U$ (cf. \[exm:neighbourhood\]). This makes it possible to cover the complement $\fixoutf(\M,\W)$ with the family of proper stars and tops. Now, \[fact:rec-strong\] can be applied for each member of that covering to recover points of the horizon $\W$. Therefore
= S\^/.
Now, let us denote by $\peki^\infty$ the set of all improper lines of $\M$. If $X$ is a proper maximal strong subspace of $\M$, then we write $\peki_X^\infty$ for the set of all improper lines in $X$. Every line of $\peki_X^\infty$ can be defined as a section of two proper planes, like it was done in , . Thus $$\begin{gathered}
\peki^{\ast\infty} := \bigcup\Big\{
[\pclique]_{\uzg}\colon \pclique = \stardirin(U,X),\; U\in l \in\peki_X^\infty,\\
X\text{ is a proper maximal strong subspace of } \M \Big\}\end{gathered}$$ is the set of improper lines of $\M$ that are recoverable in $\fixoutf(\M,\W)$ by means of Section \[sec:main\].
#### Step II
Note that $\peki^\infty\setminus\peki^{\ast\infty}\neq\emptyset$, as long as both $S(l)$ and $T(l)$ are improper for some line $l$. We recover such lines applying results of Section \[sec:pps\]. It would not be possible without assumption (cf. \[exm:twointervals\]).
Let us focus on the improper star $S(l)$ which, due to dualism, does not cause loss of generality. Points of $S(l)$ are recovered, as all points in $\W$ are already recovered. So $S(l)$ can be considered as a projective space with some lines deleted, i.e. a partial projective space. Observe that the assumption is fulfilled in $S(l)$ by . Hence, \[thm:pps\] can be applied, and thus all the remaining unrecovered lines of $S(l)$ can be recovered now: the line $l$ in particular. This way every line from the set
\^\^ = {l\^T(l), S(l) }
can be recovered in some improper star.
Finally, we recover all lines from $\peki^\infty$, which makes the proof of \[thm:main-grass\] complete.
Applications {#sec:app}
============
\[exm:slit\] Let $\fixproj$ be a projective space and $\W$ its subspace. It is clear that $\indf(\fixproj,\W) = 1$ and thus $2\indf(\fixproj,\W)+2 = 4$. So, if lines of $\fixproj$ have size at least 4 (i.e. the ground field is not $\operatorname{GF}(2)$) the condition is satisfied. Hence we can apply \[thm:main-proj\] and recover $\fixproj$ and $\W$ in the complement $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$.
\[exm:sulima\] Again, let $\fixproj$ be a projective space, but now let $\W = \W_1\cup\W_2$, where $\W_1, \W_2$ are complementary subspaces of $\fixproj$ and none of $\W_1, \W_2$ is a hyperplane. A line of $\fixproj$, not entirely contained in $\W$, meets $\W$ in none, one or two points. In [@sulima] the complement ${\goth T} = \struct{\mathscr{S}, \mathcal{T}}$, where $\mathscr{S}$ coincides with the point set of $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$ while $\mathcal{T}$ is the set of lines that miss $\W$, i.e. those lines of $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$ which have no improper points. So, the geometry of two-hole slit space ${\goth T}$ differs a bit from our complement $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$ in that the later has more lines. It has been proved in [@sulima] that $\fixproj$ can be defined in terms of $\goth T$. In particular, all the lines of $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$ has been defined in $\goth T$. Consequently the complement $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$ can be recovered in $\goth T$. If we additionally assume that lines of $\fixproj$ are of size at least 6, then is satisfied and we can apply \[thm:main-proj\]. Therefore, in these settings $\fixproj$ and $\W$ can be recovered in $\fixoutf(\fixproj,\W)$. Though the result of [@sulima] is stronger, as there are no requirement on the size of lines, our result embraces larger class of applications.
\[exm:multihole\] Let us generalize the examples \[exm:slit\] and \[exm:sulima\] fixating a family $W_1,\dots, W_m$ of subspaces in the projective space $\fixproj$. Take $\W =\bigcup_{i=1}^m W_i$ and note that $\indf(\fixproj,\W)= m$ if there is a line intersecting every of $W_i$ in precisely one point and all these points are pairwise distinct. Therefore, in general $\indf(\fixproj,\W)\leq m$. The minimal size of a line, that is required in order to apply \[thm:main-proj\], remains $2\indf(\fixproj,\W)+2$ and it is determined by arrangement of subspaces $W_1,\dots,W_m$. Such minimal size of a line varies from 4, as it is in the case of a slit space, up to $2m+2$.
\[exm:quadric\] Now, let $\polarity$ be a polarity on a projective space $\fixproj$. In vein of linear algebra $\fixproj$, if it is desarguesian, corresponds to a projective space over a, say left, vector space over a division ring $F$ and the polarity $\polarity$ corresponds to a non-degenerate reflexive sesqui-linear form. Denote by $Q$ the set of all selfconjugate points w.r.t. $\polarity$ i.e. the quadric determined by $\polarity$. It coincides with the point set of $\fixproj$ when $\polarity$ is symplectic, or it is a specific case of a so called *quadratic set*, that is, a set of points with the property that every line which meets $Q$ in at least three points is entirely contained in $Q$. We are interested in the latter. So, $\indf(\fixproj,Q) = 2$ and if every line of $\fixproj$ has size at least 6 ($F\neq\operatorname{GF}(2), \operatorname{GF}(3), \operatorname{GF}(4)$ in terms of linear algebra) the condition is satisfied. Therefore, in view of \[thm:main-proj\] we see that $\fixproj$ and $Q$ can be recovered in the complement of $Q$ in $\fixproj$.
\[exm:interval\] In [@slitgras] complements of interval substructures in Grassmannians where investigated. Such substructures are unique in that they bear the structure of Grassmannians and only those have this property. In Grassmann spaces interval subspaces play an analogous role, as it was shown in [@correl], and this is the reason to call them Grassmann subspaces. So, consider a projective Grassmann space $\M = \PencSpace(V, k)$ and its interval subspace $\W := [Z, Y]_k$ for some subspaces $Z, Y$ of $V$. In our construction we require that $\W \neq\Sub_k(V)$, c.f. \[fact:basic\], that is either $Z\neq\Theta$ ($\Theta$ being the trivial subspace of $V$), or $Y\neq V$. So, we have $\indf(\M,\W) = 1$ as $\W$ is a subspace of $\M$, hence for ground fields of $V$ different from $\operatorname{GF}(2)$ the condition is satisfied. Observe that if $\W$ contains a maximal top, then $Z=\Theta$, and if $\W$ contains a maximal star, then $Y=V$. Therefore, for every line $p$ of $\M$ one of its maximal strong extensions $\starof(p)$ or $\topof(p)$ is proper. This means that holds true and thus $\M$ together with $\W$ can be recovered applying \[thm:main-grass\].
\[exm:polargras\] Let $\A$ be a polar space embedded into some projective space $\fixproj$. The polar Grassmann space $\PencSpace(\A, k)$ (cf. [@polargras]) is embeddable into the projective Grassmann space $\M = \PencSpace(\fixproj, k)$. Take $\W$ to be the point set of the former. Again $\indf(\M,\W) = 1$ or $\indf(\M,\W) = 2$ as $\A$ is a null-system (i.e. $\W$ is a subspace of $\M$) or not, respectively. So, if we drop the case where lines of $\fixproj$ are of size 3 or of sizes 3, 4, 5, respectively, the condition is fulfilled. Now, take a point $U$ and a line $p$ of $\M$ such that $U\notin p$ and $U, p$ span a strong subspace. Note that every point on $p$ is adjacent to $U$. So, take a line $q$ through $U$ that meets $p$. The star $\starof(q)$ can not be contained in $\W$ (cf. [@polargras]) which yields that the condition is fulfilled. Therefore, \[thm:main-grass\] can be applied to recover $\M$ and $\W$.
Note that in case $\A$ is a null-system this is an example of removing a subspace from a Grassmann space, likewise in Example \[exm:interval\].
So far we have seen examples where Theorem \[thm:main-proj\] or \[thm:main-grass\] is applicable, sometimes under certain additional assumptions. The following examples show that the condition or is not always satisfied and our theorems cannot be applied.
Following [@spinesp], [@autspine] a spine space $\A:=\SpineSp(k,m,V,W)$, where $V$ is a vector space, $W$ its fixed subspace, and $k, m$ some fixed integers, can be considered as the Grassmann space $\M = \PencSpace(V, k)$ with the set of points
={ U\_k(V)(UW)m}
removed. The lines of $\A$ are those lines of $\PencSpace(V, k)$ with at least 2 proper points. If $0 < m$, $m-1\neq k$, and $m-1\neq \dim(W)$, i.e. if there are affine lines in $\SpineSp(k,m-1,V,W)$, then each of these lines, from view of $\M$, has a unique proper point. This contradicts \[fact:basic\] and means that the condition is not satisfied in spine spaces in general. If however, $m=0$, as in the case of linear complements, or there are no affine lines in $\SpineSp(k,m-1,V,W)$, then $\indf(\A,\W) = 1$ and, under assumption that the ground field of $V$ is not $\operatorname{GF}(2)$, the condition is fulfilled. The condition is problematic as it will be shown in \[exm:lincomp\].
Nevertheless, in [@autspine] it was shown that with more sophisticated methods the ambient space $\M$ can always be recovered in $\A$. These methods consist in iterated, step by step, recovering the horizon of the horizon, treated as a spine space.
\[exm:lincomp\] Two papers [@blunck-havlicek] and [@lincomp] deal with the structure of complementary subspaces to a fixed subspace in a projective space $\fixproj$, though in completely different settings. This structure is embeddable into an affine space. Following [@lincomp] it arises as a specific case of a spine space, that is, we can think of it as of a Grassmann space $\M$, over a vector space $V$, with the set $\W$ of those points of $\M$ that are not linear complements of some fixed subspace $W$ of $V$. By [@lincomp], [@spinesp], or [@autspine] we have $\indf(\fixproj,\W) = 1$ so, if we rule out $\operatorname{GF}(2)$ we have satisfied. If we take however, a point $U$ of $\M$ with $2\le\dim(U\cap W)$, then there is no proper point $U'$ adjacent to $U$. This violates \[lem:prop-line-thr\] and hence does not hold true.
\[exm:affinegr\] Now let us start with a Grassmann space $\M = \PencSpace(V, k)$ with its geometric hyperplane $\W$ removed. By [@cuypers] the complement of $\W$ in $\M$ is an affine Grassmann space, or an affine Grassmannian $\A$. Assume that the ground field is not $\operatorname{GF}(2)$. In this case $\indf(\M,\W) = 1$ as every line of $\M$ either meets $\W$ in a point, or is entirely contained in $\W$. Hence $2\indf(\M,\W)+2 = 4$ which means that the condition is fulfilled. Following [@cuypers], note however that $\W$ is the set of complementary $k$-subspaces to a fixed subspace $W$ of codimension $k$ in $V$, or it is the set of $k$-subspaces killed by some $k$-linear alternating form on $V$. In the first case we get the structure of linear complements as in \[exm:lincomp\], so fails here either.
Let $Q$ be a ruled quadric in a projective space $\fixproj=\struct{S,\Lines}$ and take $\W := S\setminus Q$. The proper lines of $\fixproj$ are the generators of $Q$ and there are lines in $\fixproj$ with up to two proper points. Our requirement is not satisfied, but it has been shown in [@moirer] however, that $\fixproj$ can be recovered from $Q$ using different methods.
The next two examples may seem artificial but they are intended to point out the substance and necessity of the condition in \[lem:prop-line-thr\] and of respectively, so they are minimal in the sense that $\W$ is possibly small while \[lem:prop-line-thr\] or is not satisfied.
\[exm:neighbourhood\] Consider a Grassmann space $\M = \PencSpace(V, k)$. Let $U$ be a point of $\M$. Take the set $\W$ of all points of $\M$ collinear with $U$. As far as adjacency $\adjac$ is concerned we can say that $\W$ is the *neighbourhood* of $U$. Since $\M$ is a gamma space, $\W$ is a subspace of $\M$ (cf. [@cohen]). This implies that $\indf(\M,\W) = 1$ but there are no proper lines through $U$, so the condition in \[lem:prop-line-thr\] fails. This makes impossible to recover the horizon $\W$ pointwise.
\[exm:twointervals\] In a Grassmann space $\M = \PencSpace(V, k)$, where $1<k<n=\dim(V)$, consider a line $l=\penc(H, B)$ and its two extensions: the star $S = [H)_k$ and the top $T = (B]_k$. Let $U\in S$ with $U\notin l$. Every top through $U$ that intersects $l$ intersects also $S$ in a unique line (a line through $U$ that intersects $l$). All these new lines span a plane $[H, U+B]_k$. Hence, $\W = (U+B]_k\cup [H)_k$ does not satisfy .
Dually, for a point $U\in T$ with $U\notin l$ we have a similar plane in the top $T$, namely $[U\cap H, B]_k$. This time, $\W = (B]_k\cup [U\cap H)_k$ does not satisfy .
Note that fails in \[exm:twointervals\] while \[lem:prop-line-thr\] is still valid. This example resembles \[exm:sulima\] and \[exm:multihole\] in that two or more subspaces are removed. Using our methods one can recover the ambient projective space with any number of its subspaces removed, while in Grassmann spaces removing only two subspaces can make recovery impossible or at least seriously much more complex.
The examples above show that most of the time it is possible to recover ambient projective space from a complement of its point subset as the only requirement is the number of proper points on a line. As projective Grassmann spaces can be covered by two families of projective spaces it is tempting to utilize this and apply the forementioned result. It is not straightforward though. Our procedure relies on partial projective spaces and this introduces a new requirement: the condition , which turns out to be quite restrictive as many classical examples fail to satisfy it. Maybe another approach would be more suitable in case of Grassmann spaces.
[10]{}-2pt , Results Math. [**36**]{} (1999), 237–251.
. In [*Handbook of incidence geometry*]{}, F. Buekenhout, Ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995, pp. 647–737.
, Geom. Dedicata [**35**]{} (1990), 43–76.
, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A [**70**]{} (1995), 289–304.
, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**54**]{} (1943), 229–277.
, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamb., [**31**]{} (1967), 69–88.
, Jber. Deutsh. Math.-Verein. [**70**]{} (1970), 70–114.
, J. Geom. [**50(1)**]{} (1994), 124–142.
, , Algebra and Discrete Mathematics Vol. 2, World Scientific, New Jersey, 2010.
, Demonstratio Math. [**39**]{} (2006), 625–637.
, Math. Pannonica [**20**]{} (2009), 37–59.
, J. Geom. [**72**]{} (2001), 172–187.
, Results Math. [****]{} (2012), on-line first.
, `http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4387`.
, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamb. [**72**]{} (2002), 59–77.
, J. Geom. [**79**]{} (2004), 177–189.
, ZN Geometria, [**19**]{} (1991), 67–80.
, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg, [**73**]{} (2003), 131–144.
, , To appear in Aequationes Math.
, , J. Appl. Logic [**10**]{} (2012), no. 2, 187-198.
K. Petelczyc, M. Żynel\
Institute of Mathematics, University of Bia[ł]{}ystok,\
Akademicka 2, 15-267 Bia[ł]{}ystok, Poland\
`[email protected]`, `[email protected]`
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things are recent developments that have lead to the creation of new kinds of manufacturing data. Linking this new kind of sensor data to traditional business information is crucial for enterprises to take advantage of the data’s full potential. In this paper, we present a demo which allows experiencing this data integration, both vertically between technical and business contexts and horizontally along the value chain. The tool simulates a manufacturing company, continuously producing both business and sensor data, and supports issuing ad-hoc queries that answer specific questions related to the business. In order to adapt to different environments, users can configure sensor characteristics to their needs.'
author:
- Guenter Hesse
- Christoph Matthies
- Werner Sinzig
- Matthias Uflacker
bibliography:
- 'mybibliography.bib'
title: 'Adding Value by Combining Business and Sensor Data: An Industry 4.0 Use Case'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The developments in the areas of Internet of Things (IoT) and sensor technologies drive advances in modern manufacturing settings. Industrial manufacturing enterprises recognize this technological progress and are using the new Industry 4.0 capabilities to generate added value. For example, on a daily basis, a single sensor located on a General Electric gas turbine engine can produce 500GB of data [@davenport]. Injection molding machines, as an example of a common manufacturing device, can even generate multiple terabytes of sensor data per day [@DBLP:conf/gi/HuberVN16].
However, these new possibilities also pose unique challenges, e.g., regarding data integration, as the characteristics of IoT and business data differ [@DBLP:conf/tpctc/HesseRMLKU17]. Linking these two kinds of data holds the key for unlocking the full potential that lies within the collected data treasure. Contrary to horizontal integration, which describes the integration of business data along the value chain, vertical integration refers to the connection between business and sensor data. Whereas in horizontal integrations only homogenous business data needs to be merged, vertical integration requires integration of a variety of data characteristics.
In the presented demo that is available online [^1], we tackle the challenges of understanding the complex data relations in an Industry 4.0 setting. We present an approach for simulating different types and amounts of sensors in the context of an industrial manufacturing company, which also produces business data as part of its regular activities. Furthermore, we enable issuing ad-hoc queries on the collected data in an easy-to-use fashion by employing SQL. This flexibility allows analyzing and combining all kinds of available data. This allows for horizontal as well as vertical integration in this synthetic and configurable scenario.
Developed Demo System {#sec:developedsystem}
=====================
The system is developed using the Play framework [@playframework] and Scala as the programming language. The demo is realized as a single page application (SPA) which allows controlling data generation for both, business data and sensor data [@Mikowski:2013:SPW:2663433]. As the application is preconfigured with the default settings of a fictional engine producing factory employing IoT sensors, it can immediately be run and explored. However, the number and characteristics of sensors that are sending data can be adapted using on-screen controls. Two live-updating line charts visualize the data ingestion rate for both kinds of data. This data is inserted into a columnar in-memory database to enable real-time query execution. The used data model visualized in Figure \[fig:erd\] is inspired by the schemas of real Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems [@DBLP:conf/sigmod/Plattner09]. Particularly, the idea of having a head and an item table for, e.g., sales orders, is adapted in order to be as close to real-world scenarios as possible.
![Entity Relationship Diagram in Crow’s Foot Notation for the Business Data[]{data-label="fig:erd"}](ERD_I40_2.pdf){width="88.10000%"}
IoT data is stored in another table with the columns *ID, WORKPLACE\_ID, SENSOR\_ID, DATE,* as well as columns related to specific sensor measurements, namely *TEMPERATURE\_VALUE, TEMPERATURE\_UNIT, NOISE\_VALUE, NOISE\_UNIT, VIBRATION\_VALUE,* and *VIBRATION\_UNIT*. As there are only three kinds of sensors, the last columns are specific to these. When, e.g., a new temperature value is sent and inserted, the columns storing information about the other two sensor types stay empty for that row.
Horizontal integration is achieved using IDs whereas the process of vertical integration makes use of a time-based approach. Particularly, a link between sensor data and ERP data can be created as *PRODUCTION\_ORDER\_POSITION* stores the information when a product entered or left a certain workplace. Since sensor data also comes with a timestamp, a connection between measurements and workplaces, and thus, between IoT data and products can be established.
Features and Demo Scenario {#sec:featuresanddemoscenario}
==========================
The demo shown in Figure \[fig:screenshot\] allows simulating an industrial manufacturing company, which, from a data perspective, produces business as well as sensor data.
![Screenshot a Selected Part of the Demo Application[]{data-label="fig:screenshot"}](Screenshot2.png){width="\textwidth"}
Ad-hoc queries combining sensor data and business data can be executed. All query results are presented in form of a table. Furthermore, two sample queries are provided, which answer the questions:
- What are the average temperature and noise on the workplace cutting machine for my recently manufactured products?
- What are the average vibrations at the assembly workplace dependent on the supplier?
At the top of Figure \[fig:screenshot\], there are three buttons. The one in the upper-left allows starting and stopping data generation. The two diagrams on the top visualize the input rate of business and IoT data. The sensor characteristics are defined in a JSON file. Clicking on the button in the middle opens the sensor config area which allows, e.g., adding certain kinds of sensors to workplaces that produce data at a definable input rate. This area is not shown in Figure \[fig:screenshot\].
Below the upper two diagrams, there are two more buttons triggering the execution of one of the two mentioned predefined queries. The lower diagram shows the result of the first query, i.e., average temperature and noise values for the lastly manufactured products at the cutting machine. Not part of Figure \[fig:screenshot\] is the result table which presents the raw data belonging to issues queries as well as the query formulation area, where the predefined queries can be adapted or any ad-hoc query can be inserted and executed.
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
The presented tool allows experiencing horizontal and vertical integration in scenarios with a real-world character. IoT data can be configured and influences on, e.g., performance can be analyzed. Next to predefined queries that answer valuable questions, any ad-hoc query on the collected data can be executed. Results of given queries are visualized in a diagram. To the best of our knowledge, the presented demo application is the first of its kind, i.e., a program providing an explorable Industry 4.0 environment with focus on scenarios close to real-world systems and use cases. Experiments with regard to data integration strategies, data volumes, and resulting impact analysis on query performance can be done easily. As the code is provided, adaptions and further developments are possible.
[^1]: https://github.com/Gnni/DemoDataIntegration
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Ever since the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, various public health control strategies have been proposed and tested against SARS-CoV-2. In this paper, we study three specific COVID-19 epidemic control models: the susceptible, exposed, infectious, recovered (SEIR) model with vaccination control, the SEIR model with shield immunity control, and the susceptible, un-quarantined infected, quarantined infected, confirmed infected (SUQC) model with quarantine control. We express the control requirement in *metric temporal logic* (MTL) formulas and develop methods for synthesizing control inputs based on three specific COVID-19 epidemic models with MTL specifications. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to provide automatically-synthesized and fine-tuned control synthesis for the COVID-19 epidemic models with formal specifications. We provide simulation results in three different case studies: vaccination control for the COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Lombardy, Italy; shield immunity control for the COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Lombardy, Italy; and quarantine control for the COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Wuhan, China. The results show that the proposed synthesis approach can generate control inputs within a relatively short time (within 5 seconds) such that the time-varying numbers of individuals in each category (e.g., infectious, immune) satisfy the MTL specifications. The results are also consistent with the claim that control in the early phases of COVID-19 is the most effective in the mitigation.'
author:
- 'Zhe Xu[^1], Bo Wu and Ufuk Topcu'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Control Strategies for COVID-19 Epidemic with Vaccination, Shield Immunity and Quarantine: A Metric Temporal Logic Approach'
---
Introduction
============
The COVID-19 pandemic [@Fauci2020] has caused over 15 million confirmed cases and over 0.6 million deaths globally as of July 23, 2020. Ever since the outbreak of COVID-19, various public health control strategies have been produced and tested against SARS-CoV-2 [@Stewart_magazine_2020].
Currently, over 90 vaccines are being developed against SARS-CoV-2 by research teams across the world [@vaccines_nature2020]. Besides vaccination, other strategies have also been proposed to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In [@Weitz_nature], the authors proposed *shielding immunity* to protect the susceptible people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, shielding immunity works by first identifying and deploying recovered individuals who have protective antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and then increasing the proportion of interactions with recovered individuals as opposed to other individuals. In [@Zhao2020], the authors analyzed how quarantine has mitigated the spread of SARS-CoV-2 based on a model that differentiates quarantined infected individuals and un-quarantined infected individuals.
Despite the fact that various promising control strategies have been proposed against SARS-CoV-2, such control strategies still suffer from several limitations. (a) The control strategies SARS-CoV-2 often treat the control inputs (e.g., the shield strength in shield immunity, the quarantine rate in quarantine control) as parameters which stay constant during one stage of time, while in reality such inputs could be changed on a daily basis for more fine-tuned control. (b) The control inputs in the literature are often tuned manually through trial-and-error, instead of being synthesized automatically. (c) There is a lack of specific and formal specifications for the expected effects and outcomes of the control strategies.
To address these limitations, we propose an automatically-synthesized fine-tuned control synthesis approach for three control strategies in mitigating SARS-CoV-2. We use *metric temporal logic* (MTL) formulas to specify the expected outcomes such as “the deaths from the infection should always not exceed one thousand per day within the next three months” or “the people immune from the disease should eventually exceed 200 thousand within the next 100 to 120 days”. Such temporal logic formulas have been used as high-level knowledge or specifications in many applications in artificial intelligence [@zhe_ijcai2019], robotic control [@Verginis2019Icra], power systems [@zhe_control], etc.
The proposed control synthesis approach is based on three specific COVID-19 epidemic mitigation models: the susceptible, exposed, infectious, recovered (SEIR) model with vaccination control, the SEIR model with shield immunity control, and the susceptible, un-quarantined infected, quarantined infected, confirmed infected (SUQC) model with quarantine control. We express the mitigation requirement in metric temporal logic formulas and develop methods for synthesizing controls based on the three specific COVID-19 epidemic models. Specifically, we convert the synthesis problem into mixed-integer bi-linear programming or mixed-integer fractional constrained programming problems, and solve the optimization problems using highly efficient solvers [@beal2018gekko].
We provide simulation results in three different case studies: vaccination control for COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Lombardy, Italy; shield immunity control for COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Lombardy, Italy; and quarantine control for COVID-19 epidemic with model parameters estimated from data in Wuhan, China. The proposed synthesis approach can generate control inputs within a relatively short time (within 5 seconds) such that the system behaviors satisfy the MTL specifications. The results also show that more control efforts are needed for more stringent requirements expressed in MTL specifications, and control in early phases of COVID-19 spread can generally mitigate the effects more efficiently.
Related Work
============
**COVID-19 epidemic modeling and control strategies**: Ever since the outbreak of COVID-19, there has been numerous research focusing on the modeling of COVID-19 epidemic based on data collected from both the epicenters and other places [@Bertozzi_Franco2020]. Among the various models, *compartmental models* such as SEIR and SUQC models have been used frequently for the analysis of COVID-19. There has also been work in analyzing or predicting COVID-19 using artificial intelligence models [@Zheng_AI2020], stochastic intensity models [@Chen2002], etc. The models we use in this paper are based on the SEIR (both the standard and with shield immunity) and SUQC models, but we have replaced some essential parameters (e.g., the shield strength in shield immunity, the quarantine rate in quarantine control) with control inputs which can be synthesized to vary on a daily basis.
**Optimal control of epidemic models**: There is a rich literature in designing vaccination control for the SEIR or SIR models of epidemics. However, such methods have not been applied in the setting of COVID-19 mitigation. Besides, there has been no work in optimal control of epidemic models with formal specifications (e.g., expressed in temporal logic formulas).
**Control synthesis with temporal logic specifications**: There are three main categories of approaches to design controllers that meet temporal logic specifications [@KHFP; @RVFK2012; @KKW2002; @MH2019IFAC; @STJC2010; @UASX2011; @liu2017distributed; @Djeumou2020; @liu2017communication; @liu2020distributed; @cubuktepe2020policy]. The first category of approaches abstract the system as a transition system and transform the controller syntheses problem into a series of constrained reachability problems [@Topcu; @Dimarogonas; @Coogan]. The second category of approaches mainly focus on linear dynamics and it converts the control synthesis problem into a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problem [@BluSTL; @sayan2016; @Allerton2019; @zheACC2019DF; @zhe_advisory; @zheACC2018wind] and the controller then consists in a pre-compiled MILP which can be solved efficiently by MILP solvers. The third category of approaches substitute the temporal logic constraint into the optimization problem and apply a functional gradient descent algorithm on the resulting unconstrained problem [@Andygradient; @Abbas2014; @zhe_control; @zheACCstorageControl]. The control synthesis approach in this paper is based on the second category of approaches, but we have extended the method to non-linear dynamics to fit the epidemic models for COVID-19.
Metric Temporal Logic (MTL) {#sec_MTL}
===========================
In this section, we briefly review metric temporal logic (MTL) [@FainekosMTL] interpreted over discrete-time trajectories. The state $x$ (e.g., representing the susceptible, exposed, infectious, recovered population of a certain region) belongs to the domain $\mathcal{X}\subset\mathbb{R}^n$. The time set is $\mathbb{T} = \mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$. The domain $\mathbb{B} = \{\textrm{True}, \textrm{False}\}$ is the Boolean domain, and the time index set is $\mathbb{I} = \{0,1,\dots\}$. We use $t[k]\in\mathbb{T}$ to denote the time instant at time index $k\in\mathbb{I}$ and $x[k]\triangleq x(t[k])$ to denote the value of $x$ at time $t[k]$. With slight abuse of notation, we use $\xi$ to denote a trajectory as a function from $\mathbb{T}$ to $\mathcal{X}$. A set $AP$ is a set of atomic propositions, each mapping $\mathcal{X}$ to $\mathbb{B}$. The syntax of MTL is defined recursively as follows: $$\varphi:=\top\mid \pi\mid\lnot\varphi\mid\varphi_{1}\wedge\varphi_{2}\mid\varphi_{1}\vee
\varphi_{2}\mid\varphi_{1}\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{I}}\varphi_{2},$$ where $\top$ stands for the Boolean constant True, $\pi\in AP$ is an atomic proposition, $\lnot$ (negation), $\wedge$ (conjunction), $\vee$ (disjunction) are standard Boolean connectives, $\mathcal{U}$ is a temporal operator representing until, $\mathcal{I}$ is a time index interval of the form $\mathcal{I}=[i_{1},i_{2}]$ ($i_1\le i_2$, $i_1, i_2\in\mathbb{I}$). We can also derive two useful temporal operators from until ($\mathcal{U}$), which are eventually $\Diamond_{\mathcal{I}}\varphi=\top\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{I}}\varphi$ and always $\Box_{\mathcal{I}}\varphi=\lnot\Diamond_{\mathcal{I}}\lnot\varphi$. For example, the MTL formula $\Box_{[0,100]} (DeathsPerDay\le 0.001)\wedge\Diamond_{[40, 60]}(Recovered\ge6)$ means “the deaths from infection should never exceed 0.001 million (one thousand) per day within the next 100 days, and the immune population should eventually exceed 6 million after 40 to 60 days” (we assume that the unit is million in this paper unless otherwise indicated).
We define the set of states that satisfy the atomic proposition $\pi$ as $\mathcal{O}(\pi)\subset \mathcal{X}$. We denote the distance from $x$ to a set $D\subseteq\mathcal{X}$ as **dist**$_d(x,D)\triangleq$inf$\{d(x, x')\mid x'\in cl(D)\}$, where $d$ is a metric on $\mathcal{X}$ and $cl(D)$ denotes the closure of the set $D$. In this paper, we use the metric $d(x,x')={\left\lVertx-x'\right\rVert}$, where $\left\Vert\cdot\right\Vert $ denotes the 2-norm. We denote the depth of $x$ in $D$ as **depth**$_d(x,D)\triangleq$ **dist**$_d(x,\mathcal{X}\setminus D)$. We define the signed distance from $x$ to $D$ as $\textbf{Dist}_d(x,D)\triangleq-\textbf{dist}_d(x,D)$, if $x$ $\not\in D$; and $\textbf{Dist}_d(x,D)\triangleq\textbf{depth}_d(x,D)$, if $x$ $\in D$. The Boolean semantics of MTL can be found in [@FAINEKOScontinous], with the slight variation that we only evaluate the satisfaction of a trajectory with respect to an MTL formula at discrete-time instants $t[k]~(k\in\mathcal{I})$. The robustness degree of a trajectory $\xi$ with respect to an MTL formula $\varphi$ at time index $k$, denoted as $\left[\left[\varphi\right]\right](\xi, k)$, is defined recursively as follows: $$\begin{split}
\left[\left[\top\right]\right](\xi, k) :=& +\infty,\\
\left[\left[ \pi\right]\right](\xi, k) :=&\textbf{Dist$_d(x[k],\mathcal{O}(\pi))$},\\
\left[\left[ \neg\varphi\right]\right](\xi, k) :=&-\left[\left[ \varphi\right]\right](\xi, k),\\
\left[\left[\varphi_1\vee\varphi_2\right]\right](\xi, k) :=&\max\big(\left[\left[ \varphi_1\right]\right](\xi, k),\left[\left[ \varphi_2\right]\right](\xi, k)\big),\\
\left[\left[\varphi_1\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{I}}\varphi_{2}\right]\right](\xi, k) :=&\max_{k'\in (k+\mathcal{I})}\Big(\min\big(\left[\left[ \varphi_2\right]\right](\xi, k'),\\& \min_{k\leq k''<k'}\left[\left[\varphi_1\right]\right]
(\xi,k'')\big)\Big).
\end{split}$$ As defined, $\left[\left[\varphi\right]\right](\xi, k)\ge0$ if $\xi$ satisfies $\varphi$ at time index $k$.
COVID-19 Models with Control Strategies {#sec_models}
=======================================
In this section, we study three models for COVID-19 epidemic [@Carcione_model; @Weitz_nature; @Zhao2020] and introduce the corresponding models with vaccination control, shield immunity control and quarantine control.
COVID-19 SEIR Model with Vaccination Control
--------------------------------------------
The susceptible, exposed, infectious, recovered (SEIR) model has been frequently used in epidemic analyses. As shown in Figure \[diagram1\], the total population is divided into five parts:
- The susceptible population $S$: everyone is susceptible to the disease by birth since immunity is not hereditary;
- The exposed population $E$: the individuals who have been exposed to the disease, but are still not infectious;
- The infectious population $I$: the individuals who are infectious;
- The immune (recovered) population $R$: the individuals who are vaccinated or recovered from the disease, i.e., the population who are immune to the disease;
- The dead population $D$: the dead individuals from the disease.
For simplicity, we assume that the birth rate and the natural death rate are the same for the population we are investigating.
We consider an SEIR epidemic disease model [@Carcione_model; @Elie2020] with vaccination control [@Alonso2012] as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\dot{I} = \epsilon E - (\gamma+\mu+\alpha)I;\\
\dot{E} = \beta SI/N - (\mu+\epsilon)E;\\
\dot{S} = \lambda N - \mu S - \beta SI/N - V;\\
\dot{R} = \gamma I - \mu R + V;\\
\dot{D} = - \dot{I}-\dot{E}-\dot{S}-\dot{R},
\end{cases}
\label{vaccination_model}\end{aligned}$$ where the control input $V$ is the number of vaccinated individuals per day, $N = S + E + I + R\le N_0$ is the total population in the region ($N_0$ is the initial total population in the region), $S$, $E$, $I$, $R$ and $D$ are the number of susceptible, exposed, infectious and recovered population in the region, respectively, and $D$ is the number of deaths from SARS-CoV-2 in the region. For the parameters, $\lambda$ denotes the per-capita birth rate, $\mu$ is the per-capita natural death rate (death rate from causes unrelated to SARS-CoV-2), $\alpha$ is the SARS-CoV-2 virus-induced average fatality rate, $\beta$ is the probability of disease transmission per contact (dimensionless) times the number of contacts per unit time, $\epsilon$ is the rate of progression from exposed to infectious (the reciprocal is the incubation period), and $\gamma$ is the recovery rate of infectious individuals (the reciprocal is the infectious period).
Note that this model is slightly different from the model in [@Alonso2012] as we use $V$ as a separate term instead of $VS$. We found it more convenient for computational purposes in the optimization problems for control synthesis in later sections.
![Block diagram of the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control.[]{data-label="diagram1"}](diagram_covid.pdf)
COVID-19 SEIR Model with Shield Immunity
----------------------------------------
*Shield immunity* is a strategy recently proposed in [@Weitz_nature] to limit the transmission of the disease. The basic idea of this strategy is to increase the proportion of interactions with recovered individuals as opposed to the other individuals in the population. The effectiveness of this strategy is based on the assumption that recovered individuals (virus-negative and antibody-positive) can safely interact with both susceptible and infectious individuals without getting infected with the disease. See Figure \[diagram2\] as an illustration.
As the model used in [@Weitz_nature] is modified from a SIR model, we consider a corresponding SEIR model with shield immunity and we use the shield strength as control inputs. Specifically, we consider the following model: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\dot{I} = \epsilon E - (\gamma+\mu+\alpha)I ;\\
\dot{E} = \beta SI/(N+\chi R) - (\mu+\epsilon)E;\\
\dot{S} = \lambda N - \mu S - \beta SI/(N+\chi R);\\
\dot{R} = \gamma I - \mu R + V;\\
\dot{D} = - \dot{I}-\dot{E}-\dot{S}-\dot{R},
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ where the states and parameters are the same as in (\[vaccination\_model\]), while $\chi(\cdot)$ is the shielding strength as time-varying input to be synthesized for the recovered population to substitute the contact for the susceptible population.
![Block diagram of the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control.[]{data-label="diagram2"}](diagram_covid_shield.pdf)
COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control
-------------------------------------------
The susceptible, un-quarantined infected, quarantined infected, confirmed infected (SUQC) model was recently proposed in [@Zhao2020] based on the COVID-19 data in Wuhan, China. As shown in Figure \[diagram3\], we consider four subgroups in the population:
- The susceptible population $S$: everyone is susceptible to the disease by birth since immunity is not hereditary;
- The un-quarantined infected population $U$: the individuals who are infected and un-quarantined, and they can be either asymptomatic or symptomatic;
- The quarantined infected population $Q$: the individuals who are infectious and quarantined (the un-quarantined infected become quarantined infected by isolation or hospitalization, and the quarantined infected lose the ability of infecting the susceptible individuals);
- The confirmed infected population $C$: the individuals who are confirmed to be infected with the disease (i.e., the positive cases).
We consider the SUQC model with quarantine control as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\dot{S} = - \beta_0 US/N;\\
\dot{U} = \beta_0 US/N - q U;\\
\dot{Q} = q U - [\gamma_2 + (1-\gamma_2)\sigma]Q;\\
\dot{C} = [\gamma_2 + (1-\gamma_2)\sigma]Q,
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ where $q$ is the quarantine rate (for an un-quarantined infected to be quarantined) as control input to be synthesized, $\beta_0$ is the infection rate (i.e., the mean number of new infected caused by an un-quarantined infected per day), $\gamma_2$ is the confirmation rate of $Q$ (i.e., the probability that the quarantined infected are identified to be confirmed cases through conventional methods such as laboratory diagnosis), $\sigma$ is the subsequent confirmation rate of those infected that are not confirmed by the conventional methods, but confirmed with some additional tests.
![Block diagram of the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control.[]{data-label="diagram3"}](diagram_covid_SUQC.pdf)
Control Synthesis of COVID-19 epidemic with Metric Temporal Logic Specifications
================================================================================
In this section, we present the control synthesis methods for the three COVID-19 epidemic models in Section \[sec\_models\] with vaccination control, shield immunity control and quarantine control, respectively.\
**Vaccination control**: For the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control, we discretize the model in (\[vaccination\_model\]) as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
I[k+1] = I[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\epsilon E[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}(\gamma+\mu+\alpha)I[k];\\
E[k+1] = E[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/N[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}(\mu+\epsilon)E[k];\\
S[k+1] = S[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\lambda N[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\mu S[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/N[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}V[k];\\
R[k+1] = R[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\gamma I[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\mu R[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}V[k];\\
D[k+1] = D[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\dot{I}[k]-T_{\textrm{s}}\dot{E}[k]-T_{\textrm{s}}\dot{S}[k]-T_{\textrm{s}}\dot{R}[k],
\end{cases}
\label{discrete_vaccination_model}\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\textrm{s}}$ is the sampling period. We also use $\Delta D[k]=D[k+1]-D[k]$ to denote the number of deaths from the infection at day $k$.
Following the notations in Section \[sec\_MTL\], we use $x_{\textrm{V}}=[I, E, S, R, D]$ to denote the state of (\[discrete\_vaccination\_model\]) and $\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{V}},V}$ to denote the trajectory of (\[discrete\_vaccination\_model\]) starting from $x^{init}_{\textrm{V}}=[I[1], E[1], S[1], R[1], D[1]]$ and vaccination control input $V(\bm\cdot)$. We formulate the problem of vaccination control as follows.
\[Vaccination control\] Given the SEIR model in (\[discrete\_vaccination\_model\]) and an MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}$, compute the input signal $V(\bm\cdot)$ that minimize the vaccination control efforts ${\left\lVertV(\bm\cdot)\right\rVert}$ while satisfying $\left[\left[\varphi_{\textrm{V}}\right]\right](\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{V}},V}, 0)\ge0$, i.e., the trajectory $\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{V}},V}$ satisfies the MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}$. \[problem1\]
The vaccination control synthesis problem can be formulated as a constrained optimization problem as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\underset{V(\cdot)}{{\mathrm{arg}\min}} ~ & {\left\lVertV[\cdot]\right\rVert} \\
\text{subject to:} ~
& I[k+1] = I[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\epsilon E[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}(\gamma+\mu+\alpha)I, \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& E[k+1] = E[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/N[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}(\mu+\epsilon)E[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& S[k+1] = S[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\lambda N[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\mu S[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/N[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}V[k], \\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& R[k+1] = R[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\gamma I[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\mu R[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}V[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& D[k] = N_0 - I[k] - E[k] - S[k] -R[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T, \\
& 0\le V[k]\le V_{\textrm{max}}, \forall k=1,\dots,T, \nonumber \\
& \left[\left[\varphi_{\textrm{V}}\right]\right](\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{V}},V}, 0)\ge 0.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The above optimization problem is generally a mixed-integer non-linear programming problem. As the change of total population is relatively small compared to the multiplication of the susceptible population and the infectious population, we approximate the term $T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/N[k]$ with $T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/N_0$. With such approximation, the optimization problem becomes a mixed-integer bi-linear programming problem, which can be more efficiently solved using techniques such as McCormick’s relaxation [@McCormick1976; @Gupte2013SolvingMI]. Furthermore, if the MTL specification $\phi$ consists of only conjunctions ($\wedge$) and the always operator ($\Box$), the integers in the optimization problem can be eliminated and the problem becomes a bi-linear programming problem.\
**Shield immunity control**: For the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control, we discretize the model in (\[vaccination\_model\]) as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
I[k+1] = I[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\epsilon E[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}(\gamma+\mu+\alpha)I[k];\\
E[k+1] = E[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/(N[k]+\chi[k]R[k]) - T_{\textrm{s}}(\mu+\epsilon)E[k];\\
S[k+1] = S[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\lambda N[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\mu S[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/(N[k]+\chi[k]R[k]);\\
R[k+1] = R[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\gamma I[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\mu R[k];\\
D[k+1] = D[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\dot{I}[k]-T_{\textrm{s}}\dot{E}[k]-T_{\textrm{s}}\dot{S}[k]-T_{\textrm{s}}\dot{R}[k],
\end{cases}
\label{discrete_shield_model}\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\textrm{s}}$ is the sampling period.\
Following the notations in Section \[sec\_MTL\], we use $x_{\textrm{S}}=[I, E, S, R, D]$ to denote the state of (\[discrete\_shield\_model\]) and $\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{S}},\chi}$ to denote the trajectory of (\[discrete\_shield\_model\]) starting from $x^{init}_{\textrm{S}}=[I[1], E[1], S[1], R[1], D[1]]$ and shield immunity control input $\chi(\bm\cdot)$. We formulate the problem of shield immunity control as follows.
\[Shield immunity control\] Given the SEIR model in (\[discrete\_shield\_model\]) and an MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}$, compute the input signal $\chi(\bm\cdot)$ that minimize the shield immunity control efforts ${\left\lVert\chi(\bm\cdot)\right\rVert}$ while satisfying $\left[\left[\varphi_{\textrm{S}}\right]\right](\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{S}},\chi}, 0)\ge0$, i.e., the trajectory $\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{S}},\chi}$ satisfies the MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}$. \[problem1\]
The control synthesis problem can be formulated as a constrained optimization problem as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\underset{\chi(\cdot)}{{\mathrm{arg}\min}} ~ & {\left\lVert\chi[\cdot]\right\rVert} \\
\text{subject to:} ~
& I[k+1] = I[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\epsilon E[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}(\gamma+\mu+\alpha)I, \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& E[k+1] = E[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/(N[k]+\chi[k]R[k]) - T_{\textrm{s}}(\mu+\epsilon)E[k], \\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& S[k+1] = S[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\lambda N[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\mu S[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\beta S[k]I[k]/(N[k]+\chi[k]R[k]), \\ &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& R[k+1] = R[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\gamma I[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\mu R[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& D[k] = N_0 - I[k] - E[k] - S[k] -R[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T, \\
& 0\le \chi[k]\le \chi_{\textrm{max}}, \forall k=1,\dots,T, \nonumber \\
& \left[\left[\varphi_{\textrm{S}}\right]\right](\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{S}},\chi}, 0)\ge 0.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The above optimization problem is generally a mixed-integer fractional constrained programming problem. If the MTL specification $\phi$ consists of only conjunctions ($\wedge$) and the always operator ($\Box$), the integers in the optimization problem can be eliminated and the problem becomes a fractional constrained programming problem.\
**Quarantine control**: For the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control, we discretize the model in (\[vaccination\_model\]) as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
S[k+1] = S[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\beta_0 U[k]S[k]/N[k];\\
U[k+1] = U[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\beta_0 U[k]S[k]/N[k] - \gamma_1U[k];\\
Q[k+1] = Q[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\gamma_1U[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}[\gamma_2 + (1-\gamma_2)\sigma]Q[k];\\
C[k+1] = C[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}[\gamma_2 + (1-\gamma_2)\sigma]Q[k],\\
\end{cases}
\label{discrete_quarantine_model}\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\textrm{s}}$ is the sampling period. We also use $\Delta C[k]=C[k+1]-C[k]$ to denote the number of confirmed infected individuals at day $k$.
Following the notations in Section \[sec\_MTL\], we use $x_{\textrm{Q}}=[S, U, Q, C]$ to denote the state of (\[discrete\_quarantine\_model\]) and $\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{Q}},q}$ to denote the trajectory of (\[discrete\_shield\_model\]) starting from $x^{init}_{\textrm{Q}}=[S[1], U[1], Q[1], C[1]]$ and quarantine control input $q(\bm\cdot)$. We formulate the problem of quarantine control as follows.
\[Quarantine control\] Given the SUQC with quarantine control model in (\[discrete\_quarantine\_model\]) and an MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}$, compute the input signal $q(\bm\cdot)$ that minimize the quarantine control efforts ${\left\lVertq(\bm\cdot)\right\rVert}$ while satisfying $\left[\left[\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}\right]\right](\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{Q}},q}, 0)\ge0$, i.e., the trajectory $\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{Q}},q}$ satisfies the MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}$. \[problem1\]
The control synthesis problem can be formulated as a constrained optimization problem as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\underset{q(\cdot)}{{\mathrm{arg}\min}} ~ & {\left\lVertq[\cdot]\right\rVert} \\
\text{subject to:} ~
& S[k+1] = S[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}\beta_0 U[k]S[k]/N[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& U[k+1] = U[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}\beta_0 U[k]S[k]/N[k] - q[k]U[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& Q[k+1] = Q[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}q[k]U[k] - T_{\textrm{s}}[\gamma_2 + (1-\gamma_2)\sigma]Q[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& C[k+1] = C[k] + T_{\textrm{s}}[\gamma_2 + (1-\gamma_2)\sigma]Q[k], \forall k=1,\dots,T-1, \\
& 0\le q[k]\le q_{\textrm{max}}, \forall k=1,\dots,T, \nonumber \\
& \left[\left[\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}\right]\right](\xi_{\bm\cdot;x^{init}_{\textrm{Q}},q}, 0)\ge 0.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
The above optimization problem is generally a mixed-integer non-linear programming problem. As the change of total population is relatively small compared to the multiplication of the susceptible population and the un-quarantined infectious population, we approximate the term $T_{\textrm{s}}\beta_0 U[k]S[k]/N[k]$ with $T_{\textrm{s}}\beta_0 U[k]S[k]/N_0$. With such approximation, the optimization problem becomes a mixed-integer bi-linear programming problem, which can be more efficiently solved using techniques such as McCormick’s relaxation [@McCormick1976; @Gupte2013SolvingMI]. Furthermore, if the MTL specification $\phi$ consists of only conjunctions ($\wedge$) and the always operator ($\Box$), the integers in the optimization problem can be eliminated and the problem becomes a bi-linear programming problem.\
Simulation Results
==================
In this section, we implement the control synthesis approach in the three different control models as introduced in Section \[sec\_models\].
COVID-19 SEIR Model with Vaccination Control
--------------------------------------------
The parameters of the COVID-19 SEIR model are shown in Table \[parameter\_SEIR\]. They were estimated in [@Carcione_model] from the data in Lombardy, Italy in early phase corresponding to no isolation conditions. We consider three MTL specifications as shown in Table \[result\_vaccination\]. For example, $\varphi_1=\Box_{[0,100]} (\Delta D\le 0.01)\wedge\Box_{[0,100]} (D\le0.2)\wedge\Diamond_{[40, 60]}(R\ge6)$, which means “the deaths from infection should never exceed 0.01 million (10 thousand) per day and 0.2 million (i.e., 200 thousand) in total within the next 100 days, and the immune population should eventually exceed 6 million after 40 to 60 days”. We choose the initial values of the states as $I[1]=1$ (person), $E[1]=0.02$ million, $S[1]=9.9$ million, $R[1]=0$ and $D[1]=0$. We set $V_{\textrm{max}}=0.5$. Figure \[fig\_results0\] shows the simulation results without any vaccination. It can be seen that the three MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$ are all violated in such a situation. Note that as isolation measures were taken after the early phase in Lombardy, Italy, the real situation was better than those shown in Figure \[fig\_results0\]. Now we investigate the hypothetical scenario where isolation measures are replaced by vaccination.
parameter value
------------------ ------------ -- --
$\lambda$ 1/30295
$\mu$ 1/30295
$\alpha$ 0.006/day
$\beta$ 0.75/day
$\epsilon$ (1/3)/day
$\gamma$ (1/8)/day
$N_0$ 10 million
$T_{\textrm{s}}$ 1 day
: Parameters of COVID-19 SEIR model estimated from data from Lombardy, Italy in early phase corresponding to no isolation conditions [@Carcione_model].[]{data-label="parameter_SEIR"}
[ll>p[20mm]{}]{} MTL specification & control effort & computation time\
-----------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1=\Box_{[0,100]} (\Delta D\le0.01)$
$~~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,100]} (D\le0.2)$
$~~~\wedge\Diamond_{[40, 60]}(R\ge6)$
-----------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for vaccination control.[]{data-label="result_vaccination"}
& 1.104 & 1.128 s\
------------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2=\Box_{[0,100]} (\Delta D\le0.005)$
$~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,100]} (D\le0.2)$
$~~\wedge\Diamond_{[40, 60]}(R\ge6)$
------------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for vaccination control.[]{data-label="result_vaccination"}
& 2.033 & 2.286 s\
------------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3=\Box_{[0,100]} (\Delta D\le0.005)$
$~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,100]} (D\le0.05)$
$\wedge\Diamond_{[40, 60]}(R\ge6)$
------------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for vaccination control.[]{data-label="result_vaccination"}
& 4.022 & 4.609 s\
We use the solver GEKKO [@beal2018gekko] to solve the optimization problems. Figures \[fig\_results1\], \[fig\_results2\] and \[fig\_results3\] show the simulation results for vaccination control of COVID-19 SEIR model with MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$, respectively. The results show that the MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$ are satisfied with the synthesized vaccination control inputs respectively. It can be seen that vaccination within the first 40 days after the outbreak can mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the most efficient manner. The results also show that the control effort for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$ is less than that for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$, which is still less than that for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$. This is consistent with the fact that $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$ implies $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$, and $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$ implies both $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$. For all three specifications, the computations for control synthesis are finished within 5 seconds.
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for COVID-19 SEIR model estimated from data from Lombardy, Italy in early phase corresponding to no isolation conditions.[]{data-label="fig_results0"}](case0_a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for COVID-19 SEIR model estimated from data from Lombardy, Italy in early phase corresponding to no isolation conditions.[]{data-label="fig_results0"}](case0_c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for COVID-19 SEIR model estimated from data from Lombardy, Italy in early phase corresponding to no isolation conditions.[]{data-label="fig_results0"}](case0_d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results1"}](case1_a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results1"}](case1_b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results1"}](case1_c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results1"}](case1_d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results2"}](case2_a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results2"}](case2_b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results2"}](case2_c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results2"}](case2_d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results3"}](case3_a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results3"}](case3_b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results3"}](case3_c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with vaccination control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{V}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results3"}](case3_d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
COVID-19 SEIR Model with Shield Immunity Control
------------------------------------------------
We use the same parameters of the COVID-19 SEIR model as shown in Table \[parameter\_SEIR\]. We also choose the same initial values of the states as $I[1]=1$ (person), $E[1]=0.02$ million, $S[1]=9.9$ million, $R[1]=0$ and $D[1]=0$. We set $\chi_{\textrm{max}}=100$. Referring back to Figure \[fig\_results0\], it can be seen that the three MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$ are all violated without any control strategies. Now we investigate the hypothetical scenario where isolation measures are replaced by shield immunity control.
Figures \[fig\_results\_shield1\], \[fig\_results\_shield2\] and \[fig\_results\_shield3\] show the simulation results for shield immunity control of the COVID-19 SEIR model with MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$, respectively. The results show that the MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$ are satisfied with the synthesized shield immunity control inputs respectively. We observe that with the three MTL specifications, the synthesized shield immunity control inputs all increase to a peak at approximated 20 days after the outbreak and then gradually decrease. These observations are consistent with the claim that shield immunity at early phases of the outbreak can mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the most efficient manner. The results also show that the control effort for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$ is less than that for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$, which is still less than that for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$. This is consistent with the fact that $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$ implies $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$, and $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$ implies both $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$. For all three specifications, the computations for control synthesis are finished within 5 seconds.
[ll>p[20mm]{}]{} MTL specification & control effort & computation time\
-----------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1=\Box_{[0,100]} (\Delta D\le0.01)$
$~~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,100]} (D\le0.2)$
$~~~\wedge\Diamond_{[40, 60]}(R\ge6)$
-----------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for shield immunity control.
& 39660.76 & 4.402 s\
------------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2=\Box_{[0,100]} (\Delta D\le0.005)$
$~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,100]} (D\le0.2)$
$~~\wedge\Diamond_{[40, 60]}(R\ge6)$
------------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for shield immunity control.
& 49422.85 & 2.881 s\
------------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3=\Box_{[0,100]} (\Delta D\le0.005)$
$~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,100]} (D\le0.15)$
$\wedge\Diamond_{[40, 60]}(R\ge6)$
------------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for shield immunity control.
& 94526.45 & 3.387 s\
\[result\_shield\]
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield1"}](case_shield_phi1a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield1"}](case_shield_phi1b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield1"}](case_shield_phi1c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield1"}](case_shield_phi1d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield2"}](case_shield_phi2a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield2"}](case_shield_phi2b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield2"}](case_shield_phi2c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield2"}](case_shield_phi2d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield3"}](case_shield_phi3a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield3"}](case_shield_phi3b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield3"}](case_shield_phi3c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SEIR model with shield immunity control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{S}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results_shield3"}](case_shield_phi3d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control
-------------------------------------------
The parameters of the COVID-19 SUQC model are shown in Table \[parameter\_SUQC\]. They were estimated in [@Zhao2020] from the data in Wuhan, China. We choose the initial values of the states as $S[1]=8.9$ million, $U[1]=0.001$ million, $Q[1]=0$ and $C[1]=0$. We set $q_{\textrm{max}}=1$. Figure \[fig\_results\_quarantine0\] shows the simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model estimated from data in Stage I of Wuhan, China. It can be seen that the three MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$ are all violated in such a situation (with quarantine rate being always 0.063). Now we investigate the scenario where the quarantine rate can be controlled to satisfy the MTL specifications.
parameter value
------------------ ------------- -- --
$\beta_0$ 0.2967
$\gamma_2$ 0.05
$N$ 8.9 million
$\sigma$ 0
$T_{\textrm{s}}$ 1 day
: Parameters of the COVID-19 SUQC model estimated from data from Wuhan, China [@Zhao2020].[]{data-label="parameter_SUQC"}
Figures \[fig\_results\_quarantine1\], \[fig\_results\_quarantine2\] and \[fig\_results\_quarantine3\] show the simulation results for quarantine control of the COVID-19 SUQC model with MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$, respectively. The results show that the MTL specifications $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$, $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$ are satisfied with the synthesized quarantine control inputs respectively. The results also show that the control effort for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$ is less than that for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$, which is still less than that for satisfying $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$. This is consistent with the fact that $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$ implies $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$, and $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$ implies both $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$ and $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$. We observe that with $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$, the synthesized quarantine control inputs first increase to a peak at approximated 90 days after the outbreak and then gradually decrease; with $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$, the synthesized quarantine control inputs first increase to a peak at approximated 50 days after the outbreak and then gradually decrease; and with $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$, the synthesized quarantine control inputs are at a peak from the beginning of the outbreak and gradually decrease. These observations are consistent with the claim that quarantine at early phases of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 can reduce the number of confirmed infected cases in the most efficient manner, and more stringent control specification generally require stronger quarantine measures to be implemented in earlier phases after the outbreak. For all three specifications, the computations for control synthesis are finished within 5 seconds.
[ll>p[20mm]{}]{} MTL specification & control effort & computation time\
------------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1=\Box_{[0,200]} (\Delta C\le0.001)$
$~~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,200]} (C\le0.1)$
------------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for quarantine control.
& 19.5 & 4.296 s\
-------------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2=\Box_{[0,200]} (\Delta C\le0.0005)$
$~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,200]} (C\le0.05)$
-------------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for quarantine control.
& 20.021 & 1.753 s\
-------------------------------------------------------------
$\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3=\Box_{[0,200]} (\Delta C\le0.0005)$
$~~~~~\wedge\Box_{[0,200]} (C\le0.02)$
-------------------------------------------------------------
: MTL specifications and simulation results for quarantine control.
& 20.54 & 4.578 s\
\[result\_quarantine\]
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model estimated from data in Stage I of Wuhan, China.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine0"}](case_quarantine_phi0a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model estimated from data in Stage I of Wuhan, China.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine0"}](case_quarantine_phi0c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model estimated from data in Stage I of Wuhan, China.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine0"}](case_quarantine_phi0d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine1"}](case_quarantine_phi1a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine1"}](case_quarantine_phi1b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine1"}](case_quarantine_phi1c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^1$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine1"}](case_quarantine_phi1d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine2"}](case_quarantine_phi2a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine2"}](case_quarantine_phi2b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine2"}](case_quarantine_phi2c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine2"}](case_quarantine_phi2d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine3"}](case_quarantine_phi3a.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine3"}](case_quarantine_phi3b.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine3"}](case_quarantine_phi3c.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.46]{} ![Simulation results for the COVID-19 SUQC model with quarantine control and MTL specification $\varphi_{\textrm{Q}}^3$.[]{data-label="fig_results_quarantine3"}](case_quarantine_phi3d.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we proposed automatically-synthesized and fine-tuned control synthesis methods for mitigating the COVID-19 epidemic with three models with vaccination, shield immunity and quarantine, respectively. We used metric temporal logic (MTL) formulas to formally specify the required performance of the control strategies. The proposed approach can synthesize control inputs within a relatively short time (i.e., within 5 seconds) that can satisfy the MTL specifications.
The preliminary work in this paper opens the door to the formal synthesis of control strategies for epidemic models. We list several future work as follows. First, we will investigate the effects of model uncertainties and parameter uncertainties in the control synthesis, and explore robust control synthesis methods in the presence of such uncertainties. Second, we will extend this work to online control synthesis so that control inputs can be generated in real-time based on the latest information (e.g., using online parameter identification and receding horizon control). Finally, as we investigated the three control strategies separately in this paper, we will study the benefits and costs of joint control of different control strategies (vaccination, shield immunity and quarantine) so that the specifications can be satisfied with coordinated efforts.
[^1]: Zhe Xu and Bo Wu are with the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, Austin, TX 78712, Ufuk Topcu is with the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, and the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, Austin, TX 78712, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We continue the work of Takao Komatsu, and consider the inhomogeneous approximation constant $L(\theta,\phi)$ for Hurwitzian $\theta$ and $\phi \in {{\mathbb Q}}(\theta) +{{\mathbb Q}}$. The current work uses a compactness theorem to relate such inhomogeneous constants to the homogeneous approximation constants. Among the new results are: a characterization of such pairs $\theta,\phi$ for which $L(\theta,\phi)=0$, consideration of small values of $n^2 \, L(e^{2/s},\phi)$ for $\phi=(r \theta +m)/n$, and the proof of a conjecture of Komatsu.'
author:
- |
Richard T. Bumby\
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey,\
Department of Mathematics,\
Hill Center, Busch Campus,\
110 Frelinghuysen Road,\
Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019, USA ,\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Mary E. Flahive\
Department of Mathematics,\
Oregon State University,\
Corvallis, OR 97331-4605, USA\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'bumby.bib'
date: '[**MSC:**]{} 11J70,11J06, 11H50'
title: Inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation of some Hurwitzian numbers
---
Introduction
============
The *inhomogeneous approximation constant* for a pair of real numbers $\theta,\phi$ (with is $$L(\theta, \phi)=
\liminf_{|q| \to \infty}\, \Big\{ |q|\, \| q \, \theta - \phi \| \,:
\, q \in {{\mathbb Z}}\Big\} ,$$ where $\|x\|$ denotes the distance from the real number $x$ to the nearest integer. Minkowski proved that when $\theta$ is irrational, $ L(\theta, \phi) \le 1/4$ holds for all $\phi$. Grace [@gr1918] used regular simple continued fractions to construct $\theta$ with Further historical details on these and related results can be found in Koksma [@koksma]. In the middle of the twentieth century there was substantial work related to these inhomogeneous approximation constants and also to the associated inhomogeneous Markoff values. Reference [@cus94] contains a good overview of this work and has a comprehensive list of references.
In the last decade, interest in these problems was rekindled by the authors of [@cus93; @cus96; @cus94], and continued with articles by Christopher Pinner [@pinner01] and Takao Komatsu [@tk1997; @tk1999; @tk1999a; @tk2002]. In particular, Komatsu used several different types of continued fractions to compute the inhomogeneous constants when $e^{1/s}$ (for positive integer $s$) is paired with various $\phi$ in ${{\mathbb Q}}\, \theta + {{\mathbb Q}}$. In this article we make use of the “relative rationality” of these pairs $\theta, \phi$ to show how the technically simpler ideas of Grace [@gr1918] and regular simple continued fractions can be used to unify and extend Komatsu’s results.
Perron [@OP Section 32] defines an *arithmetic progression of order $m$* to be a polynomial of degree $m$ with rational coefficients that is a function from ${{\mathbb N}}$ to ${{\mathbb N}}$. The real number $\theta$ is a *Hurwitzian number of order $m$* if there exists a finite number of arithmetic progressions $f_1(x), \ldots, f_R(x)$ of order at most $m$ (and at least one has order $m$) such that $$\theta=[b_0;b_1,\ldots, b_n, f_1(1), \ldots, f_R(1),
f_1(2), \ldots, f_R(2),\ldots ] \; .$$ We use Perron’s convenient notation $$\theta =[\, b_0;b_1,\ldots, b_n,
\, \lrbigparen{\, f_1(i), \ldots, f_R(i)}_{_{i=1}}^{^ \infty} \,] \; .$$
Quadratic irrationals are the Hurwitzian numbers of order 0. For a nonzero integer $k$, $e^{2/k}$ and $\tanh(1/k)$ are examples of Hurwitzian numbers of order 1. In 1714 Roger Cotes found the continued fraction expansion of $e$: $$e= [\, 2;1,2,1,1,4,1,1,6, \ldots \, ]
=[\, 2;\lrbigparen{1 \, , \, 2j \, ,\, 1 }_{\;_{j=1}}^{^\infty}\, ] \; .$$ Euler (1737) proved this is indeed the continued fraction of $e$, and also that for integers $s \ge 2$, $$\label{E:Euler}
e^{1/s}
=[\,1; \,
\lrbigparen{ (2j-1)s -1\, ,\, 1 ,\, 1 \; }_{\; _{j=1}}^{^ \infty} \, ]$$ and $$\tanh(1/s)
=[\,0; \, \lrbigparen{ (2j-1)s} _{ _{j=1}}^{^ \infty} \, ] \; .$$ In correspondence with Hermite, Stieljes described the continued fraction of $e^{2/k}$ for odd $k$: $$e^2=[\, 7;\, \lrbigparen{3j-1,1, 1, 3j,12j+6}_{\,_{j=1}}^{\; ^\infty} \,]
\; ,$$ and for integers $s \ge 1$, $$\label{E:Stieljes}
e^{2/(2s+1)}=[\, 1 ; \, \lrbigparen{3(2s+1)j+s,6(2s+1)(2j+1),
3(2s+1)j+5s+2,1, 1}_{\,_{ j=0}} ^{\; ^\infty} \, ]\; .$$ For references and insight into the proofs, we refer the reader to [@cohn2006; @osler2006; @OP], with an additional comment on the continued fraction of Since $\alpha$ is the result of applying a linear fractional transformation with integer coefficients to $\beta=e^{2/s}$, an algorithm of G. N. Raney [@raney73] (also reported in [@benyon83]) can be used to relate the continued fractions of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Here we restrict to $\phi \in {{\mathbb Q}}\theta + {{\mathbb Q}}$ (where $\phi \notin {{\mathbb Z}}\theta + {{\mathbb Z}}$). By definition, $L(\theta,\phi_1)=L(\theta,\phi_2)$ when $\phi_1-\phi_2 \in {{\mathbb Z}}\, \theta +{{\mathbb Z}}$, and so it suffices to assume that $\phi$ is in *reduced form*: $$\label{E:redform}
\phi=\frac{r\theta +m}{n} \quad \mbox{ and } n \ge 2 \; , \;
\gcd(r,m,n)=1 \;
\mbox{ and } \; 0 \le r,m < n \, .$$ The integer $n$ will be called the *reduced denominator* of $\phi$.
Connections with homogeneous approximation {#S:connections}
==========================================
In this section we consider $\theta$ of the form $$\label{E:genform}
\begin{aligned}
\theta = &[ c_0; c_1 \ldots, c_{n_1},a_0, c_{n_1+1}, \ldots, c_{n_1+n_2},a_1,
c_{n_1+n_2+1}, \ldots] \, , \\ &
\mbox{where $ \lim_{i \to \infty}{a_i}=\infty $, $n_j \ge 0$,
and $\{ c_i \}$ is a bounded sequence}\, .
\end{aligned}$$ We use standard results on simple continued fractions that can be found for example in [@cusickandflahive89; @Lang95; @OP; @RandS]. Our principal reference
Let $\theta=[b_0;b_1, b_2, \ldots ]$ be the simple continued fraction of the real number $\theta$. For $i \ge 0$, ${{\mathcal P}}_i=(p_i,q_i)$ is called the $i$-th *convergent* of $\theta$ if $q_i > 0$ and $[b_0;b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_i ]=p_i/q_i$ in reduced form. Then ${{\mathcal P}}_0=(b_0,1)$, and using ${{\mathcal P}}_{-1}=(1,0)$ we have $$\label{E:cvgtrec}
{{\mathcal P}}_{i+1}=b_{i+1} {{\mathcal P}}_i+{{\mathcal P}}_{i-1} \;
\mbox{ for all~$i \ge 0$} \, ,$$ and $$\label{E:leap}
q_i \,|\, q_i \theta -p_i\,|=q_i\, \|\, q_i \theta \, \| =
\mu_i^{-1}, \; \mbox{where
$\mu_i:=[b_{i+1};b_{i+2}, \ldots]+[0;b_i, \ldots, b_1]$} \, .$$ (Refer to Theorem 1 in [@Lang95 page 2] and Corollary 3 in [@Lang95 page 5].)
For $\theta$ of the form in (\[E:genform\]), the subscripts $I_j$ for which $b_{_{I_j+1}}=a_j$ will be referred to as *leaping subscripts* with associated *leapers* . The name is appropriate since from (\[E:leap\]) the rational number given by a leaper yields a very efficient rational approximation to $\theta$ as compared with the approximations using earlier convergents. This terminology was used by Komatsu in [@tk2003] in a slightly different context.
\[T:coarse\] Let $\phi=(r \theta+m)/n$ be in reduced form. If there exists an integer $g$ such that $$\label{E:congr}
g {{\mathcal P}}_i \equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n}$$ holds for infinitely many convergents of $\theta$ then $$n^2 \, L(\theta, \phi) \le
g^2 \lrbigparen{\limsup_{i \to \infty} \{ \mu_i \, : \,
g {{\mathcal P}}_{i} \equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n} \, \}} ^{-1} \; .$$ Moreover, if (\[E:congr\]) holds for infinitely many leapers, then $ L(\theta, \phi)=0$.
Let $\{i_j\}$ be the infinite sequence for which $g{{\mathcal P}}_{i_j} \equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n}$. Then for each $j$ there exist integers $R_j,S_j$ such that $g {{\mathcal P}}_{i_j}=(m+nR_j,nS_j-r)$; $$\begin{aligned}
n^2|(S_j-r/n)(S_j \theta - \phi -R_j)| &=
|nS_j-r|\,|(nS_j-r) \theta -(m+R_jn)| \\
&=g^2 |q_{i_j}| |q_{i_j} \theta -p_{i_j} | \, ;\end{aligned}$$ by (\[E:leap\]), $$\label{E:lam}
n^2|(S_j-r/n)(S_j \theta - \phi -R_j)| = g^2/\mu_{i_j} \, .$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
n^2 L(\theta,\phi)&=
n^2 \liminf_{|q| \to \infty}\, \{ |q|\, \| q \, \theta - \phi \| \,:
\, q \in {{\mathbb Z}}\}\\
&\le n^2 \liminf_{j \to \infty} \{ |S_j|\,| S_j\, \theta - \phi -R_j| \, \} \\
&= n^2 \liminf_{j \to \infty} \{ |S_j -r/n|\,
| S_j \, \theta - \phi -R_j| \,\} \\
&=g^2 \, \liminf_{j \to \infty} \{ 1/\mu_{i_j}\, \}\, .\end{aligned}$$ Since (\[E:congr\]) is a congruence modulo $n$, we may assume $1 \le g < n$, giving $$L(\theta,\phi) \le \liminf_{j \to \infty} \{ 1/\mu_{i_j} \}
\le \liminf_{j \to \infty} \{ 1/b_{i_j} \} \, .$$ Therefore, $L(\theta,\phi)=0$ when there are infinitely many leapers satisfying (\[E:congr\]).
Theorem \[T:coarse\] was implicit in Grace’s work [@gr1918]. We illustrate its usefulness by proving that for any integer $k \ge 3$, $L(e^{2/k},(e^{2/k}+1)/2)=0$. This was proved by Komatsu for even $k$ in [@tk1999 Theorem 3.1]. From (\[E:Euler\]) and (\[E:Stieljes\]), we note that the sequence of convergents for $e^{2/k}$ is completely periodic modulo 2. In fact, for odd $k=2s+1$, the modulo 2 sequence of convergents of $e^{2/k}$ has period $$\label{E:introper--odd}
(1,1), (s+1,s), (1,1), (0,1), (1,0),(1,1), (s,s+1), (1,1), (0,1), (1,0) \, ,$$ where the leapers are congruent to $(1,1), (s+1,s), (s,s+1)$ modulo $2$. Since these are all of the congruence classes modulo 2, $L(e^{2/k},\phi)=0$ for all $\phi$ whose reduced denominator is 2. On the other hand, for even $k=2s$ the modulo 2 period for the convergents of $\theta=e^{1/s}$ is $$\label{E:introper}
(1,1), (s,s+1), (s+1,s), (1,1), (0,1), (1,0) \, ,$$ where every leaper is congruent to $(1,1) \pmod{2}$. Again $L(\theta, \phi)=0$ for But since $\lim_{i \to \infty}{ \mu_{6i+4}}=\lim_{i \to \infty}{ \mu_{6i+5}}=2$, applying Theorem \[T:coarse\] with $g=1$ gives $L(e^{1/s}, \phi) \le 1/8$ for each of $\phi=1/2, -\theta/2$.
\[L:lem\] Let $\theta=[b_0;b_1, b_2, \ldots ]$ be irrational and $ \phi=(r\theta +m)/n$ be in reduced form. For any nonzero integer $S$, set $${\lambda}(S):= \Bigl| S-\frac{r}{n} \Bigr| \, \|S \theta -\phi \| \, ,$$ and let $R$ be the nearest integer to $S\theta - \phi$. If $0 <n^2 \, {\lambda}(S) <1$ then there exist integers $i, g$ with $g$ invertible modulo $n$ such that either $$\label{E:1alt} (m+Rn, Sn-r)=g {{\mathcal P}}_i
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
n^2 {\lambda}(S)=\frac{g^2}{\mu_i}$$ or $$\label{E:2alt}
b_{i+1} \ne 1 \; \mbox{ and } \;
n^2 {\lambda}(S) \ge g^2(1 - w) \; \;
\mbox{for some $0 \le w \le [0;b_{i+1}]$} \, .$$ Moreover, if $n^2 \, {\lambda}(S) <1/2$, then (\[E:1alt\]) must hold.
Define the integers $M:=m+Rn$ and $N:=Sn-r$. Then calculation gives $$|N| \, |N\theta -M|=n^2 {\lambda}(S)\, .$$ Since $0< n^2 {\lambda}(S) < 1$, then $N \ne 0$ and $M/N$ is a rational that satisfies $$\Bigl| \theta -\frac{M}{N} \Bigr| < \frac{1}{N^2} \, .$$ By Theorem 10 in [@Lang95 page 16], there exist integers $i,g$ such that either $(M,N)=g{{\mathcal P}}_i$ or $b_{i+1} \ne 1$ and $(M,N)=g(d{{\mathcal P}}_i+{{\mathcal P}}_{i-1})$ where $d$ equals $1$ or $b_{i+1}-1$. In either case, $\gcd(g,n)$ must divide both $M$ and $N$, and so each of $r,m$. The fact that $\phi$ is reduced therefore implies $g$ is invertible modulo $n$. In addition, by Corollary 2 in [@Lang95 page 11], if $n^2 \, {\lambda}(S) < 1/2$ then $(M,N)=g{{\mathcal P}}_i$. Also, if $(M,N)=g {{\mathcal P}}_i$ then (\[E:lam\]) yields $n^2 {\lambda}(S)=g^2/\mu_i$, which is (\[E:1alt\]). It remains to prove $(M,N)=g(d{{\mathcal P}}_i+{{\mathcal P}}_{i-1})$ implies (\[E:2alt\]).
We note that $d=b_{i+1}-1$ gives $d \, {{\mathcal P}}_i+{{\mathcal P}}_{i-1} ={{\mathcal P}}_{i+1} - {{\mathcal P}}_i$, and so the two possibilities can be combined as $(M,N)=g \,({{\mathcal P}}_j \pm {{\mathcal P}}_{j-1})$ for $j=i,i+1$ where the upper sign is taken when $j=i$ and the lower sign when $j=i+1$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
n^2 {\lambda}(S)&=|N| \, |N \, \theta -M| \\
&=g^2 (q_{j} \pm q_{j-1}) \,
|(q_{j} \pm q_{j-1})\, \theta -(p_{j} \pm p_{j-1})| \\
&=g^2 (q_{j} \pm q_{j-1}) \,
|(q_{j-1}\, \theta -p_{j-1})\pm (q_{j}\, \theta -p_{j})| \\
&=g^2 (q_{j} \pm q_{j-1})
\Bigl(\|q_{j-1}\, \theta \| \mp \|q_{j}\, \theta \|\Bigr)
\, ,\end{aligned}$$ since the differences $q_{k}\, \theta -p_{k}$ alternate in sign. Then (\[E:leap\]) implies $$n^2 {\lambda}(S)
=g^2\Bigl( 1 \pm \frac{q_{j-1}}{q_{j}} \Bigr) \,
\Bigl(\frac{q_{j}}{q_{j-1}} \frac{1}{\mu_{j-1}} \, \mp
\, \frac{1}{\mu_{j}} \Bigr) \, .$$ For $x:=[0;b_j \ldots, b_1]$ and $y:=[0;b_{j+1},b_{j+2}, \ldots]$, $$\mu_{j-1} =
\frac{1}{x}+y \quad
\mbox{,} \quad \mu_{j} = \frac{1}{y}+x \, ,$$ and $q_{j-1}/q_j=x$ by Theorem 4 in [@Lang95 page 6]. Putting these into [[()]{}]{} yields $$n^2 {\lambda}(S)=g^2(1 \pm x)\Bigl(\frac{1}{1+xy} \mp \frac{y}{1+xy} \Bigr)
=g^2 \frac{(1 \pm x)(1 \mp y)}{1+xy} \,$$ where $0 \le x \le [0;b_j]$ and $0 < y < [0;b_{j+1}]$. When the upper sign holds (that is, and $ y\le 1 $ yield $ n^2 {\lambda}(S) \ge g^2(1 - y)$ and $w=y$ satisfies conclusion (\[E:2alt\]). Analogously, $w=x$ can be used for the lower sign.
\[T:basic\] Let $\theta$ be as in (\[E:genform\]) and $\phi=(r \theta+m)/n$ be in reduced form. Then $L(\theta, \phi)=0$ if and only if there exist infinitely many leapers ${{\mathcal L}}_j$ such that $g_j \, {{\mathcal L}}_j \equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n}$ for an integer $ g_j $ that is invertible modulo ${n}$.
Let $\{S_k\}$ be an infinite sequence of nonzero integers such that $$L(\theta, \phi)
=\lim_{k \to \infty} \, |S_k| \, \| S_k \, \theta - \phi \| \, .$$ If $L(\theta, \phi)=0$, then $$0=L(\theta, \phi) =\lim_{k \to \infty}
\, \Bigl|S_k -\frac{r}{n} \Bigr| \, \| S_k \, \theta - \phi \|
=\lim_{k \to \infty} {{\lambda}(S_k)} \, \, .$$ Restricting to $k$ satisfying $n^2 \, {\lambda}(S_k) <1/2$, for each such $k$ Lemma \[L:lem\] implies there exist $i_k$ and invertible $g_k$ modulo $n$ such that (\[E:1alt\]) holds. Then $$b_{i_k+1} +2 \ge \mu_{i_k} =
\frac{g_k^2}{n^2 \, {\lambda}(S_k)} \longrightarrow \infty \, .$$ The condition on $\{c_i\}$ in (\[E:genform\]) implies $i_k$ is a leaping subscript for sufficiently large $k$.
The converse was proved in Theorem \[T:coarse\]
\[C:all\] Let $\theta$ be as in (\[E:genform\]) and $\phi=(r \theta+m)/n$ be in reduced form. If $L(\theta, \phi)=0$ then $L(\theta, g \, \phi)=0$ for every integer $g$ that is not a multiple of $n$. In particular, for any $n \ge 2$ there exists $m/n$ such that $L(\theta, m/n)=0$ if and only if $L(\theta, m_1/n)=0$ for all $m_1 \in {{\mathbb Z}}$, $m_1/n \notin {{\mathbb Z}}$.
Let $g$ be an integer that is not a multiple of $n$. By Theorem \[T:basic\], $L(\theta,\phi)=0$ implies there exist infinitely many leapers ${{\mathcal L}}_{j_k}$ such that $g_k \, {{\mathcal L}}_{j_k} \equiv (m,-r) \pmod{n}$ for some invertible $g_k \pmod{n}$, and so $$g_k \, g \, {{\mathcal L}}_{j_k} \equiv (gm,-gr) \pmod{n} \, \,
\mbox{ for all } k \; .$$ Setting $d:=\gcd(g,n)$ and $h:=g/d$ this implies $$g_k \, h \, {{\mathcal L}}_{j_k} \equiv (hm,-hr) \pmod{n/d} \, \,
\mbox{ for all } k \; .$$ Since $g_kh$ is invertible modulo $n/d$, from Theorem \[T:basic\] we obtain
Henceforth, we’ll restrict consideration to a slight generalization of $e^{2/k}$; namely, $$\label{E:genform2}
\begin{aligned}
\theta = [a_0;& c_1, \ldots, c_{n_1},a_1,c_{n_1+1},
\ldots, c_{n_1+n_2},a_2, \ldots] \, ,
\mbox{where $\lim_{i \to \infty}{a_i}=\infty$} \\
& \mbox{and either~$\{ c_i \}$ is a finite sequence
or $\limsup_{i \to \infty}{c_i}=1$}\, .
\end{aligned}$$
\[T:small\] Let $\theta=[b_0;b_1,b_2, \ldots]$ be as in (\[E:genform2\]) and $\phi=(r \theta+m)/n$ be in reduced form. If $0 < n^2 \, L(\theta, \phi) < 1$, then there exist infinitely many non-leaping convergents ${{\mathcal P}}_i \equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n}$, and $$\label{E:positivevalue}
n^2 \, L(\theta, \phi) =
\lrbigparen{\limsup_{i \to \infty} \{ \mu_i \, : \,
{{\mathcal P}}_{i} \equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n} \, \}}^{-1} \; .$$
From (\[E:genform2\]), there exists $I$ such that for $i \ge I$, $$b_{i+1} \ne 1 \iff \mbox{$i$ is a leaping subscript} \, .$$ Let $\{S_j\}$ be an infinite sequence of nonzero integers such that $$L(\theta, \phi) =\lim_{j \to \infty} {{\lambda}(S_j)} \, \, .$$ From $0< n^2 \, L(\theta, \phi) < 1$ it follows that $0< n^2 \, {\lambda}(S_j) <1 $ holds for infinitely many $j$ and Lemma \[L:lem\] can be applied: For each such $S_j$, we obtain a subscript $i=i_j$ such that one of the conclusions of the lemma holds. By [[()]{}]{}, if ${\lambda}(S_j)$ satisfies (\[E:2alt\]) for sufficiently large $j$, then the subscript $i_j$ must be leaping. If an infinite subsequence $S_{j}$ were to satisfy (\[E:2alt\]) with leaping subscript $i_{j}$ and associated $w_j$, then $$n^2 {\lambda}(S_j) \ge g_j^2(1 - w_j) \quad
\mbox{where $w_j \le [0;b_{i_j+1}] \longrightarrow 0$}\, ,$$ and we would obtain the contradiction $$n^2 \, L(\theta,\phi) \ge \lim_{j \to \infty} {g_j^2} \ge 1 \, .$$ (This is similar to the argument in [@RandS p. 116].) Therefore, for sufficiently large $j$, ${\lambda}(S_j)$ satisfies (\[E:1alt\]) for some $i=i_j$ that is not leaping — else $L(\theta,\phi)$ would be zero. Since $\limsup_{i \to \infty}{c_i}=1$, then $ \mu_{i_j} \le 3$ for all but finitely many $j$, and $$\lim_{j \to \infty}{\frac{g_j^2}{3}} \le
\lim_{j \to \infty}{\frac{g_j^2}{\mu_{i_j}}}
= n^2 \, L(\theta,\phi) < 1 \, ,$$ which implies $g_j=1$ for all sufficiently large $j$. Therefore, ${{\mathcal P}}_{i_j}\equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n}$ for infinitely many non-leaping $i_j$ and also (\[E:positivevalue\]) holds.
The hypothesis $L(\theta, \phi)>0$ in Theorem \[T:small\] guarantees that at most finitely many leapers are congruent to $(m, -r) \pmod{n}$. It’s worth noting that $n^2 \, L(\theta, \phi) < 1$ implies the existence of infinitely many convergents ${{\mathcal P}}_i \equiv g \, (m, -r) \pmod{n}$ with $g=1$.
We return to the earlier question of calculating $L(e^{1/s}, \phi)$ for $\phi$ whose reduced denominator equals $2$. Recall the sequence of convergents of $\theta$ is completely periodic modulo 2 with period given in (\[E:introper\]). Since $\lim_{j \to \infty}{\mu_{6j+k}}=2$ for all application of Theorem \[T:small\] gives $L(e^{1/s}, \phi)= 1/8$ for $\phi=1/2, e^{1/s}/2$.
Komatsu’s Conjecture {#S:KConjecture}
====================
In Theorem \[T:conjecture\] of this section we prove a generalization of the conjecture of T. Komatsu [@tk2002 p. 241] that for integers $s \ge 1$, $n^2 \, L(e^{1/s},1/n) = 0 \; \mbox{or} \; 1/2$ for all $n \ge 2$.
\[P:per2\] Let $k, n$ be positive integers with $n\ge 2$. For any sequence of integers $\{ b_j \}$, define a sequence $\{s_j\} \subset {{\mathbb Z}}^k$ inductively using any initial values $s_0,s_1 \in {{\mathbb Z}}^k$, and $$s_{j} \equiv b_js_{j-1}+s_{j-2} \pmod{n} \,
\mbox{ for all $ j \ge 2$} \; .$$ If $\{b_j\}$ is periodic modulo $n$, then $\{s_j\}$ is periodic. If $\{b_j\}$ is completely periodic modulo $n$, then $\{s_j\}$ is also completely periodic.
If $b_{i+1}, \ldots, b_{i+t}$ is a period for $\{ b_j \}$, consider the following sequence of pairs: $$(s_{i-1},s_{i}),(s_{i-1+t},s_{i+t}),(s_{i-1+2t},s_{i+2t}),
\ldots \, .$$ This infinite sequence eventually has a repetition modulo $n$. Because $\{s_j\}$ satisfies the recurrence [[()]{}]{} and $b_{i+1}, \ldots, b_{i+t}$ is a period for $\{ b_j \}$, the first repetition in this sequence will identify the beginning of a period for $\{s_j\}$. Since $s_{i-1}$ is determined by $s_{i-1} \equiv s_{i+1} -b_{i+1}s_i \pmod n$, when $\{ b_j \}$ is completely periodic modulo $n$, $\{s_j\}$ must also be completely periodic.
In particular, since the partial quotient sequence of every Hurwitzian number is periodic modulo every integer $n \ge 2$, its sequence of convergents is periodic modulo $n$.
Henceforth. for $\theta$ of the form in (\[E:genform2\]) we further restrict to $n \ge 2$ for which the partial quotient sequence of $\theta$ is periodic modulo $n$. If $b_{I+1}, \ldots,b_{I+T}$ is a period for the partial quotient sequence such that ${{\mathcal P}}_{I+1}, \ldots,{{\mathcal P}}_{I+T}$ is a period for the convergents, we define $M_j:= \limsup_{k \to \infty} \mu_{j+kT}$ for all $j=I+1, \ldots, I+T$ and observe that $$M_j=\infty \iff \limsup_{k \to \infty}{b_{j+kT+1}} = \infty
\iff \mbox{${{\mathcal P}}_{j+kT}$ is a leaper for infinitely many $k$} \,.$$
\[T:per1\] Let $\theta$ have the form given in (\[E:genform2\]). Let $n \ge 2$ be such that the partial quotient sequence of $\theta$ is periodic modulo $n$, and $b_{I+1}, \ldots,b_{I+T}$ and ${{\mathcal P}}_{I+1}, \ldots,{{\mathcal P}}_{I+T}$ be as set up above. If $m,r$ are integers with $\gcd(m,r,n)=1$ for which there exists $i > I$ with ${{\mathcal P}}_{i} \equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n}$, we set $$M:=\max\lrbigbrack{M_j \, : \, I+1 \le j \le I+T \mbox{ and }
{{\mathcal P}}_j \equiv (m,-r) \pmod{n} } \, .$$ If $M \ne 1$ then $ n^2 \, L(\theta,(m+r\, \theta)/n)= M^{-1}$.
Set $\phi:=(m+r\, \theta)/n$, and let $j$ be such that $1 \le j \le T$, ${{\mathcal P}}_j \equiv (m,-r) \pmod{n}$, and $M_j=M \ne 1$. The observation in [[()]{}]{} combined with Theorem \[T:basic\] gives the conclusion for $M=\infty$. We may therefore assume $M$ is finite, and that by [[()]{}]{} at most finitely many ${{\mathcal P}}_j \equiv (m,-r) \pmod{n}$ are leapers, that in turn gives $L(\theta,\phi) > 0$. Since $$(p_{j+kT},q_{j+kT})={{\mathcal P}}_{j+kT} \equiv {{\mathcal P}}_j \equiv (m, -r) \pmod{n} \; \;
\mbox{for all $k \ge 0$} \, ,$$ then $$n^2 \, {\lambda}(S_k) = \frac{1}{\mu_{j+kT}} \; \;
\mbox{for $S_k:=(q_{j+kT}+r)/n$} \, .$$ By Theorem \[T:coarse\], $$0 < n^2\, L(\theta,\phi) \le n^2 \, \liminf_{k \to \infty}\, {{\lambda}(S_k)}
=\liminf_{k \to \infty}\, {\frac{1}{\mu_{j+kT}}} =\frac{1}{M} < 1 \, ,$$ and the conclusion follows from Theorem \[T:small\].
\[T:conjecture\] [\[A generalization of Komatsu’s conjecture\]]{} Let $\theta$ be an irrational whose continued fraction has the form given in (\[E:genform2\]), and let $n \ge 2$ be such that the partial quotient sequence of $\theta$ is completely periodic modulo $n$. If each $n_i \in \{ 0,2\}$ then $$n^2 \, L(\theta,\phi) \in \{0, 1/2\} \; \;
\mbox{for both $\phi=1/n$, $\phi=-\theta/n$} \, .$$ In particular, for every $k \ge 2$ and every $n \ge 2$ $$n^2 \, L(e^{2/k},\phi) \in \{0, 1/2 \}\; \;
\mbox{for both $\phi=1/n, \; - \, e^{2/k}/n$} \, .$$
The fact that $n_i \in \{ 0,2\}$ implies every $M_j$ equals $\infty$ or $2$. By Proposition \[P:per2\], the sequence of convergents of $\theta$ is completely periodic modulo $n$. If $T$ is a period length, then $${{\mathcal P}}_{T-1} \equiv {{\mathcal P}}_{-1} =
(1,0) \pmod{m} \quad \mbox{and} \quad {{\mathcal P}}_{T-2}
\equiv {{\mathcal P}}_{-2} =(0,1) \pmod{m} \, .$$ Since $M \in \{ \infty, 2\}$, the conclusion follows from Theorem \[T:per1\].
\[T:ecor\] Let $ k \ge 1$, $n \ge 2$. If $\gcd(n,k) \ne 1$ then $$n^2 \, L(e^{2/k},1/n)= n^2 \, L(e^{2/k},-e^{2/k}/n)=1/2 \; .$$
By Theorems \[T:basic\] and \[T:conjecture\] it suffices to prove that no component of any leaper of $\theta=e^{2/k}$ is divisible by $n$. Since $\gcd(n,k) \ne 1$ we first consider all sequences modulo $k$.
When $k=2s$, the partial quotient sequence is completely periodic modulo $k$ with period $1,s-1,1$, and the period of the sequence of convergents is $$(1,1) \, , \, (s, s-1) \, , \, (s+1, s) \, , \, (1,-1)
\, , \, (0, 1)\, , \, (1,0) \, ,$$ where the leapers are $(1,\pm 1) \pmod{k}$. When $k=2s+1$, then the partial quotient sequence has period $1,s,0,s,1$ modulo $k$, and the sequence of convergents has period $$(1,1) \, , \, (-s, s) \, , \, (1, 1) \, , \, (0,-1)
\, , \, (1,0) \, ,
\, (1,-1) \, , \, (-s, -s) \, , \, (1,-1)
\, , \, (0, 1)\, , \, (1,0) \, ,$$ where the leapers are either $(1,\pm 1)$ or $(-s,\pm s) \pmod{k}$. In each case we have shown that each component of every leaper is relatively prime to $k$, and therefore cannot be divisible by $n$. The conclusion follows from Theorems \[T:basic\] and \[T:conjecture\].
Earlier we proved $L(e^{1/s}, \phi)=1/8$ for each of $\phi=1/2, \, e^{1/s}/2$, a special case of the last result. The theorem also generalizes [@tk2002 Theorem 3], that when $n$ divides $s$.
When is $\mathbf{L(e^{1/s},\phi)}$ zero?
========================================
\[T:leapingper\] Let $s, n $ be positive integers with $n \ge 2$, and let be the $i$-th leaper of $e^{1/s}$.
Then $\{{{\mathcal L}}_i\}$ is a completely periodic sequence modulo $n$ with period $$\label{E:period}
{{\mathcal L}}_0, \ldots ,{{\mathcal L}}_{K-1},{{\mathcal L}}_K, {{\mathcal L}}_{K-1}, \ldots, {{\mathcal L}}_0,
{{\mathcal L}}^*_0, \ldots ,{{\mathcal L}}^*_{K-1},{{\mathcal L}}^*_K, {{\mathcal L}}^*_{K-1}, \ldots, {{\mathcal L}}^*_0 \,$$ where $K=\lfloor{ n/2 }\rfloor$ and ${{\mathcal L}}^*_i:=(P_i,-Q_i)$.
If $\gcd(n,2s)=1$, then (\[E:period\]) is a minimal period for the leapers of $e^{1/s}$ modulo $n$.
For all $1 \le s <n$, the $i$-th leaper of $e^{1/(n-s)}$ is $ (-1)^i(Q_i,P_i) \pmod{n}$ .
Perron [@OP Section 31] proved that for $\theta= [a_0;c_1,c_2,a_1, \ldots, a_i,c_1,c_2,a_{i+1},\ldots]$ the subsequence ${{\mathcal P}}_2, {{\mathcal P}}_5, \ldots, {{\mathcal P}}_{3i+2}, \ldots$ of convergents of $\theta$ satisfies the second-order recurrence $${{\mathcal P}}_{3i+2}=(a_i(c_1c_2+1)+c_1+c_2){{\mathcal P}}_{3i-1} +{{\mathcal P}}_{3i -4} \; .$$ Therefore, the sequence of leapers of $$e^{1/s}
=[\,1; \,
\lrbigparen{ 2sj-(s+1)\, ,\, 1 ,\, 1}_{\; _{j=1}}^{^ \infty} \, ]$$ satisfies the recurrence $$\label{E:recr}
{{\mathcal L}}_{-1}=(1,-1) \; , \; {{\mathcal L}}_{0}=(1,1) \; , \;
{{\mathcal L}}_{j+1}= A_j\; {{\mathcal L}}_j+ {{\mathcal L}}_{j-1} \; ,$$ for $k:=2s$ and $A_j:=(2j+1)\, k$, a sequence that is completely periodic modulo $n$.
Since $A_K =(2K+1)\,k \equiv 0 \pmod{n}$, then ${{\mathcal L}}_{K+1} \equiv {{\mathcal L}}_{K-1} \pmod{n}$. Also, for all $j \ge 0$, $$A_{K+j} +A_{K-j} =2(2K+1)\,k \equiv 0 \pmod{n}\, ,$$ and an inductive argument using the generating recurrence (\[E:recr\]) yields $${{\mathcal L}}_{K+j} \equiv {{\mathcal L}}_{K-j} \pmod{n} \; \; \mbox{for all $j \ge 0$} \, .$$ In particular, for $j=K, K+1$, $${{\mathcal L}}_{n-1} \equiv {{\mathcal L}}_{0}=(1,1)= {{\mathcal L}}^*_{-1} \pmod{n} \; ; \;
{{\mathcal L}}_{n} \equiv {{\mathcal L}}_{-1}=(1,-1)={{\mathcal L}}^*_{0} \pmod{n}\, ;$$ again using recurrence (\[E:recr\]) inductively, $${{\mathcal L}}_{n+j} \equiv {{\mathcal L}}^*_{j} \pmod{n} \; \; \mbox{for all $j$} \, .$$ In combination with [[()]{}]{} this implies (\[E:period\]) is a period for the leapers modulo $n$.
Further, if $T$ is a period-length of the leapers, then $$A_T {{\mathcal L}}_T + {{\mathcal L}}_{T-1} = {{\mathcal L}}_{T+1} \equiv
{{\mathcal L}}_{1} \equiv A_0 {{\mathcal L}}_0 + {{\mathcal L}}_{T-1} \pmod{n} \; ,$$ implying $(0,0) \equiv (A_T-A_0) \, {{\mathcal L}}_0 \equiv 2Tk \, (1,1) \pmod{n}$. When $\gcd(n,k)=1$, $T$ must be divisible by $n$. The fact that $${{\mathcal L}}_n \equiv {{\mathcal L}}^*_0 \not \equiv {{\mathcal L}}_0 \pmod{n}$$ proves (\[E:period\]) is a minimal period for the leapers of $e^{1/s}$.
It remains to prove (c). For this, we define $\{{{\mathcal M}}_j\}$ to be the sequence ${{\mathcal M}}_j:=(Q_j,P_j)$ where $(P_j,Q_j)$ is the $j$-th leaper of $e^{1/s}$. Then $\{{{\mathcal M}}_j\}$ also satisfies the recurrence (\[E:recr\]) with initial values ${{\mathcal M}}_{-1}=(-1,1),{{\mathcal M}}_{0}=(1,1)$, and the sequence ${{\mathcal N}}_j:=(-1)^j {{\mathcal M}}_j$ satisfies the recurrence $${{\mathcal N}}_{-1}=(1,-1) \; , \; {{\mathcal N}}_{0}=(1,1) \; , \;
{{\mathcal N}}_{j+1}= -A_j\; {{\mathcal N}}_j+ {{\mathcal N}}_{j-1} \, .$$ Since $$(2j+1)\, 2(n-s) \equiv -(2j+1) \, 2s \equiv -A_j \pmod{n} \, ,$$ this is the recurrence for the leapers of $e^{1/(n-s)}$.
In 1918, D. N. Lehmer [@lehmer1918] investigated the modulo $n$ period of the convergents for certain Hurwitzian numbers. More recently, C. Elsner [@elsn1999] used generating functions to prove results on the period length of the modulo $n$ sequence of leapers of $e$, and Takao Komatsu [@tk1997; @tk1999; @tk1999a; @tk2002] found the period length of the modulo n leapers of $e^{1/s}$ always divides $2n$ and it divides $n$ when $n$ is even. Both Elsner and Komatsu applied their results to homogeneous approximation over congruence classes.
Let $s \ge 1$, $n \ge 2$ be integers, and define $\theta:=e^{1/s}$. If $ L(\theta,(m+r \, \theta)/n) =0 $, then $ L(\theta,(m-r \, \theta)/n) =0$.
The conclusion follows from Theorem \[T:basic\] and the form of the period in (\[E:period\]).
\[C:specialzeros\] Let $n \ge 2$ be a odd integer. Then for all $m \not \equiv 0 \pmod{n}$, $$\label{E:counterpart2}
L(e^{2/(n+1)}, m/n)= 0\quad \mbox{and} \quad
L(e^{2/(n-1)}, -m \, e^{2/(n-1)}/{n})= 0 \; .$$
Since $n$ is odd, $s:=(n + 1)/2$ is an integer. The first leaper of $e^{1/s}$ can be calculated using recurrence (\[E:recr\]) with $k=n+1$: $${{\mathcal L}}_1=A_0 \,(1,1)+(1,-1) \equiv 2(1,0) \pmod{n} \, ,$$ and from Theorem \[T:leapingper\](c), the first leaper of $e^{2/n-1}$ is $-(0,2)$. Therefore, Theorem \[T:basic\] implies (\[E:counterpart2\]) for $m=2$, and the conclusion follows from Corollary \[C:all\].
\[T:CRT\] Let $s$ be a positive integer. If $n_1,n_2$ are relatively prime integers for which $L(e^{1/s},1/n_1)=L(e^{1/s},1/n_2)=0$ then
Since $L(e^{1/s},1/n_i)=0$, the form of the period of the leapers of $e^{1/s}$ yields *even* $1 \le j_i=2r_i \le 2n_i$ with $Q_{2r_i} =0 \pmod{n_i}$. Using the Chinese Remainder Theorem, the system $r \equiv r_i \pmod{n_i}$ has a solution $r \pmod{n_1n_2}$, and $Q_{2r} \equiv Q_{2r_i} \equiv 0 \pmod{n_i}$ for each $i$. Therefore, we have found a subscript $j=2r$ such that $Q_{j} \equiv 0 \pmod{n_1n_2}$, and $L(e^{1/s},1/n_1 \, n_2)=0$ .
\[T:algorithm\] Let $s$ be a positive integer and let $n \ge 3$ be odd. Then for any reduced $\phi=(m+r \, e^{1/s})/n$ it is possible to check whether or not $L(e^{1/s},\phi)$ is zero in fewer than $n/2$ multiplications modulo $n$. In fact, if $n$ has $t$ distinct prime divisors, the number of operations can be reduced to $n/2^t$ multiplications modulo $n$.
The form of the period in (\[E:period\]) allows one to conclude whether or not a leaper has the form $g (m,-r) \pmod{n}$ within $n/2$ applications of the recurrence (\[E:recr\]). Theorem \[T:CRT\] reduces the question to checking the period modulo each prime power divisor of $n$.
The algorithm implicit in the proof of Theorem \[T:algorithm\] can be used to verify that the following values should be added to the list given in [@tk2002 p. 241] of all values of $s$ for which $L(e^{1/s},1/n)=0$ (for $n \le 49$):
[|l|l|]{}$n$ & $s \pmod{n}$\
$23 $ & $12$\
$25 $ & $13,23$\
$29 $ & $15$ $43 $ & $25$ $47 $ & $11,17,33,43$\
$49 $ & $1,22,46$\
In particular, notice that (\[E:counterpart2\]) ensures all of $(n,s)=(23,12),(25,13), (29,15)$ must be included in the table.
We thank Takao Komatsu and Iekata Shiokawa for making the conference a success. In particular, we thank Takao for arranging the funding that allowed our participation in the conference.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose an elicitation method for quantifying an expert’s opinion about an uncertain population mean and variance. The method involves eliciting judgements directly about the population mean or median, and eliciting judgements about the population proportion with a particular characteristic, as a means of inferring the expert’s beliefs about the variance. The method can be used for a range of two-parameter parametric families of distributions, assuming a finite mean and variance. An illustration is given involving an expert’s beliefs about the distribution of times taken to translate pages of text. The method can be implemented in R using the package `SHELF`.'
author:
- 'Ziyad A. Alhussain^1^, Jeremy E. Oakley^2^'
title: Eliciting judgements about uncertain population means and variances
---
[^2^ School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield, UK\
[[email protected]]{}]{}
**Keywords**: Prior elicitation, expert judgement, population distributions.
Introduction
============
We consider the problem of eliciting an expert’s opinion (or a group of experts’ opinions) about an uncertain mean and variance for a population of independent and identically distributed random variables $X_1,X_2,\ldots$. We suppose that either the population distribution is normal, or that a transformation can be applied so that the expert is willing to accept a normal distribution for the population, and we write $$X_1, X_2,...\mid \mu, \sigma^2 \overset{\emph{iid}}{\thicksim} \mbox{N} (\mu, \sigma^2),$$ so that the aim is to obtain the expert’s probability distribution for $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$.
An obvious application would be in Bayesian inference for the parameters of a normal distribution, though in many cases the available data would dominate any reasonable prior, and the effort in obtaining expert prior knowledge may not be worthwhile. There are, however, various scenarios when little or even no data would be available, and the prior distribution plays an important/essential role. We defer discussion of these to the next section.
Typically, elicitation methods involving asking experts to make judgements about observable quantities, rather than parameters in statistical models. However, we believe experts would be willing to make judgements directly about an uncertain measure of location such as a mean or median, and generic techniques for eliciting beliefs about a scalar quantity would normally suffice, for example, the bisection method described in [@Raiffa:1968], pp161-168. See also [@Hagan:2006], Chapter 6. We would not expect experts to be willing to make direct judgements about an uncertain population variance, as this is a more abstract quantity. The challenge is then to design elicitation questions about observable quantities, that can be used to infer an expert’s beliefs about an uncertain variance.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been little work on eliciting beliefs about variances. One existing approach that can be used is based on eliciting beliefs about parameters in linear regression models. [@KADANE:1980] and [@Al-Awadhi:1998] consider elicitation for the parameters in models of the form $$X_i = \mu + \sum_{j=1}^{p} \beta_{j} z_{ij} + \varepsilon_i, \hspace{0.2 in} \mbox{for} \hspace{ 0.1 in} i = 1,2,...,n,$$ where $\varepsilon_1, ..., \varepsilon_n \overset{\emph{iid}}{\thicksim} \mbox{N} (0, \sigma^2)$. By setting $\beta_j=0$ for all $j$, this reduces to our case. [@Al-Awadhi:1998] proposed an elicitation method for quantifying opinions about the parameters of a multivariate normal distribution; the same elicitation method could be used for quantifying beliefs about a univariate normally distributed population. A key feature of these methods is asking the expert to update his or her judgements in light of given hypothetical data, under the assumption that the expert updates his or her beliefs using Bayes’ theorem. We think this is a difficult task: the expert may not view hypothetical data as credible and behave the same way had he/she observed real data, and it is unlikely that the expert would weight prior knowledge and hypothetical data precisely according to Bayes’ theorem in any case. The expert may be insensitive to the sample size, for example in accounting for the variability in a sample mean [@Tversky:1971]. We think it desirable to have alternative elicitation methods available to the expert.
[@KADANE:1980] and [@Al-Awadhi:1998] infer judgements about the parameters $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ from judgements about the observable quantities $X_i$, by eliciting summaries from the expert’s predictive distribution. For example, suppose we wish to elicit an expert’s opinion about the variance parameter $\sigma^2$ of a random variable $X$ that follows a normal distribution with a known mean $\mu$. Since $\sigma^2$ is not directly observable then the expert is asked to make judgements about the observable quantity $X$, and we infer $p(\sigma^2)$ from these judgements. Any choice of $p(\sigma^2)$ implies a distribution $$p_X(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{+}} p_X(x \mid \sigma^2) p(\sigma^2) d\sigma^2,$$ and we suppose that a particular choice of $p(\sigma^2)$ will result in the above integral (approximately) matching the expert’s beliefs about $X$, so that this choice of $p(\sigma^2)$ describes the expert’s underlying beliefs about $\sigma^2$. A concern here is whether an expert really is able to account for his or her uncertainty about $\sigma^2$ when making judgements about $X$. A possibility is that the expert instead only makes judgements about $X$ conditional on some estimate of $\sigma^2$.
[@KADANE:1980] use conjugate priors for $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ which force the expert’s opinion about the two parameters to be dependent. However, it is possible in reality that knowledge of one parameter would not change the expert’s opinion about the other. [@Al-Awadhi:2001] argued that, unless mathematical tractability is required, then it can be better to assume independence between the two parameters, and that this helps the expert focus on the assessments of each parameter separately. They proposed an elicitation method for the multivariate normal distribution where the mean vector and covariance matrix are assumed to be independent, though their method also asks the expert to update his or her judgements in the light of hypothetical data.
We argue that the better informed the expert, the less likely a judgement of dependence between the two parameters would be required. For example, consider the distribution of running times for an individual over a distance of 5km. With no information about the ability of the runner, one might have considerable uncertainty about the mean, e.g. an interval of 15 minutes to 1 hour may be judged plausible, with smaller variances of running times associated with smaller means within this interval. But if one already has ‘expert’ knowledge about the particular runner’s ability, a much smaller interval may be judged plausible for the mean, and one’s beliefs about the variance may not change appreciably given different plausible means.
In this paper, we propose a new elicitation method for quantifying opinions about an uncertain population mean and variance. Our method does not elicit judgements using hypothetical data and Bayes’ theorem, it does not use predictive elicitation and it assumes independence between the mean and variance. The article is organised as follows. In the next section we briefly discuss some motivating applications where the prior distributions will be important. In Section \[sec:families\] we discuss the choice of prior families of distributions for the uncertain mean and variance. In Section \[sec:method\], we present a detailed procedure of eliciting judgements using our proposed elicitation method. In Section \[sec:example\], we present a real elicitation example to illustrate the use of our proposed method in practice.
Motivating applications
=======================
Bayesian clinical trial design
------------------------------
Various authors have proposed a Bayesian alternative to a power calculation in the design of clinical trials, in which a prior distribution is elicited for a treatment effect, and then the unconditional probability of a ‘successful trial’ (e.g. rejection of a null hypothesis as required by a regulator) is calculated via an integral of the power function with respect to the elicited prior [@SpiegelhalterFreedman:1986; @O'Hagan:2005; @Ren:2014]. Power functions typically depend on population variances of patient responses, and hence a prior distribution for this variance required.
Note that the main role of this prior is in the design stage: the calculation of the unconditional probability of a successful trial *before* the data have been observed (and this calculation may assume that the trial data will be analysed using a frequentist approach). [@O'Hagan:2005] considered uncertain variances, but did not propose or use formal elicitation methods.
Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis
-------------------------------------
A common scenario in a meta-analysis is that we have a number of studies, each of which has attempted to estimate the effect of some ‘treatment’ in a randomised controlled experiment, and the aim is to synthesise the data from all the studies to infer an overall treatment effect. Often, unobserved differences in the study populations cause the treatment effects to vary between studies, and this is typically handled by modelling the treatment effects as random effects, drawn from some distribution. Although sample sizes within studies may be large, the number of studies can be small, so that there is very little information in the data about the population variance of treatment effects, and the prior distribution for this variance plays an important role. There is some discussion of priors for variances of random effects in [@Spiegelhalter:2004], Section 5.7.3, including some informal elicitation approaches when the treatment effect is measured as a log odds ratio.
Risk analysis and 2D Monte Carlo methods
----------------------------------------
In a risk analysis, a decision-maker may have to make decisions based on expert opinion only [see, for example, the discussion of the role of expert judgement in food safety risk assessment in @EFSA:2014]. In particular, a risk analysis may need to consider both aleatory uncertainty caused by variability within a population, and epistemic uncertainty about the extent of this variability. For example, [@Clough:2006; @Clough:2009] analyse the risk of contamination of farm-pasteurised milk contamination with Vero-cytotoxigenic E.coli O157. Their analysis involves the use of a mechanistic model with various uncertain inputs. One input describes the amount of faecal contamination in bulk tank per milking, and was informed by expert judgement only. This is a quantify that would vary from one milking to the next, but the distribution of amounts of contamination would be uncertain.
The risk analysis may involve the use of a mechanistic model of the form $Y=f(X)$, where $X$ has a population distribution $N(\mu,\sigma^2)$, with $\mu,\sigma^2$ uncertain. Given an elicited distribution for $\mu,\sigma^2$, analysis can proceed with a ‘2D’ or ‘second-order’ Monte Carlo simulation [see, for example, @Wu:2004]: a $\mu, \sigma^2$ pair is sampled from its distribution, and then a sample $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ from $N(\mu,\sigma^2)$ is propagated through $f$ to obtain a sample $Y_1,\ldots,Y_N$. One can then examine how the distribution of model outputs changes as function of $\mu,\sigma^2$, and hence explore both the effects of aleatory uncertainty within the population, and epistemic uncertainty about the population distribution parameters. The decision-maker may consider reducing uncertainty about $\mu,\sigma^2$ if this source of uncertainty appears relatively important.
Prior families of distributions for the mean and variance \[sec:families\]
==========================================================================
In this paper, we suppose that the expert’s uncertainty about $\mu$ can be represented by a normal distribution $$\mu \thicksim \mbox{N} (m, v),$$ and that her uncertainty about $\sigma^2$ can be represented by an inverse gamma distribution which we write as $$\sigma^2 \thicksim \mbox{IG} (a, b),$$ with density function, $$p(\sigma^2) = \frac{b^a}{\Gamma(a)} \sigma^{2^{-(a+1)}} \exp \left\{ \frac{-b}{\sigma^2} \right\}, \hspace{ 0.3 in} a , b > 0.$$ These are similar to the choices in [@KADANE:1980], except that their prior for $\mu$ was of the form $\mu | \sigma^2 \sim N(m, \sigma^2 v)$. In some cases, alternative families of distributions may be needed for $\mu$, and we discuss this further in Section \[sec:transform\]. The `SHELF` R package will fit either a gamma distribution or a lognormal distribution to the population precision $\sigma^{-2}$, though it would be difficult to claim any single choice of family as ‘optimal’ at this stage. After the expert has provided judgements and distributions have been fitted, we can use feedback to test whether these assumptions are acceptable to the expert; feedback is provided at several stages in our proposed method.
The proposed elicitation method {#sec:method}
===============================
For simplicity and ease of exposition, it is supposed that there is one female expert, and that the elicitation is conducted by a male facilitator. There are, of course, various general considerations when performing elicitation such as training of the experts, and how to manage (or combine opinions from) multiple experts. The focus of this paper is solely on how to elicit judgements about a mean and variance, and we do not consider these other issues here. Guidance on these and other aspects of elicitation can be found in [@EFSA:2014], [@Hagan:2006], [@Cooke:1991] and [@Morgan:1990].
Eliciting plausible bounds for $X_i$
------------------------------------
We first ask the expert to provide a lower plausible bound $L$ and an upper plausible bound $U$ for a member of the population $X_i$. She is told that $P(L<X_i<U)\simeq 1$ is assumed. Though we are assuming a normal distribution for the population, limits will still be needed when plotting density functions etc. to provide graphical feedback. Providing *two* bounds may also reduce the effect of the *anchoring and adjusting* heuristic: making a judgement by starting from an additional value, the anchor, and then making a, potentially insufficent, adjustment [@TVERSKY:1974] as the expert cannot use multiple anchors simultaneously.
Eliciting judgements about the population mean
----------------------------------------------
The expert is asked to provide at least two quantiles (denoted as $\mu_{(\alpha_1)}$ and $\mu_{(\alpha_2)}$) of her distribution of $\mu$ such that $$P (\mu \leq \mu_{(\alpha_i)}) = \alpha_i,$$ for $i=1,2$, and $0 < \alpha_1 < \alpha_2 < 1$. [@Garthwaite:2000] suggest eliciting lower and upper tertiles, and calibration studies tend to find performance worsens as more extreme quantiles are elicited [@Alpert:1969; @Lichtenstein:1981]. However, in our experience, experts may find moderate quantiles harder to judge, and so there can be a trade-off between aiming for the best calibration performance, and asking the experts questions that they are comfortable answering. We tend towards the latter, given that a population mean is a more abstract quantity than an individual observable population member. In our example, we elicited the 5th and 95th percentiles of the expert’s distribution of $\mu$.
If we denote the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution by $\Phi$, we have $$ \Phi^{-1} (\alpha_i) \sqrt{v} + m = \mu_{(\alpha_i)}, \\$$ and so we choose values for $m$ and $v$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{m} &=& \frac{\mu_{(\alpha_1)} \Phi^{-1}(\alpha_2) - \mu_{(\alpha_2)}\Phi^{-1}(\alpha_1)} {\Phi^{-1}(\alpha_2)-\Phi^{-1}(\alpha_1)}, \\
\hat{v} &=& \left( \frac{\mu_{(\alpha_2)}-\mu_{(\alpha_1)}}{\Phi^{-1}(\alpha_2)-\Phi^{-1}(\alpha_1)} \right)^2.\end{aligned}$$ The facilitator then feeds back different summaries of the fitted distribution, including showing the density function of N($\hat{m}, \hat{v}$). The expert may make adjustments until she is satisfied that the fitted distribution is a reasonable representation of her opinion about $\mu$.
Eliciting judgements about the population variance
--------------------------------------------------
To elicit the expert’s judgements about the population variance, she is asked to suppose that the population mean is known to be $\hat{m}$, her median value from the previous step. This is simply to enable the expert to consider uncertainty about the population variance in isolation; she is not required to update her beliefs (in any case, we are assuming independence between $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$). There remains a concern when providing hypothetical data: the expert may think differently if she had *actually observed* $\mu=\hat{m}$, but as $\hat{m}$ could be thought of as her ‘best guess’, she at least is not having to condition on a value of $\mu$ she considers implausible.
The expert is now asked to consider the proportion $\theta$ (or percentage if she prefers) of the population $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ that would lie in the interval $[\hat{m}, \hat{m}+c]$, for some $c>0$ (we consider the choice of $c$ in the next section). The expert will be uncertain about this proportion, because she is uncertain about $\sigma^2$. To illustrate this idea, suppose we wish to elicit an expert’s beliefs about end-of-year students’ marks for an undergraduate statistics module, for a large population of students. Suppose the marks are normally distributed with a mean of 60. Then there is a true proportion of students who will get marks between 60 and 70. If this expert is certain this proportion will be less that 0.45 and more than 0.25, this would imply she is certain $\sigma$ is between $6$ and $15$. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:shaded-proportion\].
(0,0) rectangle (354.12,252.94);
( 49.20, 61.20) rectangle (151.86,203.75);
( 53.00, 66.48) – ( 53.96, 66.48) – ( 54.92, 66.48) – ( 55.88, 66.48) – ( 56.84, 66.48) – ( 57.80, 66.48) – ( 58.76, 66.48) – ( 59.72, 66.48) – ( 60.68, 66.48) – ( 61.64, 66.48) – ( 62.60, 66.48) – ( 63.56, 66.48) – ( 64.52, 66.48) – ( 65.48, 66.48) – ( 66.44, 66.48) – ( 67.40, 66.48) – ( 68.37, 66.48) – ( 69.33, 66.49) – ( 70.29, 66.49) – ( 71.25, 66.50) – ( 72.21, 66.52) – ( 73.17, 66.55) – ( 74.13, 66.59) – ( 75.09, 66.67) – ( 76.05, 66.78) – ( 77.01, 66.95) – ( 77.97, 67.21) – ( 78.93, 67.59) – ( 79.89, 68.14) – ( 80.85, 68.91) – ( 81.81, 69.97) – ( 82.77, 71.40) – ( 83.73, 73.30) – ( 84.69, 75.77) – ( 85.65, 78.89) – ( 86.61, 82.78) – ( 87.57, 87.49) – ( 88.53, 93.07) – ( 89.49, 99.54) – ( 90.45,106.84) – ( 91.41,114.87) – ( 92.37,123.45) – ( 93.33,132.34) – ( 94.29,141.26) – ( 95.25,149.86) – ( 96.21,157.77) – ( 97.17,164.64) – ( 98.13,170.13) – ( 99.09,173.96) – (100.05,175.93) – (101.01,175.93) – (101.97,173.96) – (102.93,170.13) – (103.89,164.64) – (104.85,157.77) – (105.81,149.86) – (106.77,141.26) – (107.73,132.34) – (108.69,123.45) – (109.65,114.87) – (110.61,106.84) – (111.57, 99.54) – (112.53, 93.07) – (113.49, 87.49) – (114.45, 82.78) – (115.41, 78.89) – (116.37, 75.77) – (117.33, 73.30) – (118.29, 71.40) – (119.25, 69.97) – (120.21, 68.91) – (121.17, 68.14) – (122.13, 67.59) – (123.09, 67.21) – (124.05, 66.95) – (125.02, 66.78) – (125.98, 66.67) – (126.94, 66.59) – (127.90, 66.55) – (128.86, 66.52) – (129.82, 66.50) – (130.78, 66.49) – (131.74, 66.49) – (132.70, 66.48) – (133.66, 66.48) – (134.62, 66.48) – (135.58, 66.48) – (136.54, 66.48) – (137.50, 66.48) – (138.46, 66.48) – (139.42, 66.48) – (140.38, 66.48) – (141.34, 66.48) – (142.30, 66.48) – (143.26, 66.48) – (144.22, 66.48) – (145.18, 66.48) – (146.14, 66.48) – (147.10, 66.48) – (148.06, 66.48);
( 0.00, 0.00) rectangle (354.12,252.94);
( 53.00, 61.20) – (148.06, 61.20);
( 53.00, 61.20) – ( 53.00, 55.20);
( 76.77, 61.20) – ( 76.77, 55.20);
(100.53, 61.20) – (100.53, 55.20);
(124.29, 61.20) – (124.29, 55.20);
(148.06, 61.20) – (148.06, 55.20);
at ( 53.00, 39.60) [20]{};
at ( 76.77, 39.60) [40]{};
at (100.53, 39.60) [60]{};
at (124.29, 39.60) [80]{};
at (148.06, 39.60) [100]{};
( 49.20, 66.48) – ( 49.20,198.47);
( 49.20, 66.48) – ( 43.20, 66.48);
( 49.20, 99.48) – ( 43.20, 99.48);
( 49.20,132.47) – ( 43.20,132.47);
( 49.20,165.47) – ( 43.20,165.47);
( 49.20,198.47) – ( 43.20,198.47);
at ( 34.80, 66.48) [0.00]{};
at ( 34.80, 99.48) [0.02]{};
at ( 34.80,132.47) [0.04]{};
at ( 34.80,165.47) [0.06]{};
at ( 34.80,198.47) [0.08]{};
( 49.20, 61.20) – (151.86, 61.20) – (151.86,203.75) – ( 49.20,203.75) – ( 49.20, 61.20);
( 0.00, 0.00) rectangle (177.06,252.94);
at (100.53, 15.60) [$x$]{};
at ( 10.80,132.47) [$f_X(x|\mu=60, \sigma^2)$]{};
( 0.00, 0.00) rectangle (354.12,252.94);
at (100.53,212.14) [$\sigma=$ 6]{};
( 49.20, 61.20) rectangle (151.86,203.75);
(100.53, 66.48) – (100.53,176.18) – (100.65,176.16) – (100.77,176.11) – (100.89,176.04) – (101.01,175.93) – (101.13,175.79) – (101.25,175.62) – (101.37,175.42) – (101.49,175.19) – (101.61,174.93) – (101.73,174.63) – (101.85,174.31) – (101.97,173.96) – (102.09,173.58) – (102.21,173.17) – (102.33,172.73) – (102.45,172.27) – (102.57,171.78) – (102.69,171.25) – (102.81,170.71) – (102.93,170.13) – (103.05,169.53) – (103.17,168.91) – (103.29,168.25) – (103.41,167.58) – (103.53,166.88) – (103.65,166.16) – (103.77,165.41) – (103.89,164.64) – (104.01,163.85) – (104.13,163.04) – (104.25,162.21) – (104.37,161.36) – (104.49,160.49) – (104.61,159.60) – (104.73,158.70) – (104.85,157.77) – (104.97,156.83) – (105.09,155.88) – (105.21,154.91) – (105.33,153.92) – (105.45,152.92) – (105.57,151.91) – (105.69,150.89) – (105.81,149.86) – (105.93,148.81) – (106.05,147.76) – (106.17,146.69) – (106.29,145.62) – (106.41,144.54) – (106.53,143.45) – (106.65,142.36) – (106.77,141.26) – (106.89,140.15) – (107.01,139.05) – (107.13,137.93) – (107.25,136.82) – (107.37,135.70) – (107.49,134.58) – (107.61,133.46) – (107.73,132.34) – (107.85,131.22) – (107.97,130.10) – (108.09,128.99) – (108.21,127.87) – (108.33,126.76) – (108.45,125.65) – (108.57,124.55) – (108.69,123.45) – (108.81,122.35) – (108.93,121.26) – (109.05,120.18) – (109.17,119.10) – (109.29,118.03) – (109.41,116.97) – (109.53,115.91) – (109.65,114.87) – (109.77,113.83) – (109.89,112.80) – (110.01,111.78) – (110.13,110.77) – (110.25,109.77) – (110.37,108.78) – (110.49,107.81) – (110.61,106.84) – (110.73,105.88) – (110.85,104.94) – (110.97,104.01) – (111.09,103.09) – (111.21,102.18) – (111.33,101.29) – (111.45,100.41) – (111.57, 99.54) – (111.69, 98.68) – (111.81, 97.84) – (111.93, 97.01) – (112.05, 96.20) – (112.17, 95.40) – (112.29, 94.61) – (112.41, 93.83) – (112.41, 66.48) – cycle;
(226.26, 61.20) rectangle (328.92,203.75);
(230.06, 67.73) – (231.02, 67.92) – (231.98, 68.14) – (232.94, 68.38) – (233.90, 68.66) – (234.86, 68.96) – (235.82, 69.30) – (236.78, 69.67) – (237.75, 70.08) – (238.71, 70.54) – (239.67, 71.04) – (240.63, 71.59) – (241.59, 72.18) – (242.55, 72.83) – (243.51, 73.53) – (244.47, 74.28) – (245.43, 75.09) – (246.39, 75.95) – (247.35, 76.88) – (248.31, 77.86) – (249.27, 78.89) – (250.23, 79.98) – (251.19, 81.12) – (252.15, 82.32) – (253.11, 83.56) – (254.07, 84.84) – (255.03, 86.17) – (255.99, 87.53) – (256.95, 88.92) – (257.91, 90.33) – (258.87, 91.75) – (259.83, 93.18) – (260.79, 94.62) – (261.75, 96.04) – (262.71, 97.44) – (263.67, 98.82) – (264.63,100.16) – (265.59,101.46) – (266.55,102.70) – (267.51,103.87) – (268.47,104.97) – (269.43,105.99) – (270.39,106.92) – (271.35,107.75) – (272.31,108.47) – (273.27,109.09) – (274.23,109.59) – (275.19,109.96) – (276.15,110.22) – (277.11,110.34) – (278.07,110.34) – (279.03,110.22) – (279.99,109.96) – (280.95,109.59) – (281.91,109.09) – (282.87,108.47) – (283.83,107.75) – (284.79,106.92) – (285.75,105.99) – (286.71,104.97) – (287.67,103.87) – (288.63,102.70) – (289.59,101.46) – (290.55,100.16) – (291.51, 98.82) – (292.47, 97.44) – (293.44, 96.04) – (294.40, 94.62) – (295.36, 93.18) – (296.32, 91.75) – (297.28, 90.33) – (298.24, 88.92) – (299.20, 87.53) – (300.16, 86.17) – (301.12, 84.84) – (302.08, 83.56) – (303.04, 82.32) – (304.00, 81.12) – (304.96, 79.98) – (305.92, 78.89) – (306.88, 77.86) – (307.84, 76.88) – (308.80, 75.95) – (309.76, 75.09) – (310.72, 74.28) – (311.68, 73.53) – (312.64, 72.83) – (313.60, 72.18) – (314.56, 71.59) – (315.52, 71.04) – (316.48, 70.54) – (317.44, 70.08) – (318.40, 69.67) – (319.36, 69.30) – (320.32, 68.96) – (321.28, 68.66) – (322.24, 68.38) – (323.20, 68.14) – (324.16, 67.92) – (325.12, 67.73);
( 0.00, 0.00) rectangle (354.12,252.94);
(230.06, 61.20) – (325.12, 61.20);
(230.06, 61.20) – (230.06, 55.20);
(253.83, 61.20) – (253.83, 55.20);
(277.59, 61.20) – (277.59, 55.20);
(301.36, 61.20) – (301.36, 55.20);
(325.12, 61.20) – (325.12, 55.20);
at (230.06, 39.60) [20]{};
at (253.83, 39.60) [40]{};
at (277.59, 39.60) [60]{};
at (301.36, 39.60) [80]{};
at (325.12, 39.60) [100]{};
(226.26, 66.48) – (226.26,198.47);
(226.26, 66.48) – (220.26, 66.48);
(226.26, 99.48) – (220.26, 99.48);
(226.26,132.47) – (220.26,132.47);
(226.26,165.47) – (220.26,165.47);
(226.26,198.47) – (220.26,198.47);
at (211.86, 66.48) [0.00]{};
at (211.86, 99.48) [0.02]{};
at (211.86,132.47) [0.04]{};
at (211.86,165.47) [0.06]{};
at (211.86,198.47) [0.08]{};
(226.26, 61.20) – (328.92, 61.20) – (328.92,203.75) – (226.26,203.75) – (226.26, 61.20);
(177.06, 0.00) rectangle (354.12,252.94);
at (277.59, 15.60) [$x$]{};
at (187.86,132.47) [$f_X(x|\mu=60, \sigma^2)$]{};
( 0.00, 0.00) rectangle (354.12,252.94);
at (277.59,212.14) [$\sigma=$ 15]{};
(226.26, 61.20) rectangle (328.92,203.75);
(277.59, 66.48) – (277.59,110.36) – (277.71,110.36) – (277.83,110.35) – (277.95,110.35) – (278.07,110.34) – (278.19,110.33) – (278.31,110.32) – (278.43,110.31) – (278.55,110.29) – (278.67,110.28) – (278.79,110.26) – (278.91,110.24) – (279.03,110.22) – (279.15,110.19) – (279.27,110.16) – (279.39,110.14) – (279.51,110.10) – (279.63,110.07) – (279.75,110.04) – (279.87,110.00) – (279.99,109.96) – (280.11,109.92) – (280.23,109.88) – (280.35,109.84) – (280.47,109.79) – (280.59,109.74) – (280.71,109.69) – (280.83,109.64) – (280.95,109.59) – (281.07,109.53) – (281.19,109.47) – (281.31,109.41) – (281.43,109.35) – (281.55,109.29) – (281.67,109.22) – (281.79,109.16) – (281.91,109.09) – (282.03,109.02) – (282.15,108.95) – (282.27,108.87) – (282.39,108.80) – (282.51,108.72) – (282.63,108.64) – (282.75,108.56) – (282.87,108.47) – (282.99,108.39) – (283.11,108.30) – (283.23,108.21) – (283.35,108.13) – (283.47,108.03) – (283.59,107.94) – (283.71,107.85) – (283.83,107.75) – (283.95,107.65) – (284.07,107.55) – (284.19,107.45) – (284.31,107.35) – (284.43,107.24) – (284.55,107.14) – (284.67,107.03) – (284.79,106.92) – (284.91,106.81) – (285.03,106.70) – (285.15,106.58) – (285.27,106.47) – (285.39,106.35) – (285.51,106.23) – (285.63,106.11) – (285.75,105.99) – (285.87,105.87) – (285.99,105.74) – (286.11,105.62) – (286.23,105.49) – (286.35,105.36) – (286.47,105.24) – (286.59,105.10) – (286.71,104.97) – (286.83,104.84) – (286.95,104.70) – (287.07,104.57) – (287.19,104.43) – (287.31,104.29) – (287.43,104.15) – (287.55,104.01) – (287.67,103.87) – (287.79,103.73) – (287.91,103.58) – (288.03,103.44) – (288.15,103.29) – (288.27,103.15) – (288.39,103.00) – (288.51,102.85) – (288.63,102.70) – (288.75,102.54) – (288.87,102.39) – (288.99,102.24) – (289.11,102.08) – (289.23,101.93) – (289.35,101.77) – (289.47,101.62) – (289.47, 66.48) – cycle;
Again, to ease the elicitation process, we suggest eliciting tail quantiles of $\theta$ because the expert may be more willing to judge tail quantiles as argued earlier. Hence the expert is asked for the 5th and 95th percentiles of the population proportion, which we denote by $\theta_{(0.05)}$ and $\theta_{(0.95)}$ respectively, and these are described to the expert as approximate lower and upper limits.
It may help the expert to explicitly consider the two intervals $[\hat{m}, \hat{m}+c]$ and $(\hat{m}+c, U]$ and consider how the population is distributed between these two intervals. For example, for an appropriate choice of $c$, she might judge a split of 2%-48% across the two intervals highly unlikely, which can help prompt judgements of more plausible allocations (though the facilitator should remain cautious of anchoring effects). If the expert prefers to report judgements on the 0-1 scale rather than the 0-0.5 scale, she could instead be asked to consider the proportion in $[\hat{m}, \hat{m}+c]$, out of those known to be greater than $\hat{m}$.
The facilitator uses the expert’s judgements $\theta_{(0.05)}$ and $\theta_{(0.95)}$ to infer the corresponding quantiles of her distribution for the variance, ${\sigma}^2_{(0.95)}$ and ${\sigma}^2_{(0.05)}$. It is straightforward to show that $${\sigma}^2_{(\alpha)} = \left( \frac{c}{\Phi^{-1} \left( \theta_{(1-\alpha)} + \frac{1}{2} \right)}\right)^2,\label{equ:sigma-quantile}$$ for $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
The facilitator chooses $a$ and $b$ to be $$\label{equ:fitting-sigma}
\hat{a}, \hat{b} = \underset{a, b}{\operatorname{arg-min}} \left[ \left\{F_{\sigma^2}\left(\hat{\sigma}^2_{(0.05)}; a , b \right) - 0.05\right\}^2 + \left\{F_{\sigma^2}\left(\hat{\sigma}^2_{(0.95)}; a , b\right) - 0.95\right\}^2 \right],$$ where $F_{\sigma^2}(\cdot; a , b )$ is the CDF of the IG distribution. The minimisation cannot be done analytically so numerical optimisation is applied.
The expert would may find it hard to visualise her judgements from the fitted IG distribution since $\sigma^2$ is not directly observable. Therefore, we suggest showing the expert two density plots of the population distribution with a fixed mean and the two calculated quantiles of the variance, $ \mbox{N} (\hat{m}, {\sigma}^2_{(0.05)})$ and $\mbox{N} (\hat{m}, {\sigma}^2_{(0.95)})$. The expert visualises the variation in the distribution of $X_i$ based on her judgements about $\theta$, and then confirms whether the fitted IG distribution is a reasonable representation of her opinion about $\sigma^2$.
To summarise, the expert is asked to make six judgements, as set out in Table \[tab:elicited-questions\].
***Notation*** ***Elicitation Question / Definition***
------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$L$ What is your lower plausible bound for the quantity of interest where is it mostly unlikely for any $X_i$ to take values less than $L$?
$U$ What is your upper plausible bound for the quantity of interest where is it mostly unlikely for any $X_i$ to take values more than $U$?
$\mu_{\alpha_1}$ What is your $\alpha_1$ quantile of the population mean?
$\mu_{\alpha_2}$ What is your $\alpha_2$ quantile of the population mean?
$\theta$ Suppose the population mean is known to be $\hat{m}$. Then let $\theta$ denote the proportion of members of population that will lie in the interval $[\hat{m}, \hat{m}+c]$.
$\theta_{(0.05)}$ What is your 5th percentile of the unknown proportion $\theta$ that will lie in the given interval?
$\theta_{(0.95)}$ What is your 95th percentile of the unknown proportion $\theta$ that will lie in the given interval?
: The elicitation questions with the corresponding notation.[]{data-label="tab:elicited-questions"}
### Choice of $c$
Theoretically, regardless of the choice of $c$, the expert will have a 5th and 95th percentile for her corresponding proportion $\theta$, from which the hyperparameters $a$ and $b$ can be determined. However, the expert may find the elicitation task particularly difficult for certain choices of $c$, for example, for sufficiently large $c$, the expert may simply be certain that $\theta$ will be 0.5. In any case, there is likely to be some vagueness to the expert’s judgements: for example, she may state $\theta_{(0.95)}=0.4$, but express indifference to an alternative value such as 0.35. Hence, in practice, some choices of $c$ may be better than others, both in helping the expert to consider her percentiles for $\theta$, and in making the produce more robust to vaguely expressed judgements.
Given the relationship between $\theta$ and $\sigma^2$ in equation (\[equ:sigma-quantile\]), we consider relative changes in $\sigma$ as $\theta$ varies and so consider $\log \sigma$ as a function of $\theta$: $$\log \sigma = \log c - \Phi^{-1}(\theta + 0.5).$$ We plot this relationship (ignoring the $\log c$ term) in Figure \[fig:theta-sigma\]. The gradient is fairly constant and at its minimum over the range $[0.2, 0.45]$, so to make the procedure as robust as possible it would be desirable for the expert to report her quantiles for $\theta$ outside this interval. In particular, if the expert reports $\theta_{(0.05)}$ of say 0.05 or 0.1, the implied 95th percentile for $\sigma$ could change more appreciably given minor adjustments to $\theta_{(0.05)}$. In this case, the facilitator could consider repeating the process with a larger value of $c$.
\[fig:theta-sigma\]
(0,0) rectangle (252.94,252.94);
( 49.20, 61.20) rectangle (227.75,203.75);
( 55.81,198.47) – ( 55.98,197.85) – ( 56.14,197.24) – ( 56.31,196.64) – ( 56.47,196.05) – ( 56.64,195.48) – ( 56.81,194.91) – ( 56.97,194.35) – ( 57.14,193.81) – ( 57.30,193.27) – ( 57.47,192.74) – ( 57.63,192.22) – ( 57.80,191.70) – ( 57.96,191.20) – ( 58.13,190.70) – ( 58.30,190.21) – ( 58.46,189.72) – ( 58.63,189.25) – ( 58.79,188.78) – ( 58.96,188.31) – ( 59.12,187.86) – ( 59.29,187.41) – ( 59.45,186.96) – ( 59.62,186.52) – ( 59.78,186.09) – ( 59.95,185.66) – ( 60.12,185.24) – ( 60.28,184.83) – ( 60.45,184.41) – ( 60.61,184.01) – ( 60.78,183.61) – ( 60.94,183.21) – ( 61.11,182.82) – ( 61.27,182.43) – ( 61.44,182.05) – ( 61.60,181.67) – ( 61.77,181.29) – ( 61.94,180.92) – ( 62.10,180.56) – ( 62.27,180.20) – ( 62.43,179.84) – ( 62.60,179.48) – ( 62.76,179.13) – ( 62.93,178.78) – ( 63.09,178.44) – ( 63.26,178.10) – ( 63.43,177.76) – ( 63.59,177.43) – ( 63.76,177.10) – ( 63.92,176.78) – ( 64.09,176.45) – ( 64.25,176.13) – ( 64.42,175.81) – ( 64.58,175.50) – ( 64.75,175.19) – ( 64.91,174.88) – ( 65.08,174.57) – ( 65.25,174.27) – ( 65.41,173.97) – ( 65.58,173.67) – ( 65.74,173.38) – ( 65.91,173.09) – ( 66.07,172.80) – ( 66.24,172.51) – ( 66.40,172.22) – ( 66.57,171.94) – ( 66.73,171.66) – ( 66.90,171.38) – ( 67.07,171.11) – ( 67.23,170.84) – ( 67.40,170.56) – ( 67.56,170.30) – ( 67.73,170.03) – ( 67.89,169.76) – ( 68.06,169.50) – ( 68.22,169.24) – ( 68.39,168.98) – ( 68.56,168.73) – ( 68.72,168.47) – ( 68.89,168.22) – ( 69.05,167.97) – ( 69.22,167.72) – ( 69.38,167.47) – ( 69.55,167.23) – ( 69.71,166.98) – ( 69.88,166.74) – ( 70.04,166.50) – ( 70.21,166.26) – ( 70.38,166.03) – ( 70.54,165.79) – ( 70.71,165.56) – ( 70.87,165.33) – ( 71.04,165.10) – ( 71.20,164.87) – ( 71.37,164.64) – ( 71.53,164.41) – ( 71.70,164.19) – ( 71.86,163.97) – ( 72.03,163.75) – ( 72.20,163.53) – ( 72.36,163.31) – ( 72.53,163.09) – ( 72.69,162.87) – ( 72.86,162.66) – ( 73.02,162.45) – ( 73.19,162.24) – ( 73.35,162.03) – ( 73.52,161.82) – ( 73.69,161.61) – ( 73.85,161.40) – ( 74.02,161.20) – ( 74.18,160.99) – ( 74.35,160.79) – ( 74.51,160.59) – ( 74.68,160.39) – ( 74.84,160.19) – ( 75.01,159.99) – ( 75.17,159.79) – ( 75.34,159.60) – ( 75.51,159.40) – ( 75.67,159.21) – ( 75.84,159.02) – ( 76.00,158.82) – ( 76.17,158.63) – ( 76.33,158.44) – ( 76.50,158.26) – ( 76.66,158.07) – ( 76.83,157.88) – ( 76.99,157.70) – ( 77.16,157.51) – ( 77.33,157.33) – ( 77.49,157.15) – ( 77.66,156.97) – ( 77.82,156.79) – ( 77.99,156.61) – ( 78.15,156.43) – ( 78.32,156.25) – ( 78.48,156.07) – ( 78.65,155.90) – ( 78.82,155.72) – ( 78.98,155.55) – ( 79.15,155.37) – ( 79.31,155.20) – ( 79.48,155.03) – ( 79.64,154.86) – ( 79.81,154.69) – ( 79.97,154.52) – ( 80.14,154.35) – ( 80.30,154.19) – ( 80.47,154.02) – ( 80.64,153.85) – ( 80.80,153.69) – ( 80.97,153.52) – ( 81.13,153.36) – ( 81.30,153.20) – ( 81.46,153.04) – ( 81.63,152.87) – ( 81.79,152.71) – ( 81.96,152.55) – ( 82.12,152.39) – ( 82.29,152.24) – ( 82.46,152.08) – ( 82.62,151.92) – ( 82.79,151.77) – ( 82.95,151.61) – ( 83.12,151.46) – ( 83.28,151.30) – ( 83.45,151.15) – ( 83.61,150.99) – ( 83.78,150.84) – ( 83.95,150.69) – ( 84.11,150.54) – ( 84.28,150.39) – ( 84.44,150.24) – ( 84.61,150.09) – ( 84.77,149.94) – ( 84.94,149.80) – ( 85.10,149.65) – ( 85.27,149.50) – ( 85.43,149.36) – ( 85.60,149.21) – ( 85.77,149.07) – ( 85.93,148.92) – ( 86.10,148.78) – ( 86.26,148.63) – ( 86.43,148.49) – ( 86.59,148.35) – ( 86.76,148.21) – ( 86.92,148.07) – ( 87.09,147.93) – ( 87.25,147.79) – ( 87.42,147.65) – ( 87.59,147.51) – ( 87.75,147.37) – ( 87.92,147.24) – ( 88.08,147.10) – ( 88.25,146.96) – ( 88.41,146.83) – ( 88.58,146.69) – ( 88.74,146.56) – ( 88.91,146.42) – ( 89.08,146.29) – ( 89.24,146.15) – ( 89.41,146.02) – ( 89.57,145.89) – ( 89.74,145.76) – ( 89.90,145.62) – ( 90.07,145.49) – ( 90.23,145.36) – ( 90.40,145.23) – ( 90.56,145.10) – ( 90.73,144.97) – ( 90.90,144.84) – ( 91.06,144.72) – ( 91.23,144.59) – ( 91.39,144.46) – ( 91.56,144.33) – ( 91.72,144.21) – ( 91.89,144.08) – ( 92.05,143.96) – ( 92.22,143.83) – ( 92.38,143.71) – ( 92.55,143.58) – ( 92.72,143.46) – ( 92.88,143.33) – ( 93.05,143.21) – ( 93.21,143.09) – ( 93.38,142.97) – ( 93.54,142.84) – ( 93.71,142.72) – ( 93.87,142.60) – ( 94.04,142.48) – ( 94.21,142.36) – ( 94.37,142.24) – ( 94.54,142.12) – ( 94.70,142.00) – ( 94.87,141.88) – ( 95.03,141.76) – ( 95.20,141.65) – ( 95.36,141.53) – ( 95.53,141.41) – ( 95.69,141.29) – ( 95.86,141.18) – ( 96.03,141.06) – ( 96.19,140.94) – ( 96.36,140.83) – ( 96.52,140.71) – ( 96.69,140.60) – ( 96.85,140.48) – ( 97.02,140.37) – ( 97.18,140.26) – ( 97.35,140.14) – ( 97.51,140.03) – ( 97.68,139.92) – ( 97.85,139.80) – ( 98.01,139.69) – ( 98.18,139.58) – ( 98.34,139.47) – ( 98.51,139.36) – ( 98.67,139.25) – ( 98.84,139.14) – ( 99.00,139.03) – ( 99.17,138.92) – ( 99.34,138.81) – ( 99.50,138.70) – ( 99.67,138.59) – ( 99.83,138.48) – (100.00,138.37) – (100.16,138.26) – (100.33,138.16) – (100.49,138.05) – (100.66,137.94) – (100.82,137.83) – (100.99,137.73) – (101.16,137.62) – (101.32,137.52) – (101.49,137.41) – (101.65,137.30) – (101.82,137.20) – (101.98,137.09) – (102.15,136.99) – (102.31,136.89) – (102.48,136.78) – (102.65,136.68) – (102.81,136.57) – (102.98,136.47) – (103.14,136.37) – (103.31,136.27) – (103.47,136.16) – (103.64,136.06) – (103.80,135.96) – (103.97,135.86) – (104.13,135.76) – (104.30,135.66) – (104.47,135.55) – (104.63,135.45) – (104.80,135.35) – (104.96,135.25) – (105.13,135.15) – (105.29,135.05) – (105.46,134.95) – (105.62,134.86) – (105.79,134.76) – (105.95,134.66) – (106.12,134.56) – (106.29,134.46) – (106.45,134.36) – (106.62,134.27) – (106.78,134.17) – (106.95,134.07) – (107.11,133.97) – (107.28,133.88) – (107.44,133.78) – (107.61,133.68) – (107.78,133.59) – (107.94,133.49) – (108.11,133.40) – (108.27,133.30) – (108.44,133.21) – (108.60,133.11) – (108.77,133.02) – (108.93,132.92) – (109.10,132.83) – (109.26,132.73) – (109.43,132.64) – (109.60,132.55) – (109.76,132.45) – (109.93,132.36) – (110.09,132.27) – (110.26,132.17) – (110.42,132.08) – (110.59,131.99) – (110.75,131.90) – (110.92,131.80) – (111.08,131.71) – (111.25,131.62) – (111.42,131.53) – (111.58,131.44) – (111.75,131.35) – (111.91,131.25) – (112.08,131.16) – (112.24,131.07) – (112.41,130.98) – (112.57,130.89) – (112.74,130.80) – (112.91,130.71) – (113.07,130.62) – (113.24,130.53) – (113.40,130.45) – (113.57,130.36) – (113.73,130.27) – (113.90,130.18) – (114.06,130.09) – (114.23,130.00) – (114.39,129.91) – (114.56,129.83) – (114.73,129.74) – (114.89,129.65) – (115.06,129.56) – (115.22,129.48) – (115.39,129.39) – (115.55,129.30) – (115.72,129.21) – (115.88,129.13) – (116.05,129.04) – (116.21,128.96) – (116.38,128.87) – (116.55,128.78) – (116.71,128.70) – (116.88,128.61) – (117.04,128.53) – (117.21,128.44) – (117.37,128.36) – (117.54,128.27) – (117.70,128.19) – (117.87,128.10) – (118.04,128.02) – (118.20,127.93) – (118.37,127.85) – (118.53,127.76) – (118.70,127.68) – (118.86,127.60) – (119.03,127.51) – (119.19,127.43) – (119.36,127.35) – (119.52,127.26) – (119.69,127.18) – (119.86,127.10) – (120.02,127.02) – (120.19,126.93) – (120.35,126.85) – (120.52,126.77) – (120.68,126.69) – (120.85,126.60) – (121.01,126.52) – (121.18,126.44) – (121.34,126.36) – (121.51,126.28) – (121.68,126.20) – (121.84,126.11) – (122.01,126.03) – (122.17,125.95) – (122.34,125.87) – (122.50,125.79) – (122.67,125.71) – (122.83,125.63) – (123.00,125.55) – (123.17,125.47) – (123.33,125.39) – (123.50,125.31) – (123.66,125.23) – (123.83,125.15) – (123.99,125.07) – (124.16,124.99) – (124.32,124.91) – (124.49,124.83) – (124.65,124.76) – (124.82,124.68) – (124.99,124.60) – (125.15,124.52) – (125.32,124.44) – (125.48,124.36) – (125.65,124.28) – (125.81,124.21) – (125.98,124.13) – (126.14,124.05) – (126.31,123.97) – (126.47,123.89) – (126.64,123.82) – (126.81,123.74) – (126.97,123.66) – (127.14,123.59) – (127.30,123.51) – (127.47,123.43) – (127.63,123.35) – (127.80,123.28) – (127.96,123.20) – (128.13,123.12) – (128.30,123.05) – (128.46,122.97) – (128.63,122.90) – (128.79,122.82) – (128.96,122.74) – (129.12,122.67) – (129.29,122.59) – (129.45,122.52) – (129.62,122.44) – (129.78,122.37) – (129.95,122.29) – (130.12,122.22) – (130.28,122.14) – (130.45,122.07) – (130.61,121.99) – (130.78,121.92) – (130.94,121.84) – (131.11,121.77) – (131.27,121.69) – (131.44,121.62) – (131.60,121.54) – (131.77,121.47) – (131.94,121.39) – (132.10,121.32) – (132.27,121.25) – (132.43,121.17) – (132.60,121.10) – (132.76,121.02) – (132.93,120.95) – (133.09,120.88) – (133.26,120.80) – (133.43,120.73) – (133.59,120.66) – (133.76,120.58) – (133.92,120.51) – (134.09,120.44) – (134.25,120.37) – (134.42,120.29) – (134.58,120.22) – (134.75,120.15) – (134.91,120.08) – (135.08,120.00) – (135.25,119.93) – (135.41,119.86) – (135.58,119.79) – (135.74,119.71) – (135.91,119.64) – (136.07,119.57) – (136.24,119.50) – (136.40,119.43) – (136.57,119.36) – (136.73,119.28) – (136.90,119.21) – (137.07,119.14) – (137.23,119.07) – (137.40,119.00) – (137.56,118.93) – (137.73,118.86) – (137.89,118.78) – (138.06,118.71) – (138.22,118.64) – (138.39,118.57) – (138.56,118.50) – (138.72,118.43) – (138.89,118.36) – (139.05,118.29) – (139.22,118.22) – (139.38,118.15) – (139.55,118.08) – (139.71,118.01) – (139.88,117.94) – (140.04,117.87) – (140.21,117.80) – (140.38,117.73) – (140.54,117.66) – (140.71,117.59) – (140.87,117.52) – (141.04,117.45) – (141.20,117.38) – (141.37,117.31) – (141.53,117.24) – (141.70,117.17) – (141.86,117.10) – (142.03,117.03) – (142.20,116.96) – (142.36,116.89) – (142.53,116.82) – (142.69,116.76) – (142.86,116.69) – (143.02,116.62) – (143.19,116.55) – (143.35,116.48) – (143.52,116.41) – (143.69,116.34) – (143.85,116.27) – (144.02,116.21) – (144.18,116.14) – (144.35,116.07) – (144.51,116.00) – (144.68,115.93) – (144.84,115.86) – (145.01,115.80) – (145.17,115.73) – (145.34,115.66) – (145.51,115.59) – (145.67,115.52) – (145.84,115.46) – (146.00,115.39) – (146.17,115.32) – (146.33,115.25) – (146.50,115.18) – (146.66,115.12) – (146.83,115.05) – (146.99,114.98) – (147.16,114.91) – (147.33,114.85) – (147.49,114.78) – (147.66,114.71) – (147.82,114.64) – (147.99,114.58) – (148.15,114.51) – (148.32,114.44) – (148.48,114.38) – (148.65,114.31) – (148.82,114.24) – (148.98,114.17) – (149.15,114.11) – (149.31,114.04) – (149.48,113.97) – (149.64,113.91) – (149.81,113.84) – (149.97,113.77) – (150.14,113.71) – (150.30,113.64) – (150.47,113.57) – (150.64,113.51) – (150.80,113.44) – (150.97,113.37) – (151.13,113.31) – (151.30,113.24) – (151.46,113.18) – (151.63,113.11) – (151.79,113.04) – (151.96,112.98) – (152.13,112.91) – (152.29,112.84) – (152.46,112.78) – (152.62,112.71) – (152.79,112.65) – (152.95,112.58) – (153.12,112.51) – (153.28,112.45) – (153.45,112.38) – (153.61,112.32) – (153.78,112.25) – (153.95,112.19) – (154.11,112.12) – (154.28,112.05) – (154.44,111.99) – (154.61,111.92) – (154.77,111.86) – (154.94,111.79) – (155.10,111.73) – (155.27,111.66) – (155.43,111.59) – (155.60,111.53) – (155.77,111.46) – (155.93,111.40) – (156.10,111.33) – (156.26,111.27) – (156.43,111.20) – (156.59,111.14) – (156.76,111.07) – (156.92,111.01) – (157.09,110.94) – (157.26,110.88) – (157.42,110.81) – (157.59,110.75) – (157.75,110.68) – (157.92,110.62) – (158.08,110.55) – (158.25,110.49) – (158.41,110.42) – (158.58,110.36) – (158.74,110.29) – (158.91,110.23) – (159.08,110.16) – (159.24,110.10) – (159.41,110.03) – (159.57,109.97) – (159.74,109.90) – (159.90,109.84) – (160.07,109.77) – (160.23,109.71) – (160.40,109.64) – (160.56,109.58) – (160.73,109.51) – (160.90,109.45) – (161.06,109.38) – (161.23,109.32) – (161.39,109.25) – (161.56,109.19) – (161.72,109.12) – (161.89,109.06) – (162.05,108.99) – (162.22,108.93) – (162.39,108.86) – (162.55,108.80) – (162.72,108.74) – (162.88,108.67) – (163.05,108.61) – (163.21,108.54) – (163.38,108.48) – (163.54,108.41) – (163.71,108.35) – (163.87,108.28) – (164.04,108.22) – (164.21,108.15) – (164.37,108.09) – (164.54,108.02) – (164.70,107.96) – (164.87,107.90) – (165.03,107.83) – (165.20,107.77) – (165.36,107.70) – (165.53,107.64) – (165.69,107.57) – (165.86,107.51) – (166.03,107.44) – (166.19,107.38) – (166.36,107.31) – (166.52,107.25) – (166.69,107.19) – (166.85,107.12) – (167.02,107.06) – (167.18,106.99) – (167.35,106.93) – (167.52,106.86) – (167.68,106.80) – (167.85,106.73) – (168.01,106.67) – (168.18,106.60) – (168.34,106.54) – (168.51,106.48) – (168.67,106.41) – (168.84,106.35) – (169.00,106.28) – (169.17,106.22) – (169.34,106.15) – (169.50,106.09) – (169.67,106.02) – (169.83,105.96) – (170.00,105.89) – (170.16,105.83) – (170.33,105.76) – (170.49,105.70) – (170.66,105.63) – (170.82,105.57) – (170.99,105.51) – (171.16,105.44) – (171.32,105.38) – (171.49,105.31) – (171.65,105.25) – (171.82,105.18) – (171.98,105.12) – (172.15,105.05) – (172.31,104.99) – (172.48,104.92) – (172.65,104.86) – (172.81,104.79) – (172.98,104.73) – (173.14,104.66) – (173.31,104.60) – (173.47,104.53) – (173.64,104.47) – (173.80,104.40) – (173.97,104.34) – (174.13,104.27) – (174.30,104.21) – (174.47,104.14) – (174.63,104.08) – (174.80,104.01) – (174.96,103.94) – (175.13,103.88) – (175.29,103.81) – (175.46,103.75) – (175.62,103.68) – (175.79,103.62) – (175.95,103.55) – (176.12,103.49) – (176.29,103.42) – (176.45,103.36) – (176.62,103.29) – (176.78,103.22) – (176.95,103.16) – (177.11,103.09) – (177.28,103.03) – (177.44,102.96) – (177.61,102.89) – (177.78,102.83) – (177.94,102.76) – (178.11,102.70) – (178.27,102.63) – (178.44,102.56) – (178.60,102.50) – (178.77,102.43) – (178.93,102.37) – (179.10,102.30) – (179.26,102.23) – (179.43,102.17) – (179.60,102.10) – (179.76,102.03) – (179.93,101.97) – (180.09,101.90) – (180.26,101.83) – (180.42,101.77) – (180.59,101.70) – (180.75,101.63) – (180.92,101.57) – (181.08,101.50) – (181.25,101.43) – (181.42,101.37) – (181.58,101.30) – (181.75,101.23) – (181.91,101.16) – (182.08,101.10) – (182.24,101.03) – (182.41,100.96) – (182.57,100.89) – (182.74,100.83) – (182.91,100.76) – (183.07,100.69) – (183.24,100.62) – (183.40,100.56) – (183.57,100.49) – (183.73,100.42) – (183.90,100.35) – (184.06,100.28) – (184.23,100.22) – (184.39,100.15) – (184.56,100.08) – (184.73,100.01) – (184.89, 99.94) – (185.06, 99.87) – (185.22, 99.80) – (185.39, 99.73) – (185.55, 99.67) – (185.72, 99.60) – (185.88, 99.53) – (186.05, 99.46) – (186.21, 99.39) – (186.38, 99.32) – (186.55, 99.25) – (186.71, 99.18) – (186.88, 99.11) – (187.04, 99.04) – (187.21, 98.97) – (187.37, 98.90) – (187.54, 98.83) – (187.70, 98.76) – (187.87, 98.69) – (188.04, 98.62) – (188.20, 98.55) – (188.37, 98.48) – (188.53, 98.41) – (188.70, 98.34) – (188.86, 98.27) – (189.03, 98.20) – (189.19, 98.13) – (189.36, 98.05) – (189.52, 97.98) – (189.69, 97.91) – (189.86, 97.84) – (190.02, 97.77) – (190.19, 97.70) – (190.35, 97.62) – (190.52, 97.55) – (190.68, 97.48) – (190.85, 97.41) – (191.01, 97.33) – (191.18, 97.26) – (191.34, 97.19) – (191.51, 97.12) – (191.68, 97.04) – (191.84, 96.97) – (192.01, 96.90) – (192.17, 96.82) – (192.34, 96.75) – (192.50, 96.67) – (192.67, 96.60) – (192.83, 96.53) – (193.00, 96.45) – (193.17, 96.38) – (193.33, 96.30) – (193.50, 96.23) – (193.66, 96.15) – (193.83, 96.08) – (193.99, 96.00) – (194.16, 95.93) – (194.32, 95.85) – (194.49, 95.78) – (194.65, 95.70) – (194.82, 95.62) – (194.99, 95.55) – (195.15, 95.47) – (195.32, 95.39) – (195.48, 95.32) – (195.65, 95.24) – (195.81, 95.16) – (195.98, 95.08) – (196.14, 95.01) – (196.31, 94.93) – (196.47, 94.85) – (196.64, 94.77) – (196.81, 94.69) – (196.97, 94.61) – (197.14, 94.54) – (197.30, 94.46) – (197.47, 94.38) – (197.63, 94.30) – (197.80, 94.22) – (197.96, 94.14) – (198.13, 94.06) – (198.30, 93.98) – (198.46, 93.89) – (198.63, 93.81) – (198.79, 93.73) – (198.96, 93.65) – (199.12, 93.57) – (199.29, 93.49) – (199.45, 93.40) – (199.62, 93.32) – (199.78, 93.24) – (199.95, 93.15) – (200.12, 93.07) – (200.28, 92.99) – (200.45, 92.90) – (200.61, 92.82) – (200.78, 92.73) – (200.94, 92.65) – (201.11, 92.56) – (201.27, 92.47) – (201.44, 92.39) – (201.61, 92.30) – (201.77, 92.21) – (201.94, 92.13) – (202.10, 92.04) – (202.27, 91.95) – (202.43, 91.86) – (202.60, 91.77) – (202.76, 91.68) – (202.93, 91.59) – (203.09, 91.50) – (203.26, 91.41) – (203.43, 91.32) – (203.59, 91.23) – (203.76, 91.14) – (203.92, 91.05) – (204.09, 90.96) – (204.25, 90.86) – (204.42, 90.77) – (204.58, 90.68) – (204.75, 90.58) – (204.91, 90.49) – (205.08, 90.39) – (205.25, 90.29) – (205.41, 90.20) – (205.58, 90.10) – (205.74, 90.00) – (205.91, 89.91) – (206.07, 89.81) – (206.24, 89.71) – (206.40, 89.61) – (206.57, 89.51) – (206.74, 89.41) – (206.90, 89.30) – (207.07, 89.20) – (207.23, 89.10) – (207.40, 89.00) – (207.56, 88.89) – (207.73, 88.79) – (207.89, 88.68) – (208.06, 88.57) – (208.22, 88.47) – (208.39, 88.36) – (208.56, 88.25) – (208.72, 88.14) – (208.89, 88.03) – (209.05, 87.92) – (209.22, 87.81) – (209.38, 87.69) – (209.55, 87.58) – (209.71, 87.47) – (209.88, 87.35) – (210.04, 87.23) – (210.21, 87.12) – (210.38, 87.00) – (210.54, 86.88) – (210.71, 86.76) – (210.87, 86.63) – (211.04, 86.51) – (211.20, 86.39) – (211.37, 86.26) – (211.53, 86.13) – (211.70, 86.00) – (211.87, 85.87) – (212.03, 85.74) – (212.20, 85.61) – (212.36, 85.48) – (212.53, 85.34) – (212.69, 85.20) – (212.86, 85.06) – (213.02, 84.92) – (213.19, 84.78) – (213.35, 84.64) – (213.52, 84.49) – (213.69, 84.34) – (213.85, 84.19) – (214.02, 84.04) – (214.18, 83.89) – (214.35, 83.73) – (214.51, 83.57) – (214.68, 83.41) – (214.84, 83.24) – (215.01, 83.07) – (215.17, 82.90) – (215.34, 82.73) – (215.51, 82.55) – (215.67, 82.37) – (215.84, 82.19) – (216.00, 82.00) – (216.17, 81.81) – (216.33, 81.61) – (216.50, 81.41) – (216.66, 81.20) – (216.83, 80.99) – (217.00, 80.77) – (217.16, 80.55) – (217.33, 80.32) – (217.49, 80.09) – (217.66, 79.84) – (217.82, 79.59) – (217.99, 79.33) – (218.15, 79.06) – (218.32, 78.78) – (218.48, 78.48) – (218.65, 78.18) – (218.82, 77.85) – (218.98, 77.52) – (219.15, 77.16) – (219.31, 76.78) – (219.48, 76.38) – (219.64, 75.94) – (219.81, 75.47) – (219.97, 74.95) – (220.14, 74.38) – (220.30, 73.74) – (220.47, 72.99) – (220.64, 72.10) – (220.80, 70.98) – (220.97, 69.40) – (221.13, 66.48);
( 0.00, 0.00) rectangle (252.94,252.94);
( 81.93, 61.20) – (221.22, 61.20);
( 81.93, 61.20) – ( 81.93, 55.20);
(116.75, 61.20) – (116.75, 55.20);
(151.57, 61.20) – (151.57, 55.20);
(186.40, 61.20) – (186.40, 55.20);
(221.22, 61.20) – (221.22, 55.20);
at ( 81.93, 39.60) [0.1]{};
at (116.75, 39.60) [0.2]{};
at (151.57, 39.60) [0.3]{};
at (186.40, 39.60) [0.4]{};
at (221.22, 39.60) [0.5]{};
( 49.20, 74.60) – ( 49.20,173.19);
( 49.20, 74.60) – ( 43.20, 74.60);
( 49.20,107.46) – ( 43.20,107.46);
( 49.20,140.33) – ( 43.20,140.33);
( 49.20,173.19) – ( 43.20,173.19);
at ( 34.80, 74.60) [-1]{};
at ( 34.80,107.46) [0]{};
at ( 34.80,140.33) [1]{};
at ( 34.80,173.19) [2]{};
( 49.20, 61.20) – (227.75, 61.20) – (227.75,203.75) – ( 49.20,203.75) – ( 49.20, 61.20);
( 0.00, 0.00) rectangle (252.94,252.94);
at (138.47, 15.60) [$\theta$]{};
at ( 10.80,132.47) [$\log \sigma$]{};
( 49.20, 61.20) rectangle (227.75,203.75);
( 49.20,157.83) – (227.75, 80.78);
If we were to choose $c$ to be the midpoint of $\hat{m}$ and $U$ then, assuming a unimodal population distribution, the expert should be certain $\theta$ will be at least 0.25, but could judge $\theta$ to be almost certainly 0.5 and find it difficult to consider her uncertainty. Consequently, we suggest a smaller value of $c$: a third of the distance from $\hat{m}$ to $U$. In any case, at the training stage, the choice of $c$ should be stated in advance to the expert, so that she does not interpret the given interval as a source of information [@Schwarz:1999].
Feedback
--------
To help the expert visualise the fitted prior distribution, we suggest plotting point-wise density estimates of the cumulative distribution function, and obtaining intervals for population quantiles. We use the following algorithm.
1. Sample $\mu_1, ..., \mu_K$ from N$( \hat{m}, \hat{v})$ and $\sigma^2_1, ..., \sigma^2_K$ from IG$(\hat{a},\hat{b})$.
2. Choose evenly spaced values $x_1, ..., x_J$ between $L$ and $U$.
3. For $k=1, ..., K$ and $j = 1, ..., J$ calculate $$F_k (x_j) = \Phi \left( \frac{x_j - \mu_k}{\sigma_k}\right),$$
4. For $k=1,\ldots, K$ obtain the $k$th sampled value of the population $\alpha$ quantile $X_{(\alpha)}$ as $$X_{(\alpha), k} = \mu_k + \sigma_k\Phi^{-1}(\alpha).$$
5. At each $x_j$, show an empirical 95% interval for $P(X\le x_j | \mu, \sigma^2)$ given the sample $F_1(x_j), ..., F_K(x_j)$.
6. Report an empirical 95% interval for $X_{(\alpha)}$ given the sample $X_{(\alpha), 1},\ldots,X_{(\alpha), K}$.
Other population distributions {#sec:transform}
------------------------------
In this section, we consider transformations of the normal distribution and discussion modifications to the elicitation method. We suppose that $$g (X_1),g(X_2),\ldots \mid \mu, \sigma^2 \overset{\emph{iid}}{\thicksim} \mbox{N} (\mu, \sigma^2),$$ where $g$ is a monotone (increasing) function. Two likely choices for $g$ would be $g(X)=\log X$ for skewed distributions, and $g(X) = \log \{X/(1-X)\}$ for variables bounded between 0 and 1.
Assuming a non-symmetric population distribution, making judgements about the population mean is likely to be difficult, so we suggest to instead elicit judgements about the population median, which we write as $\phi = g^{-1}(\mu)$. It is possible that a non-symmetric distribution would also be needed to represent the expert’s beliefs about $\phi$, and so we should elicit at least three quantiles $\phi_{(\alpha_1)}, \phi_{(\alpha_2)}, \phi_{(\alpha_3)}$ (with $P(\phi \le \phi_{(\alpha_i)}) = \alpha_i$) from the expert’s distribution for $\phi$. If we then choose a (two-parameter) family of distributions with parameters $m$ and $v$ and cumulative distribution function $F_{m,v}$, we can obtain $\hat{m}$ and $\hat{v}$ numerically by minimising $$\sum_{i=1}^3 \{F_{m,v}(\phi_{(\alpha_i)}) - \alpha_i\}^2$$ with respect to $m$ and $v$. In practice, one out of a normal, log-normal, or (possibly scaled) beta distribution is likely to be adequate as a distribution for $\phi$.
To elicit the prior for $\sigma^2$, the expert is asked to suppose that $\phi = \hat{m}$, and is asked to consider her uncertainty about the population proportion $\theta$ lying in the interval $[k_1, k_2]$, with $k_1=g^{-1}(\hat{m})$, and $k_2 = g^{-1}(\hat{m} + c) $ for some appropriate value of $c$. The method then proceeds as before, following Equations (\[equ:sigma-quantile\]) and (\[equ:fitting-sigma\]).
Example: eliciting beliefs about translation times {#sec:example}
==================================================
We describe an elicitation exercise regarding the time needed to translate one page from a book from English to Arabic, for a given translator. The translation time will vary from one page to the next, resulting in an (unknown) population distribution of translation times. The expert was asked to consider a book called *The art of creative writing* by Lajos Egri, and similar types of books. The expert believes that the length of time will be symmetrically distributed around the mean. Hence the facilitator assumes the expert’s uncertainty about the population $X_1, X_2, ...$ can be represented by a normal distribution with uncertain mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
X_1, X_2, ... \mid \mu, \sigma^2 &\overset{\emph{iid}}{\thicksim}& \mbox{N} (\mu, \sigma^2), \\
\mu &\thicksim& \mbox{N} (m, v), \\
\sigma^2 &\thicksim& \mbox{IG} (a, b).\end{aligned}$$ A description of the elicitation is given below. Commands for reproducing the analysis in R [@Rcite] are given in the Appendix.
Training
--------
At the first elicitation session, the expert was given general knowledge about the concept of probability and the purpose of elicitation. Additionally, he was told how people may make biased judgements, for example by unintentionally applying the anchoring and adjusting heuristic [@TVERSKY:1974]. The facilitator discussed with the expert different examples of heuristics and the expert was encouraged to consider them when making his judgements.
Additionally, the expert received intensive training about probability judgements, including three practice examples: (1) the distance from the Hicks building at Sheffield University to Manchester city centre, in kilometres, using the MATCH software tool [@Morris:2014]; (2) the monthly rent of one-bedroom properties in Sheffield city centre; and (3) the prices in pounds per hour charged by Saudi translators for translating English texts into Arabic. Practice examples 2 and 3 were conducted using our proposed method to familiarise the expert with it. The facilitator used templates from the SHELF package [@Hagan:2010] to complete a ‘SHELF 1 (Context)’ form that records basic details about the elicitation session, such as the date, purpose of elicitation, training given and the definition of the quantity of interest.
Eliciting plausible bounds for $X_i$
------------------------------------
The expert judged the shortest plausible length of time required to translate a randomly selected page into Arabic to be $L=5$ minutes, confirming that even for a short page with known and repeated expressions it was mostly unlikely to take less than 5 minutes. He judged the longest plausible length of time he would require to translate a randomly selected page into Arabic to be $U=70$ minutes. He confirmed that he believed that it was mostly unlikely for any page of the book to take more than 70 minutes.
Eliciting judgements about the population mean
----------------------------------------------
The facilitator defined $\mu$ as the mean length of time (in minutes) required by the expert to translate a randomly selected page into Arabic. The expert made his judgements about the 5th and 95th percentiles of the mean as $\mu_{(0.05)}=30$ and $\mu_{(0.95)}= 40$ and confirmed that he was $90\%$ certain that the true value of $\mu$ would fall between these values. In addition, he confirmed that he thought the true value of the mean was equally likely to fall below or above 35 minutes.
The facilitator fitted the expert’s judgements about $\mu$ to a normal distribution with mean $\hat{m}= 35$ and variance $\hat{v}= 9.24$. The PDF of the fitted normal distribution was shown to the expert and feedback was given in the form of the 1st and 99th percentiles of the N($35, 9.24$) distribution, respectively 28 and 42 minutes. The expert confirmed these as appropriate. Additionally, the expert was also asked if he believed it is possible that someone with the same expertise as him would say the mean is 20 or 50 minutes; he confirmed that he did not think it possible, and that he would be surprised if this happened. The expert then agreed that the fitted distribution was a reasonable representation of his knowledge about $\mu$.
Eliciting judgements about the population variance
--------------------------------------------------
The facilitator defined $\sigma^2$ as the variance of the length of time required by the expert to translate a randomly selected page from the book into Arabic. The expert was told to suppose that the population mean was known to be 35 minutes, based on his earlier judgements. The facilitator then elicited the expert’s judgements about the percentage of pages whose translating time lies within a given interval \[$k_1, k_2$\]. The expert was told to set the first endpoint to be his judgement about the median value from the previous step, that is, $k_1= 35$ and to add 10 minutes to his median value for the second endpoint so that $k_2= 45$. The facilitator explained to the expert that based on the definition of the median, $50\%$ of the pages in the book would take less than 35 minutes to be translated whereas the other half of the pages will take longer than 35 minutes. Now the elicitation method focuses on the percentage ($\theta$) of pages that will take between 35 and 45 minutes. As we have illustrated earlier that the expert may feel more comfortable when making judgements about the 5th and 95th percentiles and told to interpret them as the approximate lower and upper limits, respectively.
The expert judged the 5th percentile $\theta_{(0.05)}$ of the percentage of pages that would take between 35 and 45 minutes of translation to be $33\%$; he confirmed that he was $95\%$ certain that the percentage of pages taking times in \[35, 45\] will be more than $33\%$. Then he judged the 95th percentile $\theta_{(0.95)}$ of the percentage of pages that would take time between 35 and 45 minutes of translation to be $40\%$; he confirmed that he was $95\%$ certain that the percentage of pages taking times in \[35, 45\] will be less than $40\%$.
The facilitator obtained the corresponding quantiles of the distribution of $\sigma^2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_{(0.95)} &=& \left( \frac{ 10 }{\Phi^{-1} (\frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{2})} \right)^2,\\
\sigma^2_{(0.05)} &=& \left( \frac{ 10 }{\Phi^{-1} (0.4 + \frac{1}{2})} \right)^2,
\end{aligned}$$ The facilitator numerically fitted an IG distribution to the expert’s judgements using a least squares approach to minimise $$ \hat{a}, \hat{b} = \underset{a, b}{\operatorname{arg-min}} \left[ \left\{F_{\sigma^2}\left({\sigma}^2_{(0.05)}; a , b \right) - 0.05\right\}^2 + \left\{F_{\sigma^2}\left({\sigma}^2_{(0.95)}; a , b\right) - 0.95\right\}^2 \right],$$ where $F_{\sigma^2}(\cdot; a , b )$ is the CDF of an IG distribution, obtaining the IG(31.5, 2514) distribution.
The expert was given feedback in the form of visualising the effect of his judgements about $\theta$ on the PDF plots of $X_i$ with a fixed mean and the two calculated quantiles of the variance: $\mbox{N} (\hat{m}, \hat{\sigma}^2_{(0.05)})$ and $\mbox{N} (\hat{m}, \hat{\sigma}^2_{(0.95)})$ The expert confirmed how his judgements about $\theta$ affect the fitted distribution of $X_i$ and agreed that the fitted distribution was a reasonable representation of his uncertainty about $\sigma^2$.
![The PDF plots of the population distribution with fixed mean E$[\mu]=\hat{m}$ and variance at the elicited 5th percentile (top) and the 95th percentile (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:eg-pdf"}](feedback1.pdf)
Feedback
--------
The expert’s elicited judgements are given in Table \[tab:eg-elicited-judg\].
***Notation*** ***Elicited*** ***Elicitation Question / Definition***
------------------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$L$ 5 What is your lower plausible bound for the length of time you require to translate a randomly selected page into Arabic?
$U$ 70 What is your upper plausible bound for the length of time you require to translate a randomly selected page into Arabic?
$\mu_{(0.05)}$ 30 What is your 5th percentile of the mean length of time you require to translate a randomly selected page from the book?
$\mu_{(0.95)}$ 40 What is your 95th percentile of the mean length of time you require to translate a randomly selected page from the book?
$\theta$ $\hat{m}=35$ Suppose the population mean is known to be $\hat{m}=35$. Then let $\theta$ denote the proportion of the pages that will take time in $[35, 45]$ to be translated.
$\theta_{(0.05)}$ 33% What is your 5th percentile of the percentage of pages that will take times in $[35, 45]$ minutes to be translated?
$\theta_{(0.95)}$ 40% What is your 95th percentile of the proportion of pages that will take times in $[35, 45]$ minutes to be translated?
: *Elicitation questions with the corresponding notations for the translation example.*[]{data-label="tab:eg-elicited-judg"}
The feedback was given in the form of a CDF plot of $X_i\mid \mu,\sigma^2$ as explained earlier. For $k=1, ..., K$ and $j = 1, ..., J$, we sample $\mu_1, ..., \mu_K$ from N$(35, 9.24)$ and $\sigma^2_1, ..., \sigma^2_K$ from IG$ (31.5, 2514)$. We calculate $$F_k (X_j) = \Phi \left( \frac{X_j - \mu_k}{\sigma_k}\right),$$ for $X_1, ..., X_J$ evenly spaced between 5 and 70, and we set $K=J=300$.
The expert was asked to consider the 5th quantile of the population distribution, interpreted as the 5th quickest page to translate assuming a book with 100 pages. The fitted 90% interval for the 5th quickest page was (12 minutes, 23 minutes). He was also asked to consider the 95th quantile of the population distribution: the 5th slowest page to translate assuming a book with 100 pages. The fitted 90% interval for the 5th quickest page was (47 minutes, 58 minutes). Given the fitted intervals, the expert chose to alter his judgements: he thought the times in the interval for the 5th quickest page were too long. He modified his elicited values until he was satisfied with the feedback, obtaining $\theta_{(0.05}) = 30\%$ and $\theta_{(0.95)}= 35\%$, with the facilitator obtaining $\sigma^2 \sim IG(62.8, 7114)$.
The expert then agreed that the fitted population distribution was a reasonable representation of his judgements about the population distribution, and the elicitation session was concluded.
![The CDF plot of the fitted population distribution of the length of times required by the expert to translate a randomly selected page from the book into Arabic. The centre line shows the pointwise median CDF, and the shaded region indicates pointwise 95% intervals for the CDF.[]{data-label="fig:eg-cdf"}](feedback2.pdf)
Summary\[sec:conclusion\]
=========================
We have proposed a novel method for eliciting beliefs about a population mean and variance, with the main novelty in how beliefs about a variance are elicited. The method avoids asking the expert to update his or her beliefs given hypothetical data, or to provide summaries from the predictive distribution which would require ‘mentally integrating out’ the uncertain parameters. The elicitation tasks are still likely to be difficult for the expert, but we think some difficulty is unavoidable; considering one’s uncertainty about population variability is always likely to be hard.
In our case study, we were able to obtain a distribution that was satisfactory to the expert, after a process of feedback in which the expert was able to challenge some of the fitted probability judgements, suggesting the expert was able to ‘take ownership’ of the elicited distribution. Nevertheless, the task was not easy for the expert, and several practice elicitations were needed first until the expert was comfortable with the procedure.
Code for the implementing the method is available as part of the R package `SHELF`, which enables the facilitator to provide feedback to the expert in real time. We will continue to develop this, and welcome suggestions for improvements from users.
R code
======
The following commands show the fitting and feedback for the example in Section 4. The `SHELF` R package is available on CRAN.
install.packages("SHELF")
library(SHELF)
# Fit distribution to the expert's judgements about the population mean
meanfit <- fitdist(vals = c(30, 40), probs = c(0.05, 0.95), lower = 5, upper = 70)
# Plot fitted normal distribution and 1st and 99th quantiles
plotfit(meanfit, ql = 0.01, qu = 0.99, d = "normal")
# Obtain 1st and 99th quantiles from fitted normal distribution
feedback(meanfit, quantiles=c(0.01, 0.99))
# Fit distribution to expert's judgments about the precision = 1/variance
# (Final judgements used in this example)
prfit <- fitprecision(interval = c(35, 45), propvals = c(0.3, 0.35))
# Report fitted 90% intervals for the population 5th and 95th percentiles
cdffeedback(meanfit, prfit, quantiles = c(0.05, 0.95), alpha = 0.1)
# Plot pointwise 95% intervals for the population CDF
cdfplot(meanfit, prfit)
[24]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
Al-Awadhi, S. and Garthwaite, P. ([1998]{}). [An elicitation method for multivariate normal distributions]{}, [*[Communications In Statistics-Theory And Methods]{}*]{}, [**[27]{} ([5]{})**]{}: [1123–1142]{}.
Al-Awadhi, S. and Garthwaite, P. (2001). Prior distribution assessment for a multivariate normal distribution: [a]{}n experimental study, [*Journal of Applied Statistics*]{}, [**28 (1)**]{}: 5–23.
Alpert, M. and Raiffa, H. (1982). [A progress report on the training of probability assessors]{}, in [*Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases*]{}, edited by Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., pp. 294–305, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clough, H. E., Clancy, D. and French, N. P. (2006). Vero-cytotoxigenic escherichia coli [O]{}157 in pasteurized milk containers at the point of retail: a qualitative approach to exposure assessment, [*Risk analysis*]{}, [**26 (5)**]{}: 1291–1309.
Clough, H. E., Clancy, D. and French, N. P. (2009). Quantifying exposure to vero-cytotoxigenic *Escherichia coli* [O]{}157 in milk sold as pasteurized: a model-based approach, [*International journal of food microbiology*]{}, [**131 (2)**]{}: 95–105.
Cooke, R. (1991). [*Experts in Uncertainty : Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science*]{}, New York: Oxford University Press.
(2010). Guidance on expert knowledge elicitation in food and feed safety risk assessment, [*EFSA Journal*]{}, [**12 (6)**]{}.
Garthwaite, P. and O’Hagan, A. ([2000]{}). [Quantifying expert opinion in the UK water industry: an experimental study]{}, [*[Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician)]{}*]{}, [**[49]{} ([ 4]{})**]{}: [455–477]{}.
Kadane, J., Dickey, J., Winkler, R., Smith, W. and Peters, S. ([1980]{}). [Interactive elicitation of opinion for a normal linear model]{}, [*[Journal of the American statistical association]{}*]{}, [**[75]{} ([372]{})**]{}: [845–854]{}.
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B. and Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980., in [*Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases*]{}, edited by Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., pp. 306–334, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, M. G. and Henrion, M. (1990). [*Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis*]{}, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, D., Oakley, J. and Crowe, J. (2014). A web-based tool for eliciting probability distributions from experts, [*Environmental Modelling & Software*]{}, [**52**]{}: 1–4.
O’Hagan, A., Buck, C. E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, J. E., Garthwaite, P. H., Jenkinson, D. J., Oakley, J. E. and Rakow, T. (2006). [*Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Expert Probabilities*]{}, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
O’Hagan, A. and Oakley, J. E. (2010). *[S]{}[H]{}[E]{}[L]{}[F]{}*: the [S]{}heffield [E]{}licitation [F]{}ramework (version 2.0), [*School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield, <http://tonyohagan.co.uk/shelf>*]{}.
O’Hagan, A., Stevens, J. W. and Campbell, M. J. (2005). Assurance in clinical trial design, [*Pharmaceutical Statistics*]{}, [**4**]{}: 187–201.
(2016). [*R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing*]{}, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Raiffa, H. (1968). [*Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choice Under Uncertainty*]{}, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Ren, S. and Oakley, J. E. (2014). Assurance calculations for planning clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes, [*Statistics in Medicine*]{}, [ **33 (1)**]{}: 31–45.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers., [ *American Psychologist.*]{}, [**54**]{}: 93–105.
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Abrams, K. R. and Myles, J. P. (2004). [*Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation*]{}, Chichester: Wiley.
Spiegelhalter, D. J. and Freedman, L. S. (1986). A predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial based on subjective clinical opinion, [*Statistics in Medicine*]{}, [**5**]{}: 1–13.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers., [ *Psychological bulletin*]{}, [**76 (2)**]{}: 105.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. ([1974]{}). [Judgment under uncertainty - heuristics and biases]{}, [*[Science]{}*]{}, [**[185]{} ([4157]{})**]{}: [1124–1131]{}.
Wu, F.-C. and Tsang, Y.-P. (2004). Second-order monte carlo uncertainty/variability analysis using correlated model parameters: application to salmonid embryo survival risk assessment, [*Ecological Modelling*]{}, [**177 (3–4)**]{}: 393 – 414.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} ([*HST*]{}) images of new planetary nebulae (PNe) that were discovered in the Reid-Parker AAO/UKST H$\alpha$ survey of the Large Magellanic Cloud. These serendipitous observations from various [*HST*]{} programs yield independent confirmations of 6 PNe; one other detected nebula may also be a PN, and one appears to be a region of diffuse emission. The high resolution [*HST*]{} archival images enable us to determine the physical sizes, the nebular morphology, and related features of these new PNe in detail for the first time. In a few cases we were also able to identify the central star, which was impossible with the lower resolution, wide-field discovery data. The confirmation of faint, extended halos surrounding many PNe in the RP catalog must await the acquisition of new deep, high-resolution, narrow-band imagery.'
author:
- 'Richard A. Shaw'
- 'Warren A. Reid, Quentin A. Parker'
title: 'Confirmation of New Planetary Nebulae in the Large Magellanic Cloud[^1] '
---
Introduction
============
The study of planetary nebulae (PNe) in the Magellanic Clouds spans half a century, but it has received renewed attention in the past half decade. New discovery surveys, detailed spectroscopic studies, and a greater understanding of the Magellanic Clouds themselves has greatly increased our understanding of PNe in these systems. Studying PNe in the Magellanic Clouds offers significant advantages compared to studies of the Galactic PN populations [see e.g., @Jacoby03; @Shaw06]. Chief among them is their location in systems at known distance so that large numbers of PNe can be studied in detail, and important physical parameters such as sizes and luminosities can be determined with high accuracy. The average foreground extinction to both the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) is low so that large, complete, flux-limited samples may be obtained without the severe selection biases that apply in the Galaxy. Finally both systems are among the most massive in the Local Group, so that the PN populations total hundreds of objects which enables the study of statistical properties of various sub-samples. Magellanic Cloud PNe have thus been very successfully employed over the past few decades to investigate a number of very important astrophysical questions such as the form and origin of the PN luminosity function, the effects of metallicity and environment on PN properties and the late stages of stellar evolution, and as kinematical probes of the galaxies themselves [e.g., @RP06b]. More recently, high resolution imaging and spectroscopy have been employed to study the coevolotion of individual nebulae [@Shaw_etal01; @Stang_etal02; @Stang_etal03; @Shaw_etal06] and their central stars [@Villa03; @Villa04; @Villa07].
Observing PNe in the Magellanic Clouds is not without its challenges, however. The fields are extremely crowded, the individual nebulae cannot be resolved in useful detail except with [*HST*]{} or advanced optical systems on large, ground-based telescopes, and the LMC in particular is permeated with very bright, spatially complex nebular emission from a variety of sources including regions, supernova remnants, and wind-blown nebulae around O-stars. In addition, the Magellanic Clouds extend over a wide area of sky. These issues complicate the task of conducting uniform, deep surveys for PNe over the full spatial extent of these galaxies. The heterogeneity of prior surveys in the spatial coverage, depth, discovery technique, and the lack of complete follow-up spectroscopy for verifying the classification have been the principal barriers to realizing the full potential of Magellanic Cloud PN studies until recently.
Recent surveys with wider areal coverage, uniform depth, and greatly increased sensitivity have been published by @JD02 for the SMC and by @RP06a [@RP06b] for the LMC; another in the LMC is underway [@Smith99]. See [@Jacoby03] and [@Parker06] for recent reviews of these and other surveys. We focus in this paper on PNe in the LMC, the known population for which has increased greatly with the publication of an extensive catalog by @RP06a [@RP06b hereafter referred to as the RP catalog]. The RP catalog is based upon both a deep photographic survey in H$\alpha$ and in red continuum of the central 25 square degrees of the LMC, and upon follow-up confirmatory spectroscopy. In all, 460 new objects were classified as PNe with varying degrees of confidence: a thorough analysis of optical emission line ratios, nebular morphological features, prominence of the continuum, and the inferred degree of contamination from background sources, resulted in 292 objects being classified by @RP06a [@RP06b] as “true" PNe, 54 as “likely," and 114 as “possible." The lack of complete certainty in the PN classification is in part due to the similarity of emission line ratios between very low excitation (VLE) PNe and other kinds of objects, and also to strong, diffuse emission or strong contaminating continuum emission in the immediate vicinity of some objects.
The thrust of this study was to search the [*HST*]{} archive for images that might contain any of the new RP catalog objects, and to use any detections to illuminate a) the veracity of the PN designations, particularly for cases were the classifications in the RP catalog were uncertain, b) the nebular dimensions and morphological features, c) the location and characteristics of the central stars, and d) strategies for follow-up observations of the RP sample. In §2, we describe the RP catalog of LMC PNe and the survey upon which it is based, and then describe the observational data extracted from the [*HST*]{} archive that matches the new sources in the RP catalog. The individual objects are described in §3, along with an analysis of non-detections. In §4 we discuss the implications of these data for future observing programs.
Observational Data
==================
The surveys upon which the RP catalog of LMC PNe is based, the observing strategies, the discovery technique, the follow-on spectroscopy, and the classification schema are all described by [@RP06a; @RP06b]. We summarize in the next subsection some of the key features of the RP survey and discovery images in enough detail to explain the comparison to the serendipitous [*HST*]{} images. Following that we describe the attributes of the [*HST*]{} observations, the reduction procedures, and our analysis of the data.
AAO/UKST H$\alpha$ Deep Stack Images
------------------------------------
A photographic mini-survey of 40 fields in and around the Magellanic Clouds was undertaken as part of the Anglo-Australian (AAO)/UKST H$\alpha$ survey of the Southern Galactic Plane and Magellanic Clouds [@Parker05]. In addition, a separate, deep AAO/UKST photographic survey of the central 25 square degrees of the central bar of the LMC was also undertaken by Q. Parker and D. Morgan between 1998 and 2000. Twelve well-matched, 2 hour H$\alpha$ exposures and six 15 min equivalent short red (SR) broad-band exposures on this field were taken for the purpose. The images were scanned by the “SuperCOSMOS” measuring machine at the Royal Observatory Edinburgh [@Hambly_etal01], and the resulting digitized images were placed on a common world coordinate system and co-added. The photometric depth is $R\sim$21.5 mag for the SR images and $R_{equiv}\sim$22 mag for H$\alpha$ (or in units of flux density, $4.5\times10^{-17}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ Å$^{-1}$). The pixel size of the scanned images is 10$\mu$m (067) which samples the image sufficiently well to resolve compact nebulae larger than 35 in diameter. Spurious detections such dust particles were effectively removed through the median-stacking of the individual exposures taken over a 3 year period while the influence of variable stars was considerably abated. This new H$\alpha$ map led directly to the discovery of a significant new population of LMC emission sources, including the many new PNe that comprise the Reid-Parker catalog of LMC PNe.
Candidate emission sources were identified using an adaptation of a technique available within the KARMA collaboration [@Gooch96] which is fully described by [@RP06a]. The stacked SR and H$\alpha$ images were each assigned a specific color: red for SR and blue for H$\alpha$. The colored images were then merged, resulting in a pink color for continuum sources, whereas compact or point source emitters develop a blue aura around a pink core whose relative size depends on the intensity of the emission. Extended nebulae, including regions, supernova remnants, super-bubbles and resolved, faint PNe can appear solely blue on an otherwise dark background. Many of the PNe are only visible as blue features in the false-color image. Most PNe central stars however are too faint, and the resolution too poor in the ground based UKST images, to be detected. A variety of telescopes and instruments were employed for spectroscopic follow-up including FLAMES on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) UT2, the 1.9-m telescope at the South African Astronomical Observatory, the 2.3-m telescope at Siding Spring Observatory, and 6dF on the UKST. However, the vast majority were confirmed using 2dF on the Anglo Australian Telescope (AAT) in 2004 December [see @RP06b].
AAO 2dF Fiber Spectra
---------------------
Confirmatory spectra were obtained for nearly every object in the RP catalog [@Reid06]. All of the spectra for the objects presented here were obtained with the AAO 2dF spectrograph on the AAT, which is capable of obtaining more than 400 simultaneous spectra, using a 300 line mm$^{-1}$ grating to cover the spectral range 3650–8050ÅÅwith a dispersion of 4.3 Å pixel$^{-1}$. The spectra were corrected for detector bias, extracted, and sky-subtracted. The wavelength calibration was performed with the aid of comparison arcs taken during the course of the observations, but no flux calibration was performed. See @RP06b and @Reid06 for details of the reductions. The spectrograms are shown in Figures \[Spec\_1\] and \[Spec\_2\]; the flux scale is in instrumental units.
HST Images
----------
Our search of the [*HST*]{} archive (conducted in 2006 June) identified nearly 200 images that were coincident with 19 of the newly discovered PNe candidates in the RP catalog, or about 4.0% of the sample of new PNe. Such a high number of serendipitous observations is due in large part to the popularity of the Magellanic Clouds for various [*HST*]{} research programs, particularly for stellar populations. Many additional exposures were obtained through pure parallel programs. Although the majority of the objects were observed with more than one filter, more often than not these were broad-band filters which were not well suited for detecting emission line nebulae, in that they do not include the strongest nebular emission lines within the bandpass. However, when available these filters were useful for identifying extremely blue stars in the vicinity, which aided the identification of the likely source of the nebular ionization. Fortunately, some of the archival images that match RP catalog positions were taken through more suitable filters. The WFPC2/F300W bandpass includes nebular \[\] $\lambda3727$ and \[\] $\lambda3889$ emission when present, but the system efficiency is quite low. The F555W filter includes H$\beta$ and the strong \[\] $\lambda\lambda4959+5007$ emission lines, plus H$\alpha$ + \[\] $\lambda\lambda6548+6583$ at lower efficiency. F606W, which has the highest overall system efficiency, includes the \[\], H$\alpha$, and \[\] emissions mentioned above. The clearest detections were made with the F656N filter (which includes some \[\] emission in the wing), but this filter is not as often used.
The [*HST*]{} images presented here were obtained using the Wide-Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) or the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS). These images were calibrated with the standard reduction pipelines for the instruments used to obtain them. The pipelines perform similar processing: bias correction, dark scaling and subtraction, and flat-fielding. The ACS pipeline also performs a geometric rectification. For many of the objects, multiple exposures were obtained at or near the same location with the same instrument and filter combination. Typically this is done to facilitate the identification and rejection of cosmic rays, to mitigate the effects of detector defects such as charge traps or high dark current, or (in the case of WFPC2) to improve the spatial sampling by dithering the image. These images were combined when possible. For WFPC2 many pre-combined images are available from the Multi-mission Archive at STScI (MAST) as high level science products (HLSP). @Wada_etal06 describe the details of this processing, as well as the quality of the photometry of the resulting images. For the present purpose we are concerned primarily with determining precise coordinates, sizes, and morphologies of the new RP nebulae, so that the accuracy of the reductions is not critical. However we did combine images taken with the same filter, when possible, to eliminate cosmic rays and to improve the signal-to-noise ratio for presentation. The [*HST*]{} observing log for all nebulae is presented in Table \[ObsLog\]. The first column lists the RP designation, followed by the confidence with which @RP06b could establish the target as a genuine PN based on their imaging and confirmatory spectroscopy, followed by their estimate of the diameter of the nebular shell. This information is followed in the next two columns by the [*HST*]{} observing configuration, followed by the exposure time and whether extended emission was detected. The last column lists the dataset identifiers in the MAST archive, which corresponds to high-level science products (i.e., combined images as generated through, e.g., the WFPC2 Archival Pure Parallels Project pipeline) where available.
Dimensions and Morphology for the Matched Sources
=================================================
The [*HST*]{} and matching RP catalog images for the detected nebulae are presented in Figures \[Neb\_1\] through \[Neb\_4\], where for each object we show both the UKST discovery image and the [*HST*]{} image on the same spatial scale. All of the images are rendered in false-color, usually with a square-root intensity scale, in order to bring out the often faint structural features of the nebulae. In spite of the generally low signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio in the [*HST*]{} images (which, after all, were not obtained for this purpose), we were able to confirm several of the objects as genuine PNe. Furthermore the 01 resolution of the [*HST*]{} images permits a solid morphological classification to be assigned, which is not possible from the @RP06b data. The morphological classifications would ordinarily be based on the appearance of the nebula in the monochromatic light of either \[\] $\lambda5007$ or H$\alpha$ (possibly including \[\] $\lambda\lambda6548+6583$). Although WFPC2 monochromatic emission-line images are only available for three of the objects, [@Shaw_etal06] point out that the principal, larger scale morphological features can generally be inferred from other emission lines with some confidence. We used the same classification scheme as those of @Shaw_etal01 [@Shaw_etal06] and [@Stang_etal02; @Stang_etal03], where the morphological types of relevance here are: round (R), elliptical (E), and bipolar (B). Other important structural features, such as attached shells, were noted as well.
Table \[Morph\] gives detailed information for the PNe presented here. The equatorial J2000 sky coordinates, as measured from the [*HST*]{} images, are given in columns (2) and (3). These coordinates correspond to either the geometric centroid of the nebula or, in three cases, the newly identified central stars. They agree to within 1 with the (likely more accurate) RP positions, which is consistent with the accuracy of the [*HST*]{} guide star frame of reference [GSC 1.1, @Morrison_etal01]. Nebular diameters along the major and minor axes, given in column (4), were usually measured with respect to the 20% intensity contour of the outermost structure that was visible in the [*HST*]{} image. The dimensions given in Table \[Morph\] are generally smaller than those cited by @RP06b. The reasons for the discrepant sizes are varied: a) Nebulae smaller than 34 were not resolved in the RP data; b) one or more nebulae (probably including RP1550) are surrounded by faint, outer shells or halos that are not detected in these HST exposures; c) differing measurement techniques were employed: here we prefer the 20% intensity contour, in part because of the limited S/N ratio of the [*HST*]{} data and the impracticality of measuring a photometric radius, whereas @RP06b measured the full width at zero intensity in monochromatic light; d) nebulae embedded in a bright continuum were problematic to measure in the RP images owing to the response of the photographic media, as explained by @RP06b. Our assessment of whether the object is a genuine PN is given in column (5), and the nebular morphological classification is given in column (6). Column (7) contains specific notes about each object, including whether a central star was identified.
Detected Objects
----------------
As discussed in the previous section, extended emission was detected in the [*HST*]{} archival images for eight RP catalog objects. We describe here the morphological details and noteworthy spectral features for each of the nebulae listed in Table \[Morph\].
[*LMC–RP 265.—*]{}The [*HST*]{} image for this object was presented by @Shaw_etal06. Although it is extremely faint, it is probably a bipolar. The spectrum in Figure \[Spec\_1\] indicates a moderate excitation, owing to the modest \[\]/H$\beta$ ratio and weak $\lambda$4686 emission. The very strong \[\]/H$\alpha$ ratio is consistent with the strong nebular bi-polarity [@Shaw_etal06].
[*LMC–RP 671.—*]{}This object is confirmed as an extremely low surface brightness PN. It is very apparent in the combined 5000 s exposure with the WFPC2/F656N filter, but it is barely detected in F450W and F606W images. This nebula is large, nearly perfectly round, and is similar in appearance to many Galactic Abell PNe (see Figure \[Neb\_1\]). The central star is near the geometric center of the nebula, and is easily identified through its $U-B$ color. The spectrum in Figure \[Spec\_1\] indicates a fairly high excitation, with a large \[\]/H$\beta$ ratio and relatively strong $\lambda$4686 emission, which is consistent with an advanced evolutionary state for this star + nebula.
[*LMC–RP 683.—*]{}This apparently diffuse nebula may be ionized by one or more of a number of very blue stars (judging from the $U-R$ colors) that lie within $\sim$10, one of which lies within (or is projected onto) the nebulosity. RP categorize this object as only a “possible" PN, and also a very low excitation (VLE) object given that the intensity of H$\beta$ is similar to that of \[\] $\lambda5007$ (see Figure \[Spec\_1\]). Given the morphology evident in the [*HST*]{} imagery (Figure \[Neb\_1\]) it is unlikely that this object is a genuine PN.
[*LMC–RP 723.—*]{}This object is an extremely low surface brightness PN. It is very faint in the moderate-length exposure with the WFPC2/F555W filter. The nebula is round, although the western limb is brighter and has a more sharply defined edge (see Figure \[Neb\_2\]). The likely central star appears to be near the geometric center of the nebula, and is tentatively identified through its $B-V$ color. The spectrum in Figure \[Spec\_1\] indicates a fairly high excitation, with a large \[\]/H$\beta$ ratio and relatively strong $\lambda$4686 emission.
[*LMC–RP 764.—*]{}This object is clearly a bipolar PN and is similar in appearance to the Dumbbell nebula (see Figure \[Neb\_2\]). The identification of the central star is puzzling: based on the F330W image, a star at the northwest edge of the nebula is by far the bluest in the image, and is the best candidate. The spectrum in Figure \[Spec\_2\] indicates a moderate level of excitation, with a moderate \[\]/H$\beta$ ratio and finite $\lambda$4686 emission. The very strong \[\]/H$\alpha$ ratio (more than 4:1) is consistent with the strong nebular bi-polarity [@Shaw_etal06].
[*LMC–RP 885.—*]{}This object is confirmed as a round, faint PN. It has a main shell of $\sim0.27$ pc in diameter, and has an attached shell that is twice as large but fainter by a factor of at least 3 (see Figure \[Neb\_3\]). The central star is relatively bright. The spectrum in Figure \[Spec\_2\] indicates a very high excitation, with a large \[\]/H$\beta$ ratio and very strong $\lambda$4686 emission. The absence of \[\] emission suggests that N is very under-abundant, which is consistent with the nebular morphology.
[*LMC–RP 1375.—*]{}The extremely low surface brightness of this object makes a definitive classification as a PN difficult, in spite of the lengthy exposure time in the WFPC2/F656N filter, but it could be a genuine PN. The morphological classification is very uncertain: the overall shape is elliptical, but it has internal structure that suggests a bipolar core (see Figure \[Neb\_3\]). The central star might be the star near the geometrical center of the nebula, but no other passbands are available for confirmation. The spectrum in Figure \[Spec\_2\] show a low level of excitation, with a low \[\]/H$\beta$ ratio, no $\lambda$4686 emission, but weak $\lambda$5876 emission.
[*LMC–RP 1550.—*]{}Despite the relatively small angular size this object is confirmed as a bipolar PN, even with the short exposure time in the WFPC2/F555W filter (see Figure \[Neb\_4\]). No central star is evident in the image. The spectrum in Figure \[Spec\_2\] indicates a moderately high level of excitation, with a high \[\]/H$\beta$ ratio and moderate $\lambda$4686 emission. The strong \[\]/H$\alpha$ ratio is consistent with the strong nebular bi-polarity [@Shaw_etal06].
Non-Detections
--------------
Of the 19 RP sources that were imaged with [*HST*]{}, extended emission was not detected around eleven of the targets. It is useful to consider whether the non-detections are significant, particularly for RP sources classified as “possible" PNe. In most cases the non-detections can be attributed either to very brief exposure times of less than a minute (3 objects: RP307, RP1759, RP2180), or to the use of filters that do not include strong nebular emission lines (4 objects: RP232, RP241, RP1443, RP1580). In three other cases, it is possible that the nebular emission is extended, but with a surface brightness that is lower than the detection threshold in the [*HST*]{} image. To explore this possibility, we make use of the nebular diameters from @RP06b, the empirical relation of the decline of average \[\] surface brightness with radius from @Shaw_etal06, and assuming the \[\] $\lambda5007$ flux is comparable in intensity to H$\alpha$. The exposure time calculator for ACS (scaling by the relative efficiency for WFPC2 images where necessary) provides some indication of whether extended emission in the remaining objects might have been detectable, given the above assumptions. In one case, RP218, the average surface brightness would have been far below the detection threshold for WFPC2/F606W. But for two objects we might have expected to detect extended emission: RP203 with a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of about 2, and RP268 with a S/N ratio of about 4. Given the dispersion in the surface brightness relation and in the other assumptions, it is easily possible that the emission from RP203 and RP268 is extended, but with an emissivity that lies just below the detection threshold. For RP505 the extremely weak confirmation spectrum lead @RP06b to classify it as only a “Possible" PN that is not resolved in their images. It may be that this object is a faint, diffuse nebula like RP683.
Discussion and Summary
======================
Our search of the [*HST*]{} archive for serendipitous observations of new LMC PN candidates in the RP emission-line survey has resulted in the independent confirmation of 8 extended emission objects, 6 of which can be confirmed as genuine PNe including one that was independently confirmed as a PN by @Shaw_etal06. There is also one source, RP1375, where @RP06b classified it as a “possible" PN and the morphology from the [*HST*]{} image is uncertain. Finally, RP683 is a region of diffuse emission that may be an region; but which was only classed as a possible VLE PN by @RP06b. The central stars can be readily identified in four of the PNe, and possibly in a fifth. Perhaps as importantly, it is very clear from the [*HST*]{} images the degree of crowding of stars in the vicinity of each object, which will guide the strategy of follow-up studies. We found [*HST*]{} images of fields surrounding an additional 11 RP objects, but no extended emission was detected at the published coordinates. A close examination shows that the non-detections can always be explained by a combination of inappropriate filters and exposures of insufficient depth to reach the anticipated nebular surface brightness.
All of the RP nebulae identified here are faint and most have very low average surface brightness, which are characteristics common to many of the new PNe in the RP catalog. While these serendipitous, high-resolution images provide a useful validation of the PN morphological classifications, they did not prove to be very useful for detecting or validating the faint, outer shells or halos that @RP06b found for nearly 60% of all PNe in their catalog. Even in the extensive, targeted surveys by @Shaw_etal01 [@Shaw_etal06] and @Stang_etal02 [@Stang_etal03] faint halos were seldom detected. Very much deeper exposures with $\sim$01 resolution will be required to study and understand these features in any detail. Still, the images in this study are another useful step in our understanding of the nature and evolution of planetary nebulae in the LMC.
Support for this work was provided by NASA through grants GO-09077 and GO-10251 from Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5–26555. RP thanks Macquarie University for a RAACE Ph.D. scholarship.
Bland-Hawthorn, J., Shopbell, P. L., Malin, D. F. 1993, , 106, 2154B
Gooch R. 1996, in A.S.P. Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, eds. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes (San Francisco: ASP), 80.
Hambly, N. C., et al. 2001, , 326, 1279H
Jacoby, G. H. 2003, in Planetary Nebulae Beyond the Milky Way, ed. L. Stanghellini, J. Walsh, & N. G. Douglas (Berlin: Springer), 17
Jacoby, G. H., & De Marco, O. 2002, , 123, 269
Morrison, J. E., Roser, S., McLean, B., Bucciarelli, B., & Lasker, B. 2001, , 121, 1752
Parker Q.A., et al. 2005, , 362, 689
Parker, Q. 2006, in IAU Symp. 234, Planetary Nebulae in Our Galaxy and Beyond, ed. M.J. Barlow & R.H. Mendez (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press), in press
Reid, W.A. 2006, Ph.D. Thesis, in prep.
Reid, W. A., & Parker, Q. A. 2006, , 365, 401
Reid, W. A., & Parker, Q. A. 2006, , in press
Shaw, R. A. 2006, in IAU Symp. 234, Planetary Nebulae in Our Galaxy and Beyond, ed. M.J. Barlow & R.H. Mendez (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press), in press
Shaw, R. A., Stanghellini, L., Mutchler, M., Balick, B., & Blades, J. C. 2001, , 548, 727
Shaw, R. A., Stanghellini, L., Villaver, E., & Mutchler, M. 2006, , 167, in press
Smith, R. C. 1999, in IAU Symp. 190, New Views of the Magellanic Clouds, ed. Y.-H. Chu, N.B. Suntzeff, J.E. Hesser, & D.A. Bohlender (San Francisco: ASP), 28
Stanghellini, L., Shaw, R. A., Mutchler, M., Palen, S., Balick, B., & Blades, J. C. 2002, , 575, 178
Stanghellini, L., Shaw, R. A., Balick, B., Mutchler, M., Blades, J. C., & Villaver, E. 2003, , 596, 997
Villaver, E., Stanghellini, L., & Shaw, R. A. 2003, , 597, 298
Villaver, E., Stanghellini, L., & Shaw, R. A. 2004, , 614, 716
Villaver, E., Stanghellini, L., & Shaw, R. A. 2007, , 655, in press
Wadadekar, Y., Casertano, S., Hook, R., Kiziltan, B, Koekemoer, A., Ferguson, H., & Denchev, D. 2006, , 118, 450
[llcllrll]{} LMC–RP 203 & True & 9.0 & ACS/WFC1& F555W & 250 & No & J8NE75IDQ\
& & & & F814W & 170 & No & J8NE75J2Q\
LMC–RP 218 & Possible & 14.0 & WFPC2/WFALL & F606W & 2x700 & No & U8IXN301M\
LMC–RP 232 & Likely & 6.0 & WFPC2/WFALL & F450W & 240 & No & U4WOEM02B\
& & & & F450W & 440 & No & U4WOEM04B\
& & & & F814W & 600 & No & U4WOEM06B\
& & & & F300W & 640 & No & U4WOEM08B\
LMC–RP 241 & Possible & 6.0 & WFPC2/WFALL& F300W & 3660 & No & U2OU7N01b\
LMC–RP 265 & True & $5.4\times4.5$ & WFPC2/WFALL & F606W & 240 & Yes & U4WOEM02B\
& & & & F450W & 340 & No & U4WOE704B\
& & & & F814W & 500 & No & U4WOE706B\
& & & & F300W & 440 & No & U4WOE708B\
LMC–RP 268 & Possible & 4.0 & WFPC2/WFALL& F606W & 2x300 & No & U4K2CQ01R\
LMC–RP 307 & Possible & 4.0 & ACS/HRC & F220W & 20 & No & J8QZ02011\
& & & & F435W & 10 & No & J8QZ02021\
LMC–RP 505 & Possible & 2.3 & WFPC2/WFALL& F606W & 240 & No & U4WOE202B\
LMC–RP 671 & True & 5.4 & WFPC2/WFALL & F606W & 1600 & Marginal & U4WODE04B\
& & & & F300W & 5100 & No & U4WODE04B\
& & & & F450W & 2210 & Marginal & U4WODE07B\
& & & & F814W & 3020 & No & U4WODE0CB\
& & & & F656N & 5000 & Yes & U4WODE0IB\
LMC–RP 683 & Possible (VLE) & 4.0 & WFPC2/WFALL & F606W & 3500 & Marginal & U6GZOE01M\
& & & & F656N & 1400 & Yes & U4WOFY0AB\
& & & & F300W & 7300 & No & U6GZOE02M\
& & & & F450W & 1800 & Marginal & U4WOFZ04M\
& & & & F814W & 1760 & No & U4WOFZ06M\
LMC–RP 723 & True & 4.7 & WFPC2/WFALL & F439W & 4x400 & Marginal & U4ZN0502B\
& & & & F555W & 4x400 & Yes & U4ZN050BR\
& & & & F675W & 820 & No & U4ZN0506B\
& & & & F814W & 1020 & No & U4ZN0508B\
LMC–RP 764 & True & 6.0 & WFPC2/WFALL & F606W & 500 & Yes & U8UOUO01M\
& & & & F606W & 500 & Yes & U8UOUQ01M\
& & & & F300W & 1500 & Marginal & U8UOUO02M\
& & & & F300W & 1500 & Marginal & U8UOUQ02M\
LMC–RP 885 & True & 3.4 & WFPC2/WFALL & F555W & 3700 & Yes & U2O90104B\
& & & & F814W & 3900 & Marginal & U2O90105B\
LMC–RP 1375 & Possible & 3.4 & WFPC2/WFALL & F656N & 2070 & Yes & U4KY0805R\
LMC–RP 1443 & True & 6.0 & WFPC2/WFALL & F547M & 40 & No & U26M1202T\
LMC–RP 1550 & True & 7.0 & WFPC2/WFALL & F555W & 80 & Yes & U69W0102R\
LMC–RP 1580 & True & 3.0 & WFPC2/WFALL & F547M & 800 & No & U64B0601B\
LMC–RP 1759 & True & 6.0 & WFPC2/WFALL & F555W & 20 & No & U26M1B02P\
& & & & F450W & 40 & No & U26M1B01P\
LMC–RP 2180 & Likely & 10.1 & ACS/WF1 & F555W & 20 & No & J8NE68REQ\
& & & & F814W & 20 & No & J8NE68RIQ\
[lllcccl]{} LMC–RP 265 & 5 37 00.72 & $-69$ 21 29.1 & $4.2 \times 3.4$ & PN & B? &\
LMC–RP 671 & 5 26 11.28 & $-70$ 16 05.6 & 4.78 & PN & R & CS identified\
LMC–RP 683 & 5 36 36.07 & $-70$ 07 05.3 & $\sim3 \times 4$ & H II reg.? & & Diffuse emission\
LMC–RP 723 & 5 25 04.66 & $-69$ 48 33.3 & 3.2 & PN & R & CS identified\
LMC–RP 764 & 5 26 16.35 & $-69$ 38 01.9 & 2.77 $\times$ 3.70 & PN & B & CS tentative identification\
LMC–RP 885 & 5 24 13.62 & $-69$ 47 23.7 & 1.1 & PN & R & Attached shell is 22; CS identified\
LMC–RP 1375 & 5 18 15.09 & $-69$ 16 22.2 & $3.4 \times 4.8$ & PN? & E? & Diam. w.r.t. 10% contour\
LMC–RP 1550 & 5 08 49.70 & $-68$ 44 05.6 & 1.11 $\times$ 1.24 & PN & B &\
[^1]: Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We explore a function $L(\vec{x})=L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ which is a linear combination of two Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ hypergeometric series. We demonstrate a fundamental two-term relation satisfied by the $L$ function and show that the fundamental two-term relation implies that the Coxeter group $W(D_5)$, which has 1920 elements, is an invariance group for $L(\vec{x})$. The invariance relations for $L(\vec{x})$ are classified into six types based on a double coset decomposition of the invariance group. The fundamental two-term relation is shown to generalize classical results about hypergeometric series. We derive Thomae’s identity for ${}_3F_2(1)$ series, Bailey’s identity for terminating Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series, and Barnes’ second lemma as consequences of the fundamental two-term relation.'
author:
- 'Ilia D. Mishev [^1]'
title: 'An invariance group for a linear combination of two Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ hypergeometric series'
---
Introduction
============
Invariance groups for hypergeometric series have been studied extensively in the past. A hypergeometric series is trivially invariant under permutations of its numerator and denominator parameters thus giving us an invariance group isomorphic to the cross product of two symmetric groups. The existence of nontrivial two-term relations and their combined use with the trivial relations leads to larger invariance groups that have been the subject of study over the last twenty-five years by Beyer et al. [@BLS], Srinivasa Rao et al. [@Rao], and others.
The series of type ${}_3F_2(1)$ have been studied since the nineteenth century. In 1879 Thomae [@T] obtained a number of two-term relations for ${}_3F_2(1)$ series. One of those relations is known today as Thomae’s identity (see [@Ba p. 14]). Thomae’s identity was later rediscovered (with an explicit proof provided) by Ramanujan (see [@Har p. 104]). In 1923 Whipple [@Wh1] re-visited Thomae’s work and introduced a more convenient notation, in terms of his Whipple parameters, that indexed the two-term relations found by Thomae. In a recent paper Krattenthaler and Rivoal [@KR] described other families of two-term relations for ${}_3F_2(1)$ series that are not consequences of the identities found by Thomae.
A two-term relation for terminating Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series, based on identities relating very-well-poised ${}_7F_6(1)$ series to terminating Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series, was given by Whipple [@Wh3 Eq. (10.11)] in 1925. The same two-term relation appeared later in Bailey’s monograph [@Ba p. 56] and is often referred to today as Bailey’s identity.
The first mention of an invariance group for hypergeometric series seems to be due to Hardy. In [@Har p. 111] it is implied that the symmetric group $S_5$ is an invariance group for the ${}_3F_2(1)$ series. In 1987 Beyer et al. [@BLS] rediscovered that Thomae’s identity combined with the trivial invariances under permutations of the numerator and denominator parameters implies that $S_5$ is an invariance group for the ${}_3F_2(1)$ series. Beyer et al.also showed in the same paper [@BLS] that Bailey’s identity combined with the trivial invariances implies that the symmetric group $S_6$ is an invariance group for the terminating Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series.
The goal of this paper is to extend the results stated above to Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series. We examine a function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ (see (\[220\]) for the definition) which is a linear combination of two Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series. This particular linear combination of two Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series appears in [@St2] in the evaluation of the Mellin transform of a spherical principal series $GL(4,\mathbb{R})$ Whittaker function.
In Section 3 we derive a fundamental two-term relation (see (\[340\])) satisfied by $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$. The fundamental two-term relation (\[340\]) is derived through a Barnes integral representation of $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ and generalizes both Thomae’s and Bailey’s identities in the sense that the latter two identities can be obtained as limiting cases of our fundamental two-term relation (see Section 5).
In Section 4 we show that the two-term relation (\[340\]) combined with the trivial invariances of $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ under permutations of $a,b,c,d$ and interchanging $f,g$ implies that the function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ has an invariance group $G_L$ isomorphic to the Coxeter group $W(D_5)$, which is of order 1920. (See [@H] for general information on Coxeter groups.) The invariance group $G_L$ is given as a matrix group of transformations of the affine hyperplane $$\label{110}
V=\{(a,b,c,d,e,f,g)^T \in
\mathbb{C}^7:
e+f+g-a-b-c-d=1\}.$$ The 1920 invariances of the $L$ function that follow from the invariance group $G_L$ are classified into six types based on a double coset decomposition of $G_L$ with respect to its subgroup $\Sigma$ consisting of all the permutation matrices in $G_L$. To the best of the author’s knowledge, using such a double coset decomposition is a new way of describing all the relations induced by an invariance group and does not have an analog in the literature before.
Some consequences of the fundamental two-term relation (\[340\]) are shown in Section 5. In particular, as already mentioned, we show that Thomae’s and Bailey’s identities follow as limiting cases of (\[340\]). We also show that Barnes’ second lemma (see [@Bar2] or [@Ba p. 42]) follows as a special case of (\[340\]) when we take $d=g$.
Versions of the $L$ function (in terms of very-well-poised ${}_7F_6(1)$ series, see (\[230\])) were examined in the past by Bailey [@Ba1], Whipple [@Wh2], and Raynal [@R]. Bailey obtained two-term relations that were later re-visited by Whipple and Raynal. However, there is no mention of an underlying invariance group.
A basic hypergeometric series analog of the $L$ function (in terms of ${}_8\phi_7$ series) was studied by Van der Jeugt and Srinivasa Rao [@V]. The authors establish an invariance group isomorphic to $W(D_5)$ for the ${}_8\phi_7$ series, but do not classify all two-term relations, or consider how they could imply results about lower-order series.
Very recently Formichella et al. [@FGS] explored a function $K(a;b,c,d;e,f,g)$ which is a different linear combination of two Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series from the function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$. The linear combination of two Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series studied by Formichella et al. appears in the theory of archimedian zeta integrals for automorphic $L$ functions (see [@St4; @ST]). The function $K(a;b,c,d;e,f,g)$ behaves very differently from $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$. Formichella et al. obtain in [@FGS] a two-term relation satisfied by $K(a;b,c,d;e,f,g)$ and show that their two-term relation implies that the symmetric group $S_6$ is an invariance group for $K(a;b,c,d;e,f,g)$. In a future work by the author of the present paper and by Green and Stade, the connection between the $K$ and the $L$ functions will be studied.
[*Acknowledgments.*]{} This paper is based on results obtained in the author’s Ph.D. thesis (see [@M]) at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The author would like to acknowledge the guidance of his advisor Eric Stade as well as the discussions with R.M. Green from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Robert S. Maier from the University of Arizona.
Hypergeometric series and Barnes integrals
==========================================
The hypergeometric series of type ${}_{p+1}F_p$ is the power series in the complex variable $z$ defined by $$\label{210}
{}_{p+1}F_p\left[
{\displaystyle a_1,a_2,\ldots, a_{p+1};
\atop
\displaystyle b_1,b_2,\ldots, b_p;}z\right]=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac
{(a_1)_n(a_2)_n\cdots (a_{p+1})_n}
{n!(b_1)_n(b_2)_n\cdots (b_p)_n}z^n,$$ where $p$ is a positive integer, the numerator parameters $a_1,a_2,\ldots, a_{p+1}$ and the denominator parameters $b_1,b_2,\ldots, b_p$ are complex numbers, and the rising factorial $(a)_n$ is given by $$(a)_n=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
a(a+1)\cdots(a+n-1)=
\frac{\Gamma(a+n)}{\Gamma(a)}, & n>0,\\
1, & n=0.
\end{array} \right.$$
The series in (\[210\]) converges absolutely if $|z|<1$. When $|z|=1$, the series converges absolutely if $\mbox{Re}(\sum_{i=1}^{p} b_i -
\sum_{i=1}^{p+1} a_i) > 0$ (see [@Ba p. 8]). We assume that no denominator parameter is a negative integer or zero. If a numerator parameter is a negative integer or zero, the series has only finitely many nonzero terms and is said to terminate.
When $z=1$, the series is said to be of unit argument and of type ${}_{p+1}F_p(1)$. If $\sum_{i=1}^{p} b_i =
\sum_{i=1}^{p+1} a_i + 1$, the series is called Saalschützian. If $1+a_1=b_1+a_2= \ldots = b_p+a_{p+1}$, the series is called well-poised. A well-poised series that satisfies $a_2=1+\frac{1}{2}a_1$ is called very-well-poised.
Our main object of study in this paper will be the function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{220}
&&L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g) \nonumber \\
&&=\frac{{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e,f,g;}1\right]}{\sin \pi e\ \Gamma(e)
\Gamma(f)\Gamma(g)\Gamma(1+a-e)\Gamma(1+b-e)\Gamma(1+c-e)
\Gamma(1+d-e)} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle 1+a-e,1+b-e,1+c-e,1+d-e;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+f-e,1+g-e,2-e;}1\right]}
{\sin \pi e\ \Gamma(a)
\Gamma(b)\Gamma(c)\Gamma(d)\Gamma(1+f-e)\Gamma(1+g-e)
\Gamma(2-e)},\end{aligned}$$ where $a,b,c,d,e,f,g \in \mathbb{C}$ satisfy $e+f+g-a-b-c-d=1$.
The function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ is a linear combination of two Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ series. Other notations we will use for $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ are $L\left[{\displaystyle a,b,c,d; \atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]$ and $L(\vec{x})$, where we will always have $\vec{x}=(a,b,c,d,e,f,g)^{T} \in V$ (see (\[110\])).
It should be noted that by [@Ba Eq. (7.5.3)], the L function can be expressed as a very-well-poised ${}_7F_6(1)$ series: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{230}
&L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g) \nonumber\\
{}\\
&=\frac{\Gamma(1+d+g-e)}
{\pi \Gamma(g)\Gamma(1+g-e)
\Gamma(f-d)\Gamma(1+a+d-e)
\Gamma(1+b+d-e)\Gamma(1+c+d-e)}
\nonumber\\
&\cdot {}_7F_6\left[
{\displaystyle d+g-e,
1+\frac{1}{2}(d+g-e),g-a,g-b,g-c,
d,1+d-e;
\atop
\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}(d+g-e),
1+a+d-e,1+b+d-e,1+c+d-e,1+g-e,g;}
1\right],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ provided that $\mbox{Re}(f-d)>0$. Therefore our results on the $L$ function can also be interpreted in terms of the very-well-poised ${}_7F_6(1)$ series given in (\[230\]).
Fundamental to the derivation of a nontrivial two-term relation for the $L$ function will be the notion of a Barnes integral, which is a contour integral of the form $$\label{240}
\int_t \prod_{i=1}^{n}\Gamma^{\epsilon_i}(a_i+t)
\prod_{j=1}^{m}\Gamma^{\epsilon_j}(b_j-t) \,dt,$$ where $n,m \in \mathbb{Z}^{+};
\epsilon_i,\epsilon_j = \pm 1;$ and $a_i,b_j,t \in \mathbb{C}$. The path of integration is the imaginary axis, indented if necessary, so that any poles of $\prod_{i=1}^{n}\Gamma^{\epsilon_i}(a_i+t)$ are to the left of the contour and any poles of $\prod_{j=1}^{m}\Gamma^{\epsilon_j}(b_j-t)$ are to the right of the contour. This path of integration always exists, provided that, for $1 \leq i \leq n$ and $1 \leq j \leq m$, we have $a_i+b_j \notin \mathbb{Z}$ whenever $\epsilon_i=\epsilon_j=1$.
From now on, when we write an integral of the form (\[240\]), we will always mean a Barnes integral with a path of integration as just described.
A Barnes integral can often be evaluated in terms of hypergeometric series using the Residue Theorem, provided that we can establish the necessary convergence arguments. This is the approach we take in the next section. We will make use of the extension of Stirling’s formula to the complex numbers (see [@Titch Section 4.42] or [@WW Section 13.6]): $$\label{250} \Gamma (a+z) = \sqrt{2\pi} z^{a+z-1/2}e^{-z} (1+
\mbox{O} (1/|z|))
\mbox{ uniformly as } |z| \to \infty,$$ provided that $-\pi +\delta \leq \arg (z) \leq \pi -
\delta, \; \delta \in (0,\pi)$.
When applying the Residue Theorem, we will use the fact that the gamma function has simple poles at $t=-n, n=0,1,2,\dots$, with $$\label{260}
\mbox{Res}_{t=-n}\Gamma(t)=\frac{(-1)^n}{n!}.$$
When simplifying expressions involving gamma functions, the reflection formula for the gamma function will often be used: $$\label{270}
\Gamma(t)\Gamma(1-t)=
\frac{\pi}{\sin \pi t}.$$
Finally, we will use a result about Barnes integrals known as Barnes’ lemma (see [@Bar1] or [@Ba p. 6]):
\[BL\]
If $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta \in \mathbb{C}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{290}
\frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_t
\Gamma(\alpha+t) \Gamma(\beta+t)
\Gamma(\gamma-t) \Gamma(\delta-t) \,dt
\nonumber\\
=\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+\gamma)\Gamma(\alpha+\delta)
\Gamma(\beta+\gamma)\Gamma(\beta+\delta)}
{\Gamma(\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta)},\end{aligned}$$ provided that none of $\alpha+\gamma,\alpha+\delta,
\beta+\gamma$ and $\beta+\delta$ is an integer.
Fundamental two-term relation
=============================
In this section we show that the function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ defined in (\[220\]) can be represented as a Barnes integral. The Barnes integral representation will then be used to derive a fundamental two-term relation satisfied by the $L$ function.
\[P310\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{310}
&&L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g) \nonumber \\
&&=\frac{1}{\pi \Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)\Gamma(c)\Gamma(d)
\Gamma(1+a-e)\Gamma(1+b-e)\Gamma(1+c-e)\Gamma(1+d-e)}
\nonumber \\
&&\cdot \frac{1}{2\pi i}
\int_t\frac{\Gamma(a+t)\Gamma(b+t)\Gamma(c+t)\Gamma(d+t)
\Gamma(1-e-t)\Gamma(-t)}{\Gamma(f+t)\Gamma(g+t)}\,dt.\end{aligned}$$
In the proof of Proposition \[P310\], we will need the following statement.
\[L320\]
For every $\varepsilon >0 $, there is a constant $K=K(\varepsilon) $, such that if $\emph{dist} (z, \mathbb{Z}) \geq
\varepsilon $, then $$\label{320} |\sin \pi z |\geq K e^{\pi |\emph{Im} (z)|}.$$
Let $z=x+iy$. We have $$\sin \pi z = \frac{1}{2i} \left (
e^{i \pi (x+iy)}- e^{-i \pi (x+iy)} \right ) = \sin \pi x \cosh
\pi y + i \cos \pi x \sinh \pi y.$$
Since $|\sinh \pi y| \leq
\cosh \pi y $, it follows that $ \sinh \pi|y| \leq |\sin \pi z| \leq
\cosh \pi y. $
We may assume that $\varepsilon \in (0,1).$ If $\mbox{dist} (z, \mathbb{Z})
\geq \varepsilon,$ then at least one of the following two statements holds:
\(a) $\mbox{dist} (x, \mathbb{Z}) \geq \varepsilon/2.$
\(b) $|y| \geq
\varepsilon/2.$
If (a) holds, then $$|\sin \pi z | \geq |\sin \pi x | \cosh
\pi y \geq \sin (\pi \varepsilon/2) \cosh \pi y \geq
\frac{1}{2}\sin (\pi \varepsilon/2) e^{\pi |y|}.$$
If (b) holds, then $$|\sin \pi z | \geq \sinh \pi |y| = \frac{1}{2}
e^{\pi|y|}(1-e^{-2\pi |y|}) \geq \frac{1}{2}(1-e^{-\pi \varepsilon})
e^{\pi|y|}.$$
Thus (\[320\]) holds with $K= \frac{1}{2} \min
\{\sin (\pi \varepsilon/2),1-e^{-\pi \varepsilon}\}.$
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{330}
&&I\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2\pi i}
\int_t\frac{\Gamma(a+t)\Gamma(b+t)\Gamma(c+t)\Gamma(d+t)
\Gamma(1-e-t)\Gamma(-t)}{\Gamma(f+t)\Gamma(g+t)}\,dt.\end{aligned}$$
For $N \geq 1$, let $C_N$ be the semicircle of radius $\rho_N $ on the right side of the imaginary axis and center at the origin, chosen in such a way that $\rho_N \to \infty$ as $N \to \infty$ and $$\varepsilon:= \inf_N
\mbox{dist}(C_N, \mathbb{Z}\cup (\mathbb{Z}-e)) >0.$$
The formula (\[270\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
G(t):=\frac{\Gamma(a+t)\Gamma(b+t)\Gamma(c+t)\Gamma(d+t)
\Gamma(1-e-t)\Gamma(-t)}{\Gamma(f+t)\Gamma(g+t)}\\
=\frac{-\pi^2\Gamma(a+t)\Gamma(b+t)
\Gamma(c+t)\Gamma(d+t)}{\Gamma(f+t)\Gamma(g+t)
\Gamma(e+t)\Gamma(1+t)\sin \pi t \sin \pi (e+t)}.\end{aligned}$$
By Stirling’s formula (\[250\]), $$\frac{\Gamma(a+t)\Gamma(b+t)
\Gamma(c+t)\Gamma(d+t)}{\Gamma(f+t)\Gamma(g+t)
\Gamma(e+t)\Gamma(1+t)} \sim
t^{a+b+c+d-e-f-g-1}=t^{-2}.$$
By Lemma \[L320\], there exists a constant $K= K(\varepsilon)$ such that $$\frac{1}{|\sin \pi t \sin \pi (e+t)|} \leq \frac{1}{K^2}\quad
\text{if} \;\; t \in C_N, \; N= 1,2, \ldots .$$
Therefore we obtain by the above estimates that there is a constant $\tilde{K} >0 $ such that $$|G(t)| \leq \tilde{K}/|t|^2 \quad \text{if} \; \; t \in C_N, \;\; N=1,2,\ldots.$$
Thus $$\left | \int_{C_N} G(t) \,dt \right | \leq
\frac{\tilde{K}}{\rho_N^2} \cdot \pi \rho_N \to 0 \quad \mbox{as }
N \to \infty,$$ which implies $$\int_{C_N} G(t) \,dt \to 0 \quad \mbox{as } N \to \infty.$$
It follows that the integral given by $I\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]$ is equal to the sum of the residues of the poles of $\Gamma(1-e-t)$ and $\Gamma(-t)$. Adding up the residues and making use of (\[270\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
I\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]
=\frac{\pi\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)\Gamma(c)\Gamma(d)}
{\sin \pi e\ \Gamma(e)\Gamma(f)\Gamma(g)}
{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e,f,g;}1\right]\\
-\frac{\pi \Gamma(1+a-e)\Gamma(1+b-e)\Gamma(1+c-e)
\Gamma(1+d-e)}
{\sin \pi e\ \Gamma(1+f-e)\Gamma(1+g-e)\Gamma(2-e)}\\
\cdot {}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle 1+a-e, 1+b-e, 1+c-e, 1+d-e;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+f-e,1+g-e,2-e;}1\right],\end{aligned}$$ from which the result follows.
The fundamental two-term relation satisfied by $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ is given in the next proposition.
\[P330\]
$$\label{340}
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]
=L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,g-c,g-d;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+a+b-f;1+a+b-e,g}\right].$$
Let $I\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]$ be as given in (\[330\]). As a first step, we will prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{350}
\frac{I\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]}{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(d)
\Gamma(1+a-e)\Gamma(1+b-e)}\nonumber\\
=\frac{I\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,g-c,g-d;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+a+b-f;1+a+b-e,g}\right]}{\Gamma(f-a)\Gamma(f-b)
\Gamma(g-c)\Gamma(g-d)}.\end{aligned}$$
By Barnes’ lemma, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\Gamma(a+t)\Gamma(b+t)}
{\Gamma(f+t)}\\
=\frac{1}{2 \pi i\Gamma(f-a)\Gamma(f-b)}
\int_{u}&\Gamma(t+u)\Gamma(f-a-b+u)
\Gamma(a-u)\Gamma(b-u)\,du\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\Gamma(c+t)\Gamma(d+t)}{\Gamma(g+t)}\\
=\frac{1}{2 \pi i\Gamma(g-c)\Gamma(g-d)}
\int_{v}&\Gamma(t+v)\Gamma(g-c-d+v)
\Gamma(c-v)\Gamma(d-v)\,dv.\end{aligned}$$
We re-write the integral for $I\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]$ by substituting for the above expressions, changing the order of integration, so that we integrate with respect to $t$ first, and then applying Barnes’ Lemma again to the integral with respect to $t$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{360}
&&\frac{I\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right]}{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(d)
\Gamma(1+a-e)\Gamma(1+b-e)}\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{-1}
{4 \pi^2 \Gamma(c)\Gamma(d)
\Gamma(1+a-e)\Gamma(1+b-e)
\Gamma(f-a)\Gamma(f-b)
\Gamma(g-c)\Gamma(g-d)}\nonumber\\
&&\cdot
\int_{u} \Gamma(f-a-b+u)\Gamma(a-u)
\Gamma(b-u)\Gamma(u)\Gamma(1-e+u)\nonumber\\
&&\cdot \left( \int_{v} \frac
{\Gamma(g-c-d+v)\Gamma(c-v)
\Gamma(d-v)\Gamma(v)\Gamma(1-e+v)}
{\Gamma(1-e+u+v)}\,dv \right) du.\end{aligned}$$
After the substitution $v \mapsto c+d-f+v$ in the inside integral, it is easily checked (using the Saalschützian condition $e+f+g-a-b-c-d=1$) that the right-hand side of (\[360\]) is invariant under the transformation $$(a,b,c,d;e;f,g) \mapsto
(a,b,g-c,g-d;1+a+b-f;1+a+b-e,g),$$ which proves (\[350\]). The result in the proposition now follows immediately from (\[350\]) upon writing the two $L$ functions in (\[340\]) in terms of their Barnes integral representations (\[310\]).
Invariance group
================
In the previous section we showed that the function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ satisfies the two-term relation (\[340\]). If we define $$\label{410}
A=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{pmatrix}
\in GL(7,\mathbb{C}),$$ then (\[340\]) can be expressed as $L(\vec{x})=L(A\vec{x})$.
If $\sigma \in S_7$, we will identify $\sigma$ with the matrix in $GL(7,\mathbb{C})$ that permutes the standard basis $\{e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_7\}$ of the complex vector space $\mathbb{C}^7$ according to the permutation $\sigma$. For example, $$(123)= \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Let $$\label{420}
G_L=\langle (12),(23),
(34),(67),A \rangle
\leq GL(7,\mathbb{C}).$$ The two-term relation (\[340\]) along with the trivial invariances of the function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ under permutations of $a,b,c,d$ and interchanging $f,g$ implies that $G_L$ is an invariance group for $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$, i.e. $L(\vec{x})=L(\alpha \vec{x})$ for every $\alpha \in G_L$.
The goal of this section is to find the isomorphism type of the group $G_L$ and further to describe the two-term relations for the $L$ function in terms of a double coset decomposition of $G_L$ with respect to its subgroup $\Sigma$ defined as follows: $$\label{430}
\Sigma=\langle (12),(23),
(34),(67) \rangle.$$ The group $\Sigma$ is a subgroup of $G_L$ consisting of permutation matrices. It is clear that $\Sigma \cong S_4 \times S_2$ and so $|\Sigma|=48$. We note that if $\sigma \in \Sigma,
\alpha \in G_L$, the multiplication $\sigma\alpha$ permutes the rows of $\alpha$, and the multiplication $\alpha\sigma$ permutes the columns of $\alpha$. A double coset of $\Sigma$ in $G_L$ is a set of the form $$\label{440}
\Sigma \alpha \Sigma=
\{\sigma \alpha \tau : \sigma,\tau \in \Sigma\},
\mbox{ for some } \alpha \in G_L.$$ The distinct double cosets of the form (\[440\]) partition the group $G_L$ and give us a double coset decomposition of $G_L$ with respect to $\Sigma$. (See [@DF p. 119] for more on double cosets.)
In Theorem \[T410\] below we show that the group $G_L$ is isomorphic to the Coxeter group $W(D_5)$, which is of order 1920. In Theorem \[420\] we show that the subgroup $\Sigma$ is the largest permutation subgroup of $G_L$ and obtain a double coset decomposition of $G_L$ with respect to $\Sigma$. We list a representative for each of the six double cosets obtained and give the six invariance relations induced by those representatives (see (\[450\])–(\[460\])). The six invariance relations (\[450\])–(\[460\]) listed are all the “different" types of invariance relations in the sense that every other invariance relation can be obtained by permuting the first four entries and permuting the last two entries on the right-hand side of a listed invariance relation (which corresponds to permuting the rows of the accompanying matrix), and by permuting $a,b,c,d$ and permuting $f,g$ on the right-hand side of a listed invariance relation (which corresponds to permuting the columns of the accompanying matrix).
\[T410\]
The group $G_L$ is isomorphic to the Coxeter group $W(D_5)$, which is of order 1920.
The Dynkin diagram of the Coxeter group $W(D_5)$ is given by the graph with vertices labeled $1,2,3,4,1'$, where $i,j \in \{1,2,3,4\}$ are connected by an edge if and only if $|i-j|=1$, and $1'$ is connected to $2$ only. The presentation of $W(D_5)$ is given by $$W(D_5)=\langle s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4,s_{1'}:
(s_is_j)^{m_{ij}}=1 \rangle,$$ where $m_{ii}=1$ for all $i$; and for $i$ and $j$ distinct, $m_{ij}=3$ if $i$ and $j$ are connected by an edge, and $m_{ij}$=2 otherwise. It is well-known that the order of $W(D_5)$ is $2^4\cdot5!=1920$ (see [@H Section $2.11$]).
Consider the elements of $G_L$ given by $$\label{470}
a_1=(34),a_2=(23),a_3=(34)A,
a_4=(67), a_{1'}=(12).$$ It is clear $G_L=\langle a_i:
i \in \{1,2,3,4,1'\} \rangle$. A direct computation shows that $$(a_ia_j)^{m_{ij}}=1, \quad \mbox{for all }
i,j \in \{1,2,3,4,1'\}.$$
Therefore if we define $\varphi(s_i)=a_i$ for every $i \in \{1,2,3,4,1'\}$, $\varphi$ extends (uniquely) to a surjective homomorphism from $W(D_5)$ onto $G_L$ (see [@DF Section $1.6$]). Since $W(D_5)$ is a finite group, if we show that $G_L$ and $W(D_5)$ have the same order, it will follow that $\varphi$ is an isomorphism and the theorem will be proved.
Since $\varphi$ is a surjective homomorphism, the First Isomorphism Theorem for groups (see [@DF p. 98]) implies that $|G_L| = |\mbox{Im}(\varphi)|$ must divide $|W(D_5)|=1920$. Therefore if we show that $|G_L| > 960=\frac{1920}{2}$, then necessarily $|G_L|=1920$. We will obtain an estimate on the order of $G_L$ by computing the sizes of the double cosets $\Sigma A \Sigma$ and $\Sigma ((123)(67)A)^2 \Sigma$ of $\Sigma$ in $G_L$, where $\Sigma$ is as given in (\[430\]).
The matrix $A$ is given by $$A=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ We see that all the rows of $A$ are distinct as sequences. Therefore multiplying $A$ on the left by $\sigma$, for $\sigma \in \Sigma$, will give us 48 matrices in $G_L$ that belong to the double coset $\Sigma A \Sigma$. We note that the products $\sigma A$, for $\sigma \in \Sigma$, amount to obtaining all possible permutations of the first four rows of $A$ and all possible permutations of the last two rows of $A$. By considering products of the form $A\sigma$, for $\sigma \in \Sigma$, we can permute the first four columns of $A$ and the last two columns of $A$ in every possible way. If we first permute columns of $A$ that are different as multisets, and then permute the rows of the resulting matrix in all 48 different ways, we obtain 48 new elements in $G_L$ that belong to the double coset $\Sigma A \Sigma$. Now, the first and second columns of $A$ are the same as multisets and so are the third and the fourth columns. Thus we permute the first four columns in $\frac{4!}{2!2!}=6$ different ways. The sixth and seventh columns of $A$ are different as multisets and so we permute them in 2 different ways. In total, we permute the columns of $A$ in $6 \cdot 2=12$ different ways and then we permute the rows of each of the resulting matrices in all 48 possible ways to obtain that the number of matrices that belong to the double coset $\Sigma A \Sigma$ is $12 \cdot 48$.
Next we consider the matrix $$A_1=((123)(67)A)^2=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & -1 & -2 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ We see that $A_1$ contains an entry of $-2$, which is not the case with $A$, implying that the double cosets $\Sigma A_1 \Sigma$ and $\Sigma A \Sigma$ are distinct. All the rows of $A_1$ are distinct as sequences. The first, second and third columns of $A_1$ are different as multisets and the fourth column represents the same multiset as the second column. The sixth and seventh columns of $A_1$ are the same as multisets. Thus we permute the columns of $A_1$ in $\frac{4!}{2!}=12$ different ways and then we permute the rows of each of the resulting matrices in all 48 possible ways to obtain that the number of matrices that belong to the double coset $\Sigma A_1 \Sigma$ is $12 \cdot 48$.
Considering the number of matrices that belong to the double cosets $\Sigma A \Sigma$ and $\Sigma A_1 \Sigma$, we see that the group $G_L$ contains at least $12 \cdot 48 + 12 \cdot 48
> 960$ elements. Therefore $|G_L|=|W(D_5)|$ and the theorem is proved.
As stated before Theorem \[T410\], we are interested in the complete double coset decomposition of $G_L$ with respect to $\Sigma$ since this will classify all the invariance relations for the function $L(a,b,c,d;e;f,g)$ in a convenient way. We use the same technique as in the proof of Theorem \[T410\] given by permuting columns that are different as multisets and then permuting the rows of the resulting matrices in every possible way. We obtain that there are six double cosets of $\Sigma$ in $G_L$. Representative matrices for the double cosets are $I_7, A, ((123)(67)A)^2,
((123)(67)A)^3, ((123)A)^3,
((123)(67)A)^4$. The corresponding double coset sizes are $1 \cdot 48, 12 \cdot 48, 12 \cdot 48,
12 \cdot 48, 2 \cdot 48, 1 \cdot 48$. Furthermore, the representative matrices are all seen to have different entries (as, for example, we determined for the matrices $A$ and $((123)(67)A)^2$ in the proof of Theorem \[410\]) so that $\Sigma$ must indeed be the largest permutation subgroup of $G_L$. Each representative matrix gives rise to an invariance relation. Theorem \[T420\] summarizes the result.
\[T420\]
Let $\Sigma$ be as defined in (\[430\]). Then $\Sigma$ consists of all the permutation matrices in $G_L$. There are six double cosets in the double coset decomposition of $G_L$ with respect to $\Sigma$. Representative matrices for the double cosets are $I_7, A, ((123)(67)A)^2,
((123)(67)A)^3, ((123)A)^3,
((123)(67)A)^4$ and the corresponding double coset sizes are $1 \cdot 48, 12 \cdot 48, 12 \cdot 48,
12 \cdot 48, 2 \cdot 48, 1 \cdot 48$. The corresponding invariances of the $L$ function are given by $$\begin{aligned}
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right] &=
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right],
\label{450}\\
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right] &=
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,g-c,g-d;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+a+b-f;1+a+b-e,g}\right],
\label{452}\\
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right] &=
L\left[
{\displaystyle 1+a-e,g-c,a,f-c;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+a-c;1+a+b-e,1+a+d-e}\right],
\label{454}\\
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right] &=
L\left[
{\displaystyle 1+d-e,1+a-e,g-c,g-b;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+g-b-c;1+a+d-e,1+g-e}\right],
\label{456}\\
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right] &=
L\left[
{\displaystyle g-a,g-b,g-c,g-d;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+g-f;1+g-e,g}\right],
\label{458}\\
L\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e;f,g}\right] &=
L\left[
{\displaystyle 1+c-e,1+d-e,1+a-e,1+b-e;
\atop
\displaystyle 2-e;1+g-e,1+f-e}\right].
\label{460}\end{aligned}$$
Applications of the fundamental two-term relation
=================================================
In this final section we prove some consequences of the fundamental two-term relation given in Proposition \[P330\]. As a first step, we write the two $L$ functions in (\[340\]) in terms of their definitions as linear combinations of two ${}_4F_3(1)$ series. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{510}
\frac{{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e,f,g;}1\right]}
{\sin \pi e\ \Gamma(e)\Gamma(f)
\Gamma(g)\Gamma(1+a-e)
\Gamma(1+b-e)\Gamma(1+c-e)
\Gamma(1+d-e)}\nonumber\\
-\frac{{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle 1+a-e,1+b-e,
1+c-e,1+d-e;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+f-e,
1+g-e,2-e;}1\right]}
{\sin \pi e\ \Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)
\Gamma(c)\Gamma(d)\Gamma(1+f-e)
\Gamma(1+g-e)\Gamma(2-e)}\nonumber\\
=\frac{{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle a,b,g-c,g-d;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+a+b-f,
1+a+b-e,g;}1\right]}
{\left[
{\displaystyle \sin \pi (1+a+b-f)
\Gamma(1+a+b-f)
\Gamma(1+a+b-e)\Gamma(g)
\atop
\displaystyle \cdot
\Gamma(f-b)\Gamma(f-a)
\Gamma(1+d-e)\Gamma(1+c-e)
}\right]
}\nonumber\\
-\frac{{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle f-b, f-a, 1+d-e, 1+c-e;
\atop
\displaystyle 1+f-e,f+g-a-b,1+f-a-b}1
\right]}
{\left[
{\displaystyle \sin \pi (1+a+b-f)
\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)
\Gamma(g-c)\Gamma(g-d)
\atop
\displaystyle \cdot
\Gamma(1+f-e)
\Gamma(f+g-a-b)\Gamma(1+f-a-b)
}\right]
}.\end{aligned}$$
We fix $b,c,d,f,g \in
\mathbb{C}$ in such a way that $$\label{520}
\mbox{Re}(f+g-b-c-d)>0, \quad
\mbox{Re}(f-b)>0.$$ Let $a \in \mathbb{C}$ and let $e=1+a+b+c+d-f-g$ depend on $a$. In equation (\[510\]) we let $|a| \to \infty$. Using Stirling’s formula (\[250\]) and the conditions (\[520\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{530}
\frac{{}_3F_2\left[
{\displaystyle b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle f,g;}1\right]}
{\Gamma(f)\Gamma(g)
\Gamma(f+g-b-c-d)}
\nonumber\\
=\frac{{}_3F_2\left[
{\displaystyle b,g-c,g-d;
\atop
\displaystyle f+g-c-d,g;}
1\right]}
{\Gamma(f+g-c-d)\Gamma(g)
\Gamma(f-b)}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the conditions (\[520\]) are needed for the absolute convergence of the two ${}_3F_2(1)$ series in (\[530\]). Applying (\[530\]) twice yields Thomae’s identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{540}
\frac{{}_3F_2\left[
{\displaystyle b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle f,g;}1\right]}
{\Gamma(f)\Gamma(g)
\Gamma(f+g-b-c-d)}
\nonumber\\
=\frac{{}_3F_2\left[
{\displaystyle f-b,g-b,f+g-b-c-d;
\atop
\displaystyle f+g-b-d,f+g-b-c;}
1\right]}
{\Gamma(b)\Gamma(f+g-b-d)
\Gamma(f+g-b-c)}.\end{aligned}$$ In fact, applying (\[540\]) twice gives (\[530\]), so that (\[530\]) and (\[540\]) are equivalent.
Next in equation (\[510\]) we let $a \to -n$, where $n$ is a nonnegative integer. Using the fact that $\lim_{a \to -n}\frac{1}{\Gamma(a)}
=0$ and then formula (\[270\]) to simplify the result, we obtain Bailey’s identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{550}
&{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle -n,b,c,d;
\atop
\displaystyle e,f,g;}
1\right]\nonumber\\
=\frac{(e-b)_n(f-b)_n}
{(e)_n(f)_n}
&{}_4F_3\left[
{\displaystyle -n,b,g-c,g-d;
\atop
\displaystyle 1-n+b-f,1-n+b-e,g;}
1\right], \end{aligned}$$ which holds provided that $e+f+g-b-c-d+n=1$.
Thomae’s and Bailey’s identities have been shown in [@FGS] in a similar way to be limiting cases of a fundamental two-term relation satisfied by the function $K(a;b,c,d;e,f,g)$.
As a final application, in the fundamental two-term relation (\[340\]) we let $d=g$. We express the left-hand side as a Barnes integral according to Proposition \[310\], and we write the right-hand side in terms of two ${}_4F_3(1)$ series according to the definition of the $L$ function. The condition $d=g$ causes one of the terms on the right-hand side to go to zero and the ${}_4F_3(1)$ series in the other term to be trivially equal to one. If we simplify the result further using (\[270\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{560}
\frac{1}{2 \pi i}
\int_t\frac{\Gamma(a+t)\Gamma(b+t)
\Gamma(c+t)\Gamma(1-e-t)\Gamma(-t)}
{\Gamma(f+t)}\,dt\nonumber\\
=\frac{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)\Gamma(c)
\Gamma(1+a-e)\Gamma(1+b-e)\Gamma(1+c-e)}
{\Gamma(f-a)\Gamma(f-b)\Gamma(f-c)},\end{aligned}$$ which holds provided that $e+f-a-b-c=1$. The equation (\[560\]) is precisely the statement of Barnes’ second lemma.
[99]{}
W.N. Bailey, Transformations of well-poised hypergeometric series, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**36**]{} (1934), no. 2, 235–240.
W.N. Bailey, Generalized Hypergeometric Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1935.
E.W. Barnes, A new development of the theory of hypergeometric functions, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**2**]{} (1908), no. 6, 141–177.
E.W. Barnes, A transformation of generalized hypergeometric series, Quart. J. of Math. [**41**]{} (1910), 136–140.
W.A. Beyer, J.D. Louck, P.R. Stein, Group theoretical basis of some identities for the generalized hypergeometric series, J. Math. Phys. [**28**]{} (1987), no. 3, 497–508.
D.S. Dummit, R.M. Foote, Abstract Algebra, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1999.
M. Formichella, R. Green, E. Stade, Coxeter group actions on ${}_4F_3(1)$ hypergeometric series, arXiv:0810.0518, submitted.
G.H. Hardy, Ramanujan: Twelve Lectures on Subjects Suggested by His Life and Work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1940.
J.E. Humphreys, Reflection Groups and Coxeter Groups, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
C. Krattenthaler, T. Rivoal, How can we escape Thomae’s relations?, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**58**]{} (2006), no. 1, 183–210.
I. Mishev, Coxeter group actions on supplementary pairs of Saalschützian ${}_4F_3(1)$ hypergeometric series, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado (2009).
K. Srinivasa Rao, J. Van der Jeugt, J. Raynal, R. Jagannathan, V. Rajeswari, Group theoretical basis for the terminating ${}_3F_2(1)$ series, J. Phys. A [**25**]{} (1992), no. 4, 861–876.
J. Raynal, On the definition and properties of generalized 6-$j$ symbols, J. Math. Phys. [**20**]{} (1979), no. 12, 2398–2415.
E. Stade, Mellin transforms of Whittaker functions on $GL(4,\mathbb{R})$ and $GL(4,\mathbb{C})$, Manuscripta Math. [**87**]{} (1995), 511–526.
E. Stade, Archimedean $L$-factors on $GL(n) \times GL(n)$ and generalized Barnes integral, Israel J. Math. [**127**]{} (2002), 201–220.
E. Stade, J. Taggart, Hypergeometric series, a Barnes-type lemma, and Whittaker functions, J. London Math. Soc. [**61**]{} (2000), 133–152.
J. Thomae, Ueber die Funktionen welche durch Reihen der Form dargestellt werden: $1+\frac{pp'p''}{1q'q''}+ \cdots$, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**87**]{} (1879), 26–73.
E.C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of Functions, Oxford University Press, London, 1952.
J. Van der Jeugt, K. Srinivasa Rao, Invariance groups of transformations of basic hypergeometric series, J. Math. Phys. [**40**]{} (1999), no. 12, 6692–6700.
F.J.W. Whipple, A group of generalized hypergeometric series: relations between 120 allied series of the type $F(a,b,c;e,f)$, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**23**]{} (1925), no. 2, 247–263.
F.J.W. Whipple, Well-poised series and other generalized hypergeometric series, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**25**]{} (1926), no. 2, 525–544.
F.J.W. Whipple, Relations between well-poised hypergeometric series of the type ${}_7F_6$, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**40**]{} (1936), no. 2, 336–344.
E.T. Whittaker, G.N. Watson, A Course of Modern Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1963.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 395, Boulder, CO 80309-0395, U.S.A. E-mail address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Consider a compact K[ä]{}hler manifold endowed with a prequantum bundle. Following the geometric quantization scheme, the associated quantum spaces are the spaces of holomorphic sections of the tensor powers of the prequantum bundle. In this paper we construct an asymptotic representation of the prequantum bundle automorphism group in these quantum spaces. We estimate the characters of these representations under some transversality assumption. The formula obtained generalizes in some sense the Lefschetz fixed point formula for the automorphisms of the prequantum bundle preserving its holomorphic structure. Our results will be applied in two forthcoming papers to the quantum representation of the mapping class group.'
author:
- 'Laurent CHARLES [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: A Lefschetz fixed point formula for symplectomorphisms
---
Consider a compact K[ä]{}hler manifold $M$ endowed with a Hermitian holomorphic bundle $L \rightarrow M$ whose curvature is the fundamental two-form. In the point of view of geometric quantization, $M$ is the classical phase space and the space $H^0 (M, L)$ of holomorphic sections of $L$ is the quantum space.
The group of holomorphic automorphisms of $L$ acts naturally on the quantum space. Furthermore, if the higher cohomology groups ($H^q(M,
L),$ $q \geqslant 1$) of the sheaf of holomorphic sections of $L$ are all trivial, the holomorphic Lefschetz fixed point formula expresses the characters of this representation in terms of characteristic classes of $M$ and $L$.
With the physical interpretation in mind, it is natural to consider the prequantum bundle automorphisms instead of the holomorphic automorphisms. These are the automorphisms of $L$ preserving the Chern connection and the metric but not necessarily the holomorphic structure. Whereas the group of holomorphic automorphism is finite dimensional, the group of the prequantum bundle automorphisms is infinite-dimensional. Its Lie algebra identifies with the Poisson algebra of $M$. Furthermore each Hamiltonian symplectomorphism of $M$ lifts to a prequantum bundle automorphism, and if $M$ is simply connected, each symplectomorphism isotopic to the identity is Hamiltonian. The goal of this paper is to define an asymptotic representation of these automorphisms such that a suitable version of the Lefschetz fixed point formula holds. Here the terms asymptotic refers to the semi-classical limit, obtained by replacing the prequantum bundle $L$ by its $k$-th tensor power with large value of $k$.
It is convenient to work with the metaplectic correction. Let $\delta
\rightarrow M$ be a half-form bundle, that is a square root of the canonical bundle of $M$. Such a bundle exists if and only if the second Stiefel-Whitney class of $M$ vanishes. We will define the notion of half-form bundle automorphisms. For the introduction, it is sufficient to know that any symplectomorphism of $M$ isotopic to the identity lifts to a half-form bundle automorphism. Furthermore on any component of $M$, this lifts is unique up to a sign.
Consider two automorphisms $\Phi_L$ and $\Psi$ of the prequantum bundle and the half-form bundle respectively which lifts the same symplectomorphism $\Phi$ of $M$. Then we will define a class $U(\Phi_L,\Psi)$ which consists of sequences $$T_k : H^0(M,L^k \otimes \delta ) \rightarrow H^0 (M, L^k \otimes
\delta), \qquad k=1, 2,\ldots$$ of unitary maps whose Schwartz kernel has a precise asymptotic. Without going into the complete definition, let us describe the main characteristics.
- The Schwartz kernel concentrate on the graph of $\Phi^{-1}$ in the sense that $$T_k (y, x) = O ( k^{-N}), \quad \forall N$$ for any $y$ and $x \in M$ such that $y\neq \Phi (x)$.
- The asymptotic on the graph is given in terms of $\Phi_L$ and $\Psi$ by $$T_k (\Phi(x), x) = \Bigl( \frac{k}{2 \pi} \Bigr)^n \Phi_L(x)^k
\otimes ( \Psi (x) + O(k^{-1}) ).$$
The precise definition is given in sections \[sec:four-integr-oper\] and \[sec:unitary-maps\]. The main properties of these operators are the following.
- $U(\Phi_L,\Psi)$ is not empty. For any sequences $(T_k)$ and $(T_k')$ in $U(\Phi_L,\Psi)$ we have that $$T'_k T_k^{-1} = {\operatorname{id}}+ O(k^{-1})$$ in uniform norm.
- We have an asymptotic representation in the sense that $$U(\Phi_L,\Psi) U(\Phi_L',\Psi') = U(\Phi_L \circ \Phi_L',\Psi \circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}
\Psi').$$
- When the graph of $\Phi$ intersects transversally the diagonal, we can estimate the trace of any $(T_k)$ in $U(\Phi_L, \Psi)$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:trace}
\operatorname{ Tr} ( T_k) = \sum_{x = \Phi (x) } \frac{ i^ {m_x} u_x^k } { | \det ( {\operatorname{id}}- T_x \Phi ) |^{1/2}} + O(k^{-1}) \end{gathered}$$ where for any fixed point $x$ of $\Phi$, $u_x \in {{\mathbb{C}}}$ is the trace of the endomorphism $\Phi_{L}(x)$ and $m_x \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}/ 4{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ depends only on $T_x \Phi$ and $\Psi (x)$.
Precise statements are given in theorems \[sec:unitary-maps-comp\] and \[sec:trace-estimates\]. These results are consequences of more general statements where the half-form line bundle is replaced by any auxiliary line bundle, cf. theorem \[the:P1\] and \[the:trace-estimate\]. However the quantization with metaplectic correction presented here has the following particular features. First, we have an asymptotic representation of a finite cover of the prequantum bundle automorphism group, whereas with a general auxiliary line bundle we have to consider a $U(1)$-extension. Second, the formula giving the asymptotic of the trace is much more complicated for a general auxiliary line bundle. It involves the complex structure of $M$ in a essential way, whereas it depends only on the symplectic data in the half-form case.
The index $m_x$ appearing in the estimate of the trace (\[eq:trace\]) is one of the main point of this paper. It is similar to a Maslov or a Conley-Zehnder index. Our definition requires a choice of a complex polarization, whereas the already known definitions of indices for symplectomorphisms involved a choice of a real polarization. Besides the definition given in section \[sec:definition-index\], we propose a simple useful characterization in section \[sec:char-index\]. We also compute the index of the elements of the metalinear and unitary groups.
The results of the paper relies on the articles [@oim_qm] and [@oim_mc]. In [@oim_qm] we proposed an elementary definition of a Fourier integral operator in the context of geometric quantization of K[ä]{}hler manifolds. Previously, a definition was given by Zelditch [@Ze] using the general theory of Toeplitz operators of Boutet de Monvel and Guillemin [@BoGu]. The interest of half-form bundle for these Fourier integral operators was understood in [@oim_mc] where the spaces $U( \Phi_L, \Psi)$ were introduced. The estimate of the trace with the definition of the index is new. Of course, it is very similar to the known formula for the usual Fourier integral operators. It was one of our goal to obtain the closest formula to the usual case.
In a sequel of this paper we will apply our result to the quantum representations of the mapping class group defined in topological quantum field theory. Estimating the character of these representations with our formula, we will obtain the leading order behavior of the quantum invariant of some 3-dimensional manifolds in the large level limit. These asymptotics were initially obtained by Witten in [@Wi] by doing the perturbative theory of some Feynman path integral and have been rigorously proved only in few cases. The article [@oim_MG] will be devoted to ${\operatorname{Sl}}(2, {{\mathbb{Z}}})$ and [@oim_MCG] to the mapping class group of surfaces with genus greater than 2.
The layout of this paper is as follows. Sections \[sec:half-forms\], \[sec:metaplectic-group\] and \[sec:gener-half-form\] are devoted to linear algebra preliminaries. In section \[sec:half-forms\], we define the half-form morphisms and the symplectic linear category with half-forms. The automorphism group of an object in this category is a concrete realization or the metaplectic group. It is the subject of section \[sec:metaplectic-group\], where the index of some of its element is defined. In section \[sec:gener-half-form\], we generalize the previous considerations, which is necessary for the application to the quantum representation of the mapping class group. In section \[sec:quant-kahl-manif\], we consider the quantization of K[ä]{}hler manifold with an auxiliary line bundle, introduce the operator quantizing the symplectomorphisms and estimate their trace. In section \[sec:quant-half-form\], we treat the particular case where the auxiliary bundle is a half-form bundle. In appendix \[sec:linear-quantization\], we introduce a functor from the category of symplectic vector spaces with polarization and half-form to the category of Hilbert spaces. Applying this functor to the automorphism group of a single object, we recover the well-known metaplectic representation. With this elementary construction in mind, one can view the quantization of symplectomorphisms studied in this article as a generalization of the metaplectic representation.
Half-forms {#sec:half-forms}
==========
Complex structures and canonical lines
--------------------------------------
Let $S$ be a symplectic real vector space. A positive polarization $E$ of $S$ is a Lagrangian subspace of $S \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}$ such that $$\tfrac{1}{i} {\omega}( x, \overline
{x}) >0$$ for any non-vanishing $x \in E$. Any positive polarization has a canonical Hermitian scalar product given by $$( x, y) \rightarrow \tfrac{1}{i} {\omega}(x, \overline{
y}) .$$ The set of positive polarizations of $S$ is a contractible topological space.
For any positive polarizations, we consider the canonical line $\wedge^{{\operatorname{top}}} E^* $ with its associated Hermitian product. For any positive polarizations $E_a$ and $E_b$, $S \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}$ is the direct sum of $ E_a$ and $\overline{E}_{b}$. Let $\pi_{E_b, E_a}: E_{b} \rightarrow E_{a}$ be the restriction of the projection onto $ E_{a}$ with kernel $\overline{E}_{b}$. This map is invertible. Define $$\Psi_{E_a, E_b} = \pi_{E_b, E_a} ^* : \wedge^{{\operatorname{top}}} E^*_{a}
\rightarrow \wedge ^{{\operatorname{top}}} E^*_{b}$$ Given three positive polarizations, let $\zeta( E_a, E_b,
E_c)$ be the complex number such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:def_zeta}
\Psi _{ E_a, E_c} = \zeta( E_a, E_b, E_c) \Psi_{ E_b, E_c} \circ
\Psi_{ E_a, E_b}\end{gathered}$$ Define $\zeta^{1/2}( E_a, E_b , E_c)$ to be the square root depending continuously on $E_a$, $E_b$ and $E_c$ and taking the value 1 when $E_a = E_b = E_c$.
Half-form lines
---------------
For any positive polarization $E$, a half-form line of $E$ is a complex line $\delta$ together with an isomorphism $\varphi : \delta
^{\otimes 2} \rightarrow \wedge ^{{\operatorname{top}}} E^*$. We endow $\delta$ with the scalar product making $\varphi$ a unitary map.
Let us consider the category ${{\mathcal{D}}}(S)$ with objects the triples $(E, \delta,
\varphi)$ consisting of a positive polarization together with a half-form line. The morphisms from $(E_a , \delta_a, \varphi_a)$ to $(E_b, \delta_b, \varphi_b)$ are the linear maps $\Psi : \delta_a \rightarrow
\delta_b$ satisfying $$\varphi_b \circ \Psi^{\otimes 2} = \Psi_{E_a, E_b} \circ
\varphi_a.$$ The composition of a morphism $\Psi: (E_a , \delta_a, \varphi_a)
\rightarrow (E_b, \delta_b, \varphi_b)$ with a morphism $\Psi ' : (E_b , \delta_b, \varphi_b)
\rightarrow (E_c, \delta_c, \varphi_c)$ is defined as $$\Psi' {\circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}\Psi := \zeta ^{1/2} ( E_a, E_b, E_c) \Psi' \circ \Psi$$ where the product in the right-hand side is the usual composition of maps.
\[prop:cat\_demi\_forme\] The product ${\circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}$ is well-defined and associative. For any object $(E, j , \varphi)$, the identity of $\delta$ is a unit of $( E, \delta , \varphi)$. So ${{\mathcal{D}}}(S)$ is a category. Furthermore each morphism is invertible, its inverse being its adjoint.
Because of equation (\[eq:def\_zeta\]), $\Psi' {\circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}\Psi$ is a morphism. We deduce from the associativity $$\Psi_{E_c, E_d} \circ (\Psi_{E_b, E_c} \circ \Psi_{E_a, E_b}) =
(\Psi_{E_c, E_d} \circ \Psi_{E_b, E_c}) \circ \Psi_{E_a, E_b}$$ the cocycle identity $$\zeta ( E_b, E_c, E_d ) \zeta ( E_a, E_b, E_d ) = \zeta ( E_a, E_c,
E_d) \zeta ( E_a, E_b, E_c ) .$$ The square root satisfying the same identity, the product ${\circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}$ is associative. Since $\Psi_{E,E}$ is the identity map, the identity of $\delta$ is a half-form morphism. Furthermore, $$\Psi_{E_b, E_b } \circ \Psi_{E_a, E_b} = \Psi_{E_a, E_b} , \qquad
\Psi_{E_a, E_b } \circ \Psi_{E_a, E_a} = \Psi_{E_a, E_b}$$ imply that $$\zeta( E_a, E_b, E_b ) = \zeta ( E_a, E_a, E_b) = 1 .$$ So the square root of $\zeta$ satisfies the same equation, consequently the identity of $\delta$ is a unit of $(E, \delta, \varphi)$.
Since $\overline{E}_{a}$ and $E_{b}$ are Lagrangian spaces, one has $${\omega}( x - \pi_{E_a, E_b} x , \overline{ \pi_{ E_b, E_a} y} ) = 0 , \qquad {\omega}(
\pi_{E_a, E_b} x , \overline{y} - \overline{\pi_{E_b, E_a} y} ) = 0$$ for any $x \in E_{a}$ and $y \in E_{b}$. Consequently $${\omega}( x , \overline{ \pi_{ E_b, E_a} y} ) = {\omega}( \pi_{E_a, E_b} x
,\overline{y} )$$ which proves that $\pi_{E_b, E_a}$ is the adjoint of $\pi_{E_a, E_b}$. So $\Psi_{E_b, E_a}$ is the adjoint of $\Psi_{E_a, E_b}$. Hence the adjoint $\Psi_{b,a}$ of a half-form morphism $\Psi_{a,b}$ is a half-form morphism. Furthermore, since the only automorphisms of a half-form bundle are ${\operatorname{id}}$ and $-{\operatorname{id}}$, one has $$\Psi_{b,a} {\circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}\Psi_{a,b}
= \pm {\operatorname{id}}, \qquad \Psi_{a,b} {\circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}\Psi_{b,a} = \pm {\operatorname{id}}.$$ Deforming from $E_a = E_b$ to remove the sign ambiguity, we obtain that $\Psi_{b,a}$ is the inverse of $\Psi_{a,b}$.
Symplectic linear category with half-forms {#sec:sympl-line-categ}
------------------------------------------
We introduce now a category ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ with objects the quadruples $(S, E, \delta, \varphi)$ consisting of a symplectic vector space with a positive polarization and a half-form line. Let us define the morphisms.
Consider two symplectic vector spaces $S_a$ and $S_b$ with positive polarizations $E_a$ and $E_b$ respectively. A symplectic linear isomorphism $g$ from $S_a$ to $S_b$ sends isomorphically $E_{a}$ to the positive polarization $g E_{a}$ of $S_b$. So composing the pull-back by $g^{-1}$ with the morphism $\Psi_{ g E_a, E_b}$ from $\wedge^{{\operatorname{top}}} (gE_a)^*$ to $\wedge ^{{\operatorname{top}}} E_{b}^*$, we obtain an isomorphism $$\Psi_{g, E_a, E_b} := \Psi_{ g E_a, E_b} \circ \bigl( g^{-1} \bigr)^* : \wedge^{{\operatorname{top}}} E^*_{a}
\rightarrow \wedge^{{\operatorname{top}}} E^*_{b}.$$ The morphisms from $a= (S_a, E_a, \delta_a, \varphi_a)$ to $b= (S_b, E_b, \delta_b,
\varphi_b)$ are defined as the pairs $( g, \Psi)$ consisting of a symplectic linear isomorphism from $S_a$ to $S_b$ and a linear morphism $
\delta_a \rightarrow \delta_b$ such that $$\varphi_b \circ
\Psi^{\otimes 2} = \Psi_{g, E_a, E_b} \circ
\varphi_a.$$ The composition of a morphism $(g,\Psi): a
\rightarrow b$ with a morphism $(g',\Psi
') : b \rightarrow c$ is defined as $$(g', \Psi') {\circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}(g, \Psi) := \bigl( g'g, \zeta ^{1/2} ( g'gE_a,
g' E_b, E_c) \Psi' \circ \Psi \bigr)$$ where the product in the right-hand side is the usual composition of maps.
\[prop:cat\] ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ is a category where each morphism is invertible.
This follows from proposition \[prop:cat\_demi\_forme\]. Indeed, given a morphism $(g, \Psi): a
\rightarrow b$, one may identify $S_a$ and $S_b$ with $S$ through symplectomorphisms in such a way that $g$ becomes the identity. Then $\Psi$ is a morphism from $(E_a, \delta_a,
\varphi_a)$ to $( E_b, \delta_b, \varphi_b)$ in the category ${{\mathcal{D}}}(S)$. With these identifications, the composition of morphisms in ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ corresponds to the composition in ${{\mathcal{D}}}(S)$.
In appendix \[sec:linear-quantization\], we will define a functor from the category ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ to the category of Hilbert spaces.
Metaplectic group {#sec:metaplectic-group}
=================
The automorphism group
----------------------
Consider a fixed symplectic vector space $S$ together with a positive polarization $E$. Denote by ${\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$ the group of linear symplectomorphism. For any $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$, observe that the endomorphism $\Psi_{ g, E, E}$ of $\wedge ^{{\operatorname{top}}} E^*$ is the multiplication by $ \det ( g^{-1}\pi_{E, gE} : E
\rightarrow E)$.
Let $(\delta, \varphi)$ be a half-form line of $(S,E)$. Then identifying the automorphisms of $\delta$ with complex numbers, the automorphisms of $(S, E, \delta , \varphi)$ are the pairs $(g, z)$ consisting of a linear symplectomorphism $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$ with a complex number $z$ such that $$z^2 = \det ( g^{-1} \pi_{E, gE} : E \rightarrow E) .$$ The composition of two automorphisms is given by $$(g', z' ) \circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}} ( g ,z ) = \bigl( g' g , \zeta ^{1/2} ( g'gE,
g' E, E) z' z \bigr) .$$ Since the previous formulas don’t depend on $( \delta,\varphi)$, we denote by ${\operatorname{Mp}}(S,E)$ the group of automorphisms of $(S, E, \delta , \varphi)$. The projection $${\operatorname{Mp}}(S, E) \rightarrow {\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$$ is two to one. Recall that ${\operatorname{Sp}}( S)$ is connected with fundamental group ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$. The metaplectic group is defined as the 2-cover of the symplectic group.
The group ${\operatorname{Mp}}(S,E ) $ is connected, so it is isomorphic to the metaplectic group.
Choose a line $D$ of $E$. Then for any $\theta \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$, consider the symplectomorphism $g_\theta$ which preserves $D$ and $E$ and such that for any $x \in E$, $$g_{\theta} x = \begin{cases} \exp ( i
\theta) x \qquad \text{ if } x \in D \\ x \qquad \text{ if } x \perp D
\end{cases}$$ Then $ \theta \rightarrow (g_\theta, \exp ( -i \theta /2 ))$ is a path of automorphisms connecting $( {\operatorname{id}}, 1)$ with $( {\operatorname{id}}, -1)$.
Definition of the index {#sec:definition-index}
-----------------------
Consider the complex structure $j$ of $S$ such that $\ker (j - i {\operatorname{id}}) = E$. Then $(X, Y) \rightarrow {\omega}(X, jY)$ is a scalar product of $S$. Let ${\operatorname{Sym}}(S, j)$ be the space of linear endomorphisms of $S$ symmetric with respect to this scalar product. For any $A \in {\operatorname{Sym}}(S, j)$, define the square root $$\operatorname{det}^{1/2} \bigl(\tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A \bigr)$$ in such a way that it depends continuously on $A$ and is positive for $A=0$. It is well-defined because ${\operatorname{Sym}}(S, j )$ is contractible, as a vector space. Observe also that any symmetric endomorphism $A$ is diagonalisable with a real spectrum so that $\tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A$ is invertible.
Let ${\operatorname{Sp}}_* (S)$ be the set of symplectic linear isomorphism $g$ of $S$ such that ${\operatorname{id}}- g $ is invertible. For any such $g$, it is easily checked that $$A( g) := \tfrac{1}{2} ( {\operatorname{id}}+ g ) \circ ( {\operatorname{id}}- g ) ^{-1} \circ j$$ belongs to ${\operatorname{Sym}}(S, j)$. Denote by ${\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S,E)$ the subset of ${\operatorname{Mp}}(S,E) $ consisting of the pairs $( g, z)$ such that $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}_* (S) $.
\[prop:def-index\] For any automorphism $(g, z) \in {\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S,E) $, one has $$z \operatorname{det}^{1/2} \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A ( g) \bigr) = \frac{ i ^{m ( g, z)}
}{|\det({\operatorname{id}}- g) |^{1/2}}$$ where $m(g, z ) \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}/ 4 {{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
Since the inverse of $({\operatorname{id}}- g )^{-1} j $ is $-j ( {\operatorname{id}}-
g)$, one has
[2]{} + i A (g) = & ( -j ( - g ) + i (+ g ) ) ( - g )\^[-1]{} j\
= & -j ( - g )(- g )\^[-1]{} j
where $\pi = \tfrac{1}{2}( {\operatorname{id}}- i j )$ is the projector of $S
\otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}$ with image $E$ and kernel $\overline{E}$. From this one deduces that $$\begin{gathered}
\det \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A (g) \bigr) = \frac{\det(
\overline{\pi} - \pi g) }{\det ( {\operatorname{id}}- g )}
= ( -1)^n \frac{\det ( \pi g : E \rightarrow
E )}{ \det ( {\operatorname{id}}- g ) } \end{gathered}$$ The inverse of $\pi_{E, gE}$ is the restriction of $\pi$ from $gE$ to $E$. So $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:2}
z^2 = \det ( g^{-1} \pi_{E, gE} : E \rightarrow E) = \operatorname{det}^{-1} ( \pi g : E \rightarrow
E ) .\end{gathered}$$ The two previous equations imply that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:square}
z^ 2 \det \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A (g) \bigr) = \frac{(-1)^n}{ \det ( {\operatorname{id}}- g )
},\end{gathered}$$ which concludes the proof.
We call $m(g,z)$ the index of $(g,z)$. This defines a locally constant map $m$ from ${\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S,E)$ to $ {{\mathbb{Z}}}/ 4 {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ which distinguishes the components of ${\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S,E)$, as proves the following proposition.
${\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S,E) $ has four components: $m^{-1} (0)$, $m^{-1} (1)$, $m^{-1} (2)$ and $m^{-1} (3)$.
Observe also that $m( -{\operatorname{id}}, e^{i \frac{\pi}{2} p } )= p $ for $p
=n$ mod 2. When $S$ is two-dimensional one can can easily characterize the index of $(g,z)$ in term of the trace of $g$ and the argument of $z$, cf. equation (\[eq:ind2d\]).
It is proved in [@CoZe] lemma 1.7, that ${\operatorname{Sp}}_* (S)$ has two components, distinguished by the sign of $\det ( g - {\operatorname{id}})$. So ${\operatorname{Mp}}_*(S,E)$ has at most 4 components. To conclude it suffices to prove that $m$ is onto. This follows from equation (\[eq:square\]), because the right hand side can be positive and negative. Actually, it is also proved in [@CoZe] lemma 1.7 that any loop in ${\operatorname{Sp}}_* (S)$ is contractible in ${\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$, which gives another proof that ${\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S,E)$ has 4 components.
A characterization of the index {#sec:char-index}
-------------------------------
Assume $S$ is two-dimensional. By choosing a basis $(e,f)$ of $S$ such that the symplectic product of $e$ with $f$ is equal to 1, we identify $S$ with ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ and ${\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$ with ${\operatorname{Sl}}(
2, {{\mathbb{R}}})$. For any $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$, $$\det ( {\operatorname{id}}- g ) = 2 - \operatorname{tr}( g ) .$$ So the set of $g$ with $\det ( {\operatorname{id}}- g ) <0$ consists of the hyperbolic elements with negative trace, whereas the set of $g$ with $ \det (
{\operatorname{id}}- g ) >0$ consists of the elliptic elements together with the hyperbolic ones with a positive trace.
Recall that ${\operatorname{Sl}}( 2, {{\mathbb{R}}})$ is diffeomorphic to the product of the circle and the unit disc. Such a diffeomorphism is the map sending ${\theta}\in S^1$ and $(u,v) \in D $ into $$g ( {\theta}, u , v ) := \bigl( 1 - u^2 - v^2 \bigr) ^{-1/2}
\left( \begin{matrix} \cos ( {\theta}) + u & - \sin ( {\theta}) + v \\ \sin (
{\theta}) + v & \cos ( {\theta}) - u \end{matrix} \right)$$ where $D = \{(u,v) / \; u^2 + v^2
< 1 \}$.
Let $E$ be the positive polarization generated by $e - i f$ and let ${\operatorname{Mp}}(S,E)$ be the associated metaplectic group. Let us parametrize ${\operatorname{Mp}}(S,E)$ by $S^1 \times D$ $$( {\theta}, u,v) \rightarrow ( g ( - 2 {\theta}, u, v) , e^{i {\theta}} ( 1
- u ^2 - v ^2 )^{-\frac{1}{4}} )$$ Then ${\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S,E)$ is the image of $\bigl\{ \cos ( 2 {\theta}) \neq \bigl( 1 -
u ^2 - v^2 \bigr)^{1/2} \bigr\}$. We find easily the index of any element of $ {\operatorname{Sp}}_* (S)$ by computing explicitly the index of one element in each component. cf. figure \[fig:index\].
Observe that when the argument of $z$ runs over an interval $\bigl[ k
\tfrac{\pi}{2}, (k+1) \tfrac{\pi}{2} \bigr[$ with $k \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$, the index $m(g,z)$ takes two distinct values depending on the sign of $\operatorname{tr}(g) -
2$. Checking the various cases, one obtains the following formula $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:ind2d}
m( g, z) = k + \tfrac{1}{2} ( 1 - ( -1) ^{k + \epsilon})\end{gathered}$$ where $k$ and $\epsilon$ are determined by $$\arg (z) \in \bigl[ k
\tfrac{\pi}{2}, (k+1) \tfrac{\pi}{2} \bigr[ , \qquad \epsilon =
\begin{cases} 0 \text{ if } \operatorname{tr} ( g) > 2 \\ 1 \text{
otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
The formula does not depend on the parametrization. Unfortunately such a simple description doesn’t generalize in higher dimension. Nevertheless we can characterize the index in any dimension by considering product.
Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be two symplectic vector spaces with positive polarizations $E_1$ and $E_2$. Then $E= E_1 \times E_2$ is a positive polarization of $S = S_1 \times S_2$. We have a morphism from ${\operatorname{Mp}}(S_1,E_1) \times {\operatorname{Mp}}( S_2, E_2) $ to ${\operatorname{Mp}}( S,E)$ sending $((g_1, z_1),$ $(g_2, z_2))$ into $( g_1 \times g_2 , z_1
z_2)$. Furthermore, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:indprod}
m ( g_1 \times g_2 , z_1
z_2) = m ( g_1, z_1) + m ( g_2 , z_2). \end{gathered}$$ So the image of ${\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S_1,E_1) \times {\operatorname{Mp}}_* ( S_2,E_2)$ meets each connected component of ${\operatorname{Mp}}_* (S,E)$. This gives the following characterization.
The collection $(m_{S,
E}: {\operatorname{Mp}}(S, E) \rightarrow {{\mathbb{Z}}}/4 {{\mathbb{Z}}})$, where $(S,E)$ runs over the symplectic vector space endowed with a positive polarization, is the unique collection of continuous map satisfying (\[eq:ind2d\]) for any two dimensional space and (\[eq:indprod\]) for any product.
Unitary group of $E$
--------------------
The subgroup of ${\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$ consisting of the elements commuting with $j$ is isomorphic with the unitary group of $E$. The isomorphism is the map $\iota $ sending $h \in U(E)$ to $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$ whose complexification acts as $$g ( x ) = \begin{cases} h (x) \text{ if } x \in E \\ \overline{h
} (x) \text{ if } x \in \overline E
\end{cases}$$ Denote by $U_*(E)$ the subset of $U(E)$ consisting of the $h$ such that $h -id $ is invertible. Obviously $h \in U_*(E)$ iff $\iota (h) \in
{\operatorname{Sp}}_* (S)$. Next lemma will be used to compare our trace estimates with the holomorphic Lefschetz fixed point formula.
\[lem:indexholom\] For any $h \in U_*(E)$, we have $$\operatorname{det}^{1/2} \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A ( \iota ( h)
) \bigr) = \frac{1}{
\det ( {\operatorname{id}}- h^{-1})} .$$
Let $(e_i)$ be an orthonormal basis of $E$ diagonalising $h$. Then the matrix of $A(g)$ in the base $(e_1, \ldots , e_n, \overline{e}_1,
\ldots , \overline{e}_n)$ is given by $$\left( \begin{matrix} D & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{D} \end{matrix} \right)$$ with $D$ the diagonal matrix with entries $ d_i = \frac{i}{2} (1+u_i)
( 1 - u_i)^{-1}
$. Here the $u_i$’s are the eigenvalues of $h$, $h(e_i) = u _i e_i$. A straightforward computation using that $u_i$ is a complex number with modulus 1 gives $$( \tfrac{1}{2} + i d_i ) ( \tfrac{1}{2} +i \overline{d_i}) = \frac{1}{ (1- \overline{u}_i)^2}$$ so that $$\operatorname{det} \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A ( j(h)) \bigr) = \frac{1}{
\operatorname{det}^2 ( {\operatorname{id}}- h^{-1}) }$$ This proves the result up to a plus or minus sign. $U_*(E)$ being connected, it suffices now to check the result for one element $h$. It is obvious for $h = -{\operatorname{id}}$, because $A(\iota (h) ) =0$.
Let $\tilde{U} (E)$ be the subgroup of $U(E) \times {{\mathbb{C}}}$ $$\tilde{U} (E) = \{ ( h, z) / \; z^2 = \det h \}$$ It is isomorphic to the twofold cover of $U(E)$. By equation (\[eq:2\]), $\iota$ lifts to the embedding from $\tilde{U}(E)$ to ${\operatorname{Mp}}(S,E)$ sending $(h, z)$ to $(\iota (h) , z^{-1})$. This map is a group morphism. Finally observe that $\tilde{U}_*(E)$ has 2 components, one containing $( -{\operatorname{id}}, \epsilon)$ and the other $( -{\operatorname{id}}, -\epsilon)$ with $\epsilon ^2 = ( -1) ^n$. So the index $m$ takes two distinct values on $\tilde{U}_*(E)$.
Metalinear group of a Lagrangian subspace
-----------------------------------------
Let $\Lambda$ be a Lagrangian subspace of $S$. Let ${\operatorname{Sp}}( S, \Lambda,
j \Lambda)$ be the subgroup of ${\operatorname{Sp}}(S)$ consisting of the elements preserving $\Lambda$ and $j \Lambda$. Let ${\operatorname{Ml}}( \Lambda)$ be the metalinear group of $\Lambda$, i.e. the subgroup of ${\operatorname{Gl}}( \Lambda) \times {{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ consisting of the pairs $(h , z)$ such that $ z^2 = \det h $.
For any $(h,z) \in {\operatorname{Ml}}( \Lambda)$, there is a unique pair $( g, z') \in {\operatorname{Sp}}( S, \Lambda,
j \Lambda) \times {{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ such that
- $h$ is the restriction of $g$ to $\Lambda$.
- $z'/z \in {{\mathbb{R}}}_+$.
The map $ j_\Lambda : {\operatorname{Ml}}( \Lambda) \rightarrow {\operatorname{Mp}}(S,E)$ sending $(h,z )$ into $(g, z')$ is an injective group morphisms, with image the set of $(g,z')$ such that $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}( S, \Lambda,
j \Lambda)$.
Let $(e_i)$ be a basis of $\Lambda$, orthonormal for the scalar product ${\omega}( x, j y)$. Then $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}( S, \Lambda,
j \Lambda)$ if and only if its matrix in the basis $e_1, \ldots , e_n,
je_1$, $\ldots$, $j e_n $ is of the form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:3}
\left( \begin{matrix} B & 0 \\ 0 & C \end{matrix} \right)\end{gathered}$$ with $B C^t = {\operatorname{id}}$. So $g$ is determined by its restriction $h$ to $\Lambda$ which is an arbitrary element of ${\operatorname{Gl}}( \Lambda )$.
Denote by $\pi$ the projection onto $E$ with kernel $\overline{E}$. Then the matrix of $ \pi g : E \rightarrow E$ in the basis $(e_i - i je_i)_i$ is $ \frac{1}{2} ( B + C)$. Furthermore $\det ( B + C)$ and $\det B$ have the same sign. So $\det ( \pi g : E \rightarrow E)$ is real and have the same sign of $\det (h)$. This proves the existence and unicity of $z'$.
To prove that $j_\Lambda$ is a morphism, we have to show that $ \zeta^{1/2} ( g'g E, g'E, E)$ is a positive number for any $g, g' \in {\operatorname{Sp}}( S, \Lambda,
j \Lambda)$. By the first part of the proof, $\zeta ( g'g E,
g'E, E)$ is real. So it suffices to prove it is positive for one pair $(h, h')$ in each component of ${\operatorname{Gl}}(\Lambda ) \times {\operatorname{Gl}}( \Lambda)$. If any two of three polarizations $E$, $F$ and $G$ are equal, then $$\zeta^{1/2} (G, F, E) = 1 .$$ One deduces that $\zeta^{1/2} ( g'g E, g'E, E) =1 $ for $(h, h') = ( {\operatorname{id}}, {\operatorname{id}})$, $( {\operatorname{id}}, k )$, $( k , {\operatorname{id}})$ and $(k,k)$ where $k $ is any involution of $\Lambda$ with negative determinant.
For any $(h,z ) \in {\operatorname{Ml}}( \Lambda )$ such that $h - {\operatorname{id}}$ is invertible, the index $m$ of $j_\Lambda ( h , z)$ is determined by $ z = i ^m |z| $.
One has to prove that $ \operatorname{det}^{1/2} \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2}
{\operatorname{id}}+ i A(g) \bigr)$ is positive for any $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}( S , \Lambda, j \Lambda)$. If the matrix of $g$ is (\[eq:3\]), the one of $A(g)$ is $$-\tfrac{1}{2} \left( \begin{matrix} 0 & D \\ D^t & 0 \end{matrix} \right)
\qquad \text{ with } D =( 1 +B) ( 1- B)^{-1}$$ So $$\det \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A(g) \bigr) = \det \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} (
{\operatorname{id}}+ D^t D) \bigr).$$ Deforming $A(g)$ to $0$ through a radial homothety we obtain that the square root of $\operatorname{det}
\bigl( \frac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A (g) \bigr )$ is positive.
Generalized half-form lines {#sec:gener-half-form}
===========================
Let $p$ be a positive integer. A generalized half-form line of a symplectic vector space $S$ equipped with a positive polarization $E$ is a complex line $\delta$ together with an isomorphism $$\varphi : \delta^{\otimes 2 p} \rightarrow \bigl( \wedge
^{\operatorname{top}} E^* \bigr)^{\otimes p}$$ We have a category whose objects are the quadruples $(S,E, \delta, \varphi)$. The morphisms from $(S_a, E_a, \delta_a,
\varphi_a)$ to $(S_b , E_b , \delta_b, \varphi_b)$ are the pairs consisting of a linear symplectomorphism $g : S_a \rightarrow S_b$ together with a morphism $\Psi : \delta_a \rightarrow \delta_b$ such that $$\varphi_b \circ
\Psi^{\otimes 2 p } = \Psi_{g, E_a, E_b}^{\otimes p} \circ
\varphi_a$$ where the map $\Psi_{g, E_a, E_b}$ is defined as in section \[sec:sympl-line-categ\]. The composition of a morphism $(g,\Psi): a
\rightarrow b$ with a morphism $(g',\Psi
') : b \rightarrow c$ is defined as $$(g', \Psi') {\circ_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}}(g, \Psi) := \bigl( g'g, \zeta ^{1/2} ( g'gE_a,
g' E_b, E_c) \Psi' \circ \Psi \bigr)$$ where the product in the right-hand side is the usual composition of maps.
The automorphism group ${\operatorname{Mp}}_p (S,E)$ of $(S,E, \delta, \varphi)$ consists of the pair $(g, z)$ where $g$ is a linear symplectomorphism of $S$ and $z$ a complex number such that $$z^{2p} = \operatorname{det} ^p ( g^{-1} \pi_{E, gE} : E
\rightarrow E) .$$ Let $U_{2p}$ be the group of $2p$-th roots of unity. The map sending $((g,z), u ) $ to $(g, zu)$ is a surjective morphism $${\operatorname{Mp}}( S,E) \times U_{2p} \rightarrow {\operatorname{Mp}}_p (S,E)$$ with kernel $\bigl\{ ( ({\operatorname{id}}, 1),1), (( {\operatorname{id}}, -1) , -1 )
\bigr\}$. For any element $(g,z) \in {\operatorname{Mp}}_p (S,E)$ such that $1$ is not an eigenvalue of $g$, we define its index in the following way. Set $p' = p$ if $p$ is even and $p' = 2p $ if $p $ is odd. Then $m_p(g,z)$ is the unique element of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ mod $2p' {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
z \operatorname{det}^{1/2} \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A ( g)
\bigr) = \frac{ e^{i \frac{\pi}{p'} m _p( g, z)}
}{|\det({\operatorname{id}}- g) |^{1/2}}\end{gathered}$$ The existence of $m_p (g,z)$ follows from proposition \[prop:def-index\].
Quantization of K[ä]{}hler manifolds {#sec:quant-kahl-manif}
====================================
Hilbert space
-------------
Consider a compact K[ä]{}hler manifold $M$ with a prequantization bundle $L$, that is $L$ is a holomorphic Hermitian line bundle such that the curvature of its Chern connection is $\frac{1}{i} {\omega}$ where ${\omega}$ is the fundamental two-form of $M$. Let $K\rightarrow M$ be a holomorphic Hermitian line bundle. Define the sequence of vector spaces $${{\mathcal{H}}}_k := \bigl\{ \text{holomorphic sections of } L^k \otimes K \bigr\}, \qquad k =1,2,...$$ Since $M$ is compact, ${{\mathcal{H}}}_k $ is a finite dimensional vector space. It has a natural scalar product defined by means of the Hermitian structure of $ L^k \otimes K $ and the Liouville measure of $M$.
Fourier integral operators {#sec:four-integr-oper}
--------------------------
Consider a symplectomorphism $\Phi : M \rightarrow M$ together with an automorphism $\Phi_L$ of the bundle $L$ lifting $\Phi$ and preserving the connection and the metric. To these data is associated a space ${{\mathcal{F}}}( \Phi_L)$ of Fourier integral operators, that we define now.
Consider a family of operators $(S_k: {{\mathcal{H}}}_k
\rightarrow {{\mathcal{H}}}_k, \; k =1,2 , \ldots) $. The scalar product of ${{\mathcal{H}}}_k
$ gives us an isomorphism $${\operatorname{Hom}}({{\mathcal{H}}}_k , {{\mathcal{H}}}_k ) \simeq {{\mathcal{H}}}_k
\otimes \overline{{{\mathcal{H}}}}
_k .$$ The latter space can be regarded as the space of holomorphic sections of $$(L^k \otimes K ) \boxtimes (\overline{L}^k \otimes \overline{K})
\rightarrow M^2,$$ where $M^2$ is endowed with the complex structure $(j, -j)$. The section $S_k (x,y)$ associated in this way to $S_k$ is its Schwartz kernel.
By definition $(S_k)$ is a Fourier integral operator of ${{\mathcal{F}}}( \Phi_L)$ if $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def:FIO}
S_k(x,y) = \Bigl( \frac{k}{2\pi} \Bigr)^{n} F^k(x,y) g(x,y,k) + O
(k^{-\infty}) \end{gathered}$$ where
- $F$ is a section of $L \boxtimes \bar{L}
\rightarrow M^2$ such that $\| F(x,y)
\| <1 $ if $x \neq \Phi(y) $, $$F (\Phi ( x) ,x) = \Phi_L(u) \otimes \bar{u}, \quad \forall u \in L_x \text{ such that }
\| u \| = 1,$$ and $ \bar{\partial} F \equiv 0 $ modulo a section vanishing to any order along the graph of $\Phi ^{-1}$.
- $g(.,k)$ is a sequence of sections of $ K \boxtimes
\bar{K} \rightarrow M^2$ which admits an asymptotic expansion in the ${{\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}}$ topology of the form $$g(.,k) = g_0 + k^{-1} g_1 + k^{-2} g_2 + ...$$ whose coefficients satisfy $\bar{\partial} g_i \equiv 0 $ modulo a section vanishing to any order along the graph of $\Phi ^{-1}$.
Let us define the principal symbol of $(S_k)$ to be the map $x \rightarrow
g_0(\Phi ( x) ,x)$. Using the Hermitian structure of $K$, we regard it as a section of the bundle ${\operatorname{Hom}}(K , \Phi_*K) \rightarrow M$. The principal symbol map $$\sigma :
{{\mathcal{F}}}( \Phi_L ) \rightarrow {{\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}}(M, {\operatorname{Hom}}(K , \Phi_* K))$$ satisfies the expected property.
\[the:P0\] The following sequence is exact $$0 \rightarrow {{\mathcal{F}}}(\Phi_L) \cap O(k^{-1}) \rightarrow
{{\mathcal{F}}}( \Phi_L ) \xrightarrow{\sigma} {{\mathcal{C}}^{\infty}}(M,{\operatorname{Hom}}(K , \Phi_*
K)) \rightarrow 0,$$ where the $O(k^{-1})$ is for the uniform norm of operators.
Consider two symplectomorphisms $\Phi$ and $\Phi ' $. Define the product of two sections $\Psi$, $\Psi'$ of ${\operatorname{Hom}}( K, \Phi_*K )$ and ${\operatorname{Hom}}( K, \Phi' _*K)$ respectively as the section of ${\operatorname{Hom}}( K , (\Phi' \circ \Phi )_* K) $ given at $x$ by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:comp_mor}
\Psi' \circ_{{\mathcal{D}}}\Psi (x) = \zeta^{1/2} ( g'_{\Phi(x)} g_x
E_x, g'_{\Phi(x)} E_{\Phi ( x)}, E_{(\Phi' \circ \Phi)(x)}
) \Psi' (
\Phi (x))
\circ \Psi (x) \end{gathered}$$ where $E_y = T^{1,0}_y M$, $g_y = T_y \Phi$ and $g'_y = T_y \Phi'$ for $y= x$, $\Phi (x)$ or $\Phi' ( \Phi (x))$. Here the product on the right hand side is the usual composition of homomorphism.
\[the:P1\] Let $\Phi_L$ and $\Phi_L'$ be two automorphisms of the prequantum bundle $L$ lifting $\Phi$ and $\Phi'$ respectively. If $T \in {{\mathcal{F}}}(\Phi_L)$ and $S
\in {{\mathcal{F}}}(\Phi_L')$, then $S\circ T$ is a Fourier integral operator of ${{\mathcal{F}}}(\Phi_L ' \circ \Phi_L )$. Its symbol is given by $${\sigma}( S \circ T ) = {\sigma}(S) \circ_{{\mathcal{D}}}{\sigma}(T).$$
Theorems \[the:P0\] and \[the:P1\] are consequences of theorems 3.1 and 3.2 of [@oim_mc].
Trace estimate
--------------
Consider a symplectomorphism $\Phi$ of $M$ together with a lift $\Phi_L$ to the prequantum bundle. Assume that the graph of $\Phi$ intersects transversally the diagonal.
\[the:trace-estimate\] For any $(S_k) \in {{\mathcal{F}}}( \Phi_L)$ with symbol $\Psi$, we have $$\operatorname{Tr} ( S_k) = \sum_{x = \Phi (x) } z_x
\operatorname{ det}^{1/2} \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A_x \bigr) \; u_x^k$$ where for any fixed point $x$ of $M$,
- $z_x$ and $u_x$ are the traces of $\Psi(x) : K_x \rightarrow K_x $ and $ \Phi_L (x) : L_x \rightarrow
L_x$ respectively.
- $A_x = \tfrac{1}{2} ({\operatorname{id}}+ T_x \Phi) \circ ( {\operatorname{id}}- T_x \Phi)^{-1}
\circ j_x $ and the square root of the determinant is determined as in section \[sec:definition-index\].
By assumption the Schwartz kernel of $S$ has the form (\[def:FIO\]). One has $$\operatorname{Tr} ( S_k) = \Bigl( \frac{k}{2\pi} \Bigr)^{n} \int _M F^k(x,x)
f(x,x,k) \mu _M(x) + O
(k^{-\infty})$$ Since $|F(x,y)| < 1 $ outside $\Gamma = \{ ( \Phi (x) , x ) / \; x \in M
\}$, one can restrict the integral to a neighborhood of the fixed point set of $\Phi$. Let us write on a neighborhood of $\Gamma $ $$\nabla ^{L \boxtimes \overline{L}} F = \beta \otimes F$$ In the proposition 2.2 of [@oim_qm], the first derivatives of $\beta$ along $\Gamma$ are computed. Denote by $E_x $ the space $T^{1,0}_x M$.
\[lem:derF\] The form $\beta$ vanishes along $\Gamma$. For any vector fields $X$ and $Y$ of $M^2$, one has at any point of $\Gamma$ $${{\mathcal{L}}}_X \langle \beta , Y \rangle = \tfrac{1}{i}
{\omega}_{M \times M^-} ( q (X) , Y)$$ where ${\omega}_{M \times M^-} $ is the symplectic form of the product of $(M, {\omega})$ with $(M, -{\omega})$. And for any $x \in M$, $q_{(\Phi(x), x)}$ is the projection of $T_{\Phi(x)} M \times T_x M$ onto $\overline{E}_{\Phi(x)} \times E_x$ with kernel the tangent space of $\Gamma $ at $(\Phi (x), x)$.
Let us write on a neighborhood of a fixed point $x_0$ of $\Phi$ $$F (x,x) = \exp ( - \varphi (x))$$ where $\varphi$ is a complex valued function. By lemma \[lem:derF\], the first derivatives of $\varphi$ vanishes at $x_0$.
The Hessian of $\varphi$ at $x_0$ is given by $$\operatorname{Hess} \varphi (X, X') (x_0) = {\omega}( \bigl(
\tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A_{x_0} \bigr)^{-1} X, jX' )$$ for any tangent vectors $X, X'$ of $M$ at $x_0$.
By lemma \[lem:derF\], the Hessian is given by $$\operatorname{Hess} \varphi (X, X') (x_0) = i {\omega}_{M \times M^-} (
q (X,X) , (X',X') )$$ Let $\pi$ be the projector of $T_x M \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}$ with image $E_x$ and kernel $\overline{E}_x$. Then $$q (X,X) = (\overline{\pi} (V), \pi (V))$$ for a unique $V \in T_xM \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}$. Using that $\pi = \frac{1}{2} ( {\operatorname{id}}-
i j_x )$, we obtain that
[2]{} (X, X’) (x\_0) = & i ( (V), X’) - i ( (V), X’)\
= & ( V, j\_xX’)
To compute $V$ one has to solve the following system $$\begin{cases} X = T_x \Phi (Y) + \frac{1}{2} ( {\operatorname{id}}+
i j_x ) V \\ X = Y + \frac{1}{2} ( {\operatorname{id}}-
i j_x ) V
\end{cases}$$ Adding and subtracting both equations, we obtain $$\begin{cases} 2X = ( {\operatorname{id}}+ T_x \Phi) (Y) + V \\ 0 = ( {\operatorname{id}}-
T_x \Phi) (Y) - i j_x V
\end{cases}$$ With the second equation, we compute $Y$ in terms of $V$. Inserting the result in the first equation, we obtain $$V = \bigl(
\tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A_{x_0} \bigr)^{-1} X$$ with proves the lemma.
Now the theorem follows from stationary phase lemma by using that $\exp ( - \varphi(x_0) ) = u_{x_0}$ and $g( x_0, x_0, k ) = z_{x_0} +
O(k^{-1})$. Observe furthermore that the Liouville measure is the Riemannian volume of the metric ${\omega}(X, j_x Y)$. So for an orthogonal basis $X_1, \ldots, X_{2n}$, we have $$\mu_M( X_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge X_{2n} ) =1$$ and $$\det \bigl( \operatorname{Hess} \varphi ( X_i, X_j) (x_0)
\bigr)_{i,j} =
\operatorname{det} ^{-1} \bigl( \tfrac{1}{2} {\operatorname{id}}+ i A_{x_0} \bigr)$$ which leads to the result.
The holomorphic Lefschetz fixed point formula
---------------------------------------------
As in the previous section, consider a symplectomorphism $\Phi$ of $M$ together with a lift $\Phi_L$ to the prequantum bundle. Assume that $\Phi$ is a holomorphic map. Since the holomorphic structure of $L$ is characterized by the connection, $\Phi_L$ is a holomorphic bundle homomorphism. Consider a holomorphic bundle homomorphism $\Psi$ of $K$ lifting $\Phi$. Then we have a map $$(\Phi_L^k \otimes \Psi)_* : {{\mathcal{H}}}_k \rightarrow {{\mathcal{H}}}_k$$ defined as the inverse of the pull-back by $\Phi_L^k \otimes \Psi$. More generally, $\Phi_L^k \otimes \Psi$ acts on the $q$-th cohomology group of the sheaf of holomorphic sections of $L^k \otimes
K$. One defines the holomorphic Lefschetz number $$L ( \Phi_L^k \otimes \Psi) := \sum_{ q=0}^n ( - 1)^q
\operatorname{Tr} \bigl( (\Phi_L^k \otimes \Psi) _* |_{ H^q (M, L^k
\otimes K)} \bigr)$$ Then assuming that the graph of $\Phi$ intersects transversally the diagonal, the holomorphic Lefschetz fixed point theorem, cf. [@AtBo] theorem 4.12, says $$L ( \Phi_L^k \otimes \Psi) = \sum_{x = \Phi(x) } \frac{z_x u_x^k }
{ \det \bigl( {\operatorname{id}}- h_x^{-1} \bigr)}$$ where the complex numbers $z_x$ and $u_x$ are defined as in theorem \[the:trace-estimate\] and $h_x $ is the holomorphic tangent map of $\Phi$ at $x$, that is the restriction of $ T_x \Phi \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}$ to $E_x = T^{1,0}_xM$.
When $k$ is sufficiently large, Kodaira’s vanishing theorem implies that $H^q (M, L^k \otimes K) =0$ for every positive $q$. If the latter is the case, the holomorphic Lefschetz number is the trace of the action of $ \Phi_L^k \otimes \Psi$ on ${{\mathcal{H}}}_k$.
Furthermore, the family of operators $( (\Phi_L^k \otimes \Psi) _*
|_{ {{\mathcal{H}}}_k }, k=1,2,\ldots ) $ is a Fourier integral operator of ${{\mathcal{F}}}( \Phi_L)$ with symbol $\Psi$. This is an easy consequence of the fact that the sequence $({\operatorname{id}}_{{{\mathcal{H}}}_k}, k=1,2, \ldots)$ belongs to ${{\mathcal{F}}}( {\operatorname{id}}_L)$ and has the symbol ${\operatorname{id}}_K$.
So theorem \[the:trace-estimate\] gives the asymptotic behaviour of the Lefschetz numbers. That the result agrees with holomorphic Lefschetz fixed point theorem is a consequence of lemma \[lem:indexholom\].
Quantization with half-form bundle {#sec:quant-half-form}
==================================
Hilbert spaces
--------------
Let $p$ be a positive integer. Let $(\delta,
\varphi)$ be a generalized half-form bundle of $M$, i.e. $\delta$ is a complex line bundle over $M$ and $\varphi$ is an isomorphism form $\delta^{\otimes 2p }$ to $\bigl( \wedge^{n,0} T ^*M \bigr)^{\otimes p}$. So at each point $x \in M$, we have a positive polarization $$T^{1,0} _{x} M = \ker( j_x - i {\operatorname{id}})$$ of $T_x M$ and a generalized half-form line $( \delta_x, \varphi_x)$ of this polarization.
The half-form bundle $\delta$ has a natural metric and holomorphic structure such that $\varphi$ is an isomorphism of Hermitian holomorphic bundle. We apply the previous constructions with $K
= \delta$, which defines the Hilbert space ${{\mathcal{H}}}_k$.
Unitary maps {#sec:unitary-maps}
------------
Let $\Psi$ be an automorphism of the bundle $\delta$ lifting a symplectomorphism $\Phi$ of $M$. One says that $\Psi$ is a half-form bundle automorphism if for any point $x$ of $M$, $$\Psi(x) : \delta_x \rightarrow \delta_{\Phi(x)}$$ is a morphism of half-form lines, cf. section \[sec:sympl-line-categ\] for $p=1$ and section \[sec:gener-half-form\] for any $p$. Observe that for any two half-form bundle automorphisms $\Psi$ and $\Psi'$, the product $\Psi'
\circ_{{\mathcal{D}}}\Psi$ defined in (\[eq:comp\_mor\]) is a half-form bundle morphism.
\[sec:unitary-maps-comp\] For any automorphisms $\Phi_L, \Psi$ of the prequantum bundle $L$ and the half-form bundle $\delta$ respectively which lift the same symplectomorphism of $M$, let $U( \Phi_L, \Psi)$ be the set of unitary Fourier integral operators of ${{\mathcal{F}}}( \Phi_L)$ with symbol $\Psi$. Then
- $U( \Phi_L, \Psi)$ is not empty.
- $ T_k \in U(\Phi_L, \Psi) \text { and } T'_k \in U(\Phi_L', \Psi')
\Rightarrow (T'_k T_k
) \in U(\Phi_L' \circ \Phi_L , \Psi' \circ_{{\mathcal{D}}}\Psi )
$
- $ U( {\operatorname{id}}_L, {\operatorname{id}}_\delta)$ consists of the sequences $\exp ( i k^{-1}
T_k)$ where $(T_k)$ runs over the self-adjoint operators of ${{\mathcal{F}}}( {\operatorname{id}}_L)$.
We only give an outline since the ideas of the proof are standard. To show that $U( \Phi_L, \Psi)$ is not empty, consider a Fourier integral operator $(T_k)$ of ${{\mathcal{F}}}( \Phi_L)$ with symbol $\Psi$. Then its adjoint is a Fourier integral operator of ${{\mathcal{F}}}(
\Phi_L^{-1})$ with symbol $\Psi^*$. By proposition \[prop:cat\_demi\_forme\], $\Psi^*$ is the inverse of $\Psi$. So by theorem \[the:P1\], $(T_k ^* T_k)$ is a Fourier integral operator of ${{\mathcal{F}}}({\operatorname{id}}_L)$ with symbol the identity. ${{\mathcal{F}}}({\operatorname{id}}_L)$ is the algebra of Toeplitz operators. By ellipticity, $T_k ^* T_k$ is an invertible self-adjoint operator when $k$ is sufficiently large. By changing the first values of $T_k$, $T_k ^*
T_k$ is invertible for any $k$. Then using the functional calculus of Toeplitz operators (cf. proposition 12 of [@oim_bt]), one proves that $ (T_k^* T_k)^{-1/2}$ is a Toeplitz operator with principal symbol equal to $1$. This implies that $\bigl( T_k (T_k^*
T_k)^{-1/2} \bigr)$ belongs to $U( \Phi_L, \Psi)$.
The second part of the theorem follows directly from theorem \[the:P1\]. To show the last part, one constructs the operator $T_k$ by successive approximations using the functional calculus of Toeplitz operators.
Trace estimates
---------------
Consider two automorphisms $\Phi_L, \Psi$ of the prequantum bundle $L$ and the half-form bundle $\delta$ respectively which lift the same symplectomorphism $\Phi$ of $M$.
\[sec:trace-estimates\] Assume that the graph of $\Phi$ intersects transversally the diagonal of $M^2$. Then for any $(T_k)
\in U( \Phi_L, \Psi)$, one has $$\operatorname{ Tr} ( T_k) = \sum_{x = \Phi (x) } \frac{ e^{i
\frac{\pi}{p'} m _p( g_x, z_x)} u_x^k } { | \det ( {\operatorname{id}}- g_x ) |^{1/2}} + O(k^{-1})$$ where for any fixed point $x$ of $\Phi$,
- $g_x$ is the linear tangent map to $\Phi$ at $x$ and $z_x \in {{\mathbb{C}}}$ is the trace of the endomorphism $\Phi_{\delta,x} :
\delta_x \rightarrow \delta_x$
- $p' = p$ (resp. $2p$) if $p$ is even (resp. odd) and $m_p ( g_x, z_x)
\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ mod $2p'{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is the index defined in section \[sec:gener-half-form\].
- $u_x \in {{\mathbb{C}}}$ is the trace of the endomorphism $\Phi_{L,x} :
L_x \rightarrow L_x$
This is an immediate consequence of theorem \[the:trace-estimate\] and the definition of the index.
Linear Quantization {#sec:linear-quantization}
===================
In this appendix we define a functor from the category of symplectic space with polarization and half-form to the category of Hilbert space.
Hilbert space
-------------
Let $S$ be a symplectic vector space. Consider the trivial bundle $L_S$ with base $S$, fiber ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ and endowed with the connection $d + \frac{1}{i} {\alpha}$ where ${\alpha}\in {\Omega}^1 ( S)$ is given by $${\alpha}|_x ( y) = \tfrac{1}{2} {\omega}(x, y) .$$ Let $E$ be a positive polarization and $(\delta, \varphi)$ be a half-form line. Abusing notation, we denote by $\delta$ the trivial bundle with base $S$, fiber $\delta$ and endowed with the trivial connection.
Consider the space $ {\mathcal{H}} ( S, E, \delta, \varphi )$ which consists of the holomorphic sections $\Psi$ of $ L_S \otimes \delta$ with respect to the polarization $E$ such that $$\int_S | \Psi (x) |^2 \mu ( x) < \infty$$ where $\mu$ the Liouville measure of $S$. Here $| \Psi (x) |$ denote the punctual norm in $L_S \otimes \delta$ . That a section $\Psi$ is holomorphic with respect to $E$ means that its covariant derivative with respect to any vector of $\overline E$ vanishes.
$ {\mathcal{H}} ( S, E, \delta, \varphi )$ is an abstract presentation of the Bargmann space. It is a Hilbert space with the scalar product $ \int_S ( \Psi, \Psi')(x) \; \mu (x) $.
Unitary map {#sec:unitary-map}
-----------
Consider symplectic vector spaces $(S_a, E_a)$ and $(S_b, E_b)$ with positive polarizations. Let $g$ be a linear symplectomorphism from $S_a$ to $S_b$.
\[lem:phase\] There exists a unique quadratic function $ \Phi: S_b \times S_a \rightarrow {{\mathbb{C}}}$ vanishing on the graph of $g$ and such that $\exp (\Phi)$ is a holomorphic section of $L_{S_b}
\boxtimes \overline{L}_{S_a}$ with respect to $E_b \times
\overline{E}_a$.
Consider now a half-form line $(\delta_i , \varphi_i)$ of $E_i$ for $i =
a, b$. Then for any morphism $(g, \Psi)$ from $a=(S_a, E_a ,\delta_a,
\varphi_a)$ to $b=(S_b, E_b ,\delta_b,
\varphi_b)$ we define a map from ${{\mathcal{H}}}(a) $ to ${{\mathcal{H}}}(b)$ by $$\bigl( U(g, \Psi ) f \bigr) (x) = (2 \pi ) ^{-n} \int_{S_a} \exp ( \Phi (x, y) )
\Psi( f(y)) \mu_b (y)$$ where $\mu_b$ is the Liouville measure of $S_b$.
\[theo:foncteur\] For any morphism $(g, \Psi)$, the operator $ U(g, \Psi )$ is unitary. Furthermore the map sending $(S, E, \delta, \varphi)$ to ${{\mathcal{H}}}(S,
E, \delta, \varphi)$ and $(g, \Psi)$ to $U(g, \Psi)$ is a functor from the category ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ to the category of Hilbert spaces.
The elementary but long proof of this result will be provided somewhere else. Applying the functor to the automorphism group of a symplectic space with polarization and half-form, we obtain the well-known metaplectic representation.
[^1]: Institut de Math[é]{}matiques de Jussieu (UMR 7586), Universit[é]{} Pierre et Marie Curie – Paris 6, Paris, F-75005 France.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We calculate the noise spectrum of the output signal of a quantum detector during continuous measurement of a two-level system (qubit). We generalize the previous results obtained for the regime of high voltages (when $eV$ is much larger than the qubit’s energy level splitting $\Delta$) to the case of arbitrary voltages and temperatures. When $V \sim \Delta$ the output spectrum is essentially asymmetric in frequency, i.e., the output signal is no longer classical. In the emission (negative frequency) part of the spectrum the peak due to the qubit’s coherent oscillations can be 8 times higher that the background pedestal. For $V < \Delta$ and $T=0$ the coherent peaks do not appear at all.'
author:
- 'A. Shnirman$^{1,2}$, D. Mozyrsky$^{2}$, and I. Martin$^{2}$'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Electrical quantum measurement of a two level system at arbitrary voltage and temperature
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
The problem of quantum measurements has been around since the early days of quantum mechanics. The recent upsurge in the interest to the quantum computing made it necessary to investigate the properties of the real physical systems used as quantum detectors. Thus far the most developed and successful mesoscopic detectors are the under-damped SQUIDs (or current biased Josephson junctions) which perform switching (threshold, latching) measurements. These systems were investigated for many years. Recently such measurements were used to confirm the coherent dynamics and manipulations of the superconducting qubits [@Saclay_Manipulation_Science; @Han_Manipulation_Science; @Martinis_Rabi_PRL; @Delft_Rabi]. Other measuring devices operate in a smoother mode similar to a (linear) amplifier. Especially interesting are electro-meters whose conductance depends on the charge state of a nearby qubit. Two families of electro-meters working in this regime have mostly been discussed in the literature. These are the single electron (Cooper pair) transistors (SET) [@Our_PRB; @Devoret_Schoelkopf_Nature; @Averin_SET_Cotunneling; @Our_RMP; @Maassen_SET_Cotunneling; @Johansson_Vertex_Corrections; @Clerk_Girvin_PI; @Johansson_PI] and the quantum point contacts (QPC) [@Aleiner; @Gurvitz; @Levinson; @Korotkov_Continuous; @Buettiker_Martin; @Averin_Korotkov; @Goan_Trajectory; @Goan_Dynamics; @Pilgram_Buettiker; @Clerk_Efficiency]. Some of these schemes have been implemented experimentally and used for quantum measurements [@Buks; @Schoelkopf_RFSET; @Nakamura_Nature; @Sprinzak; @Aassime_RFSET; @Chalmers_Oscillations].
In general one distinguishes between strong and weak quantum measurements. In the strong (von Neumann) measurement the meter discriminates between the states of a qubit on a time scale much shorter than the other time scales of the system, e.g., the inverse level splitting of the qubit. Thus the qubit’s internal dynamics is irrelevant and the meter determines the basis in which the measurement takes place (the eigenbasis of the measured observable). Such measurements strongly resemble projection of the qubit’s state even though everything can be described by treating the coupled system of the qubit and the meter quantum mechanically. In the opposite, weak measurement limit, the measurement time is relatively long and the state of the qubit may in principle change during the measurement. Yet, there is a special regime in which the measurements resemble projection. This is the so called quantum non-demolition (QND) limit. For example, if the coupling is longitudinal, i.e., if a spin (qubit) is placed in a magnetic field along the $z$-axis, and the detector is measuring the $\sigma_z$ observable of the spin, and there is no extra environment capable of flipping the spin, then $\sigma_z$ is conserved (non-demolition) and can be measured even if it takes a long time. In all other weak coupling regimes the meter cannot extract precise information about the initial state of the qubit. One can only talk about continuous monitoring of the qubit by the meter in which they influence each other. Studying such continuous monitoring, e.g., in the stationary state, is still useful, as one can extract physical characteristics of the meter and of the qubit and later use them for manipulations, projection-like measurements or quantum feedback control of the qubits [@Ruskov_Feedback].
Continuous monitoring in the regime close to QND was considered in Ref. [@Our_Current_PRL]. The small deviation from the QND limit causes rare spin flips. Thus the current (output signal) in the meter shows the “telegraph noise” behavior. In the noise spectrum of the current this translates into a Lorentzian peak around zero frequency. Recently the QND measurements have been considered in the rotating frame of a spin (qubit) [@Averin_QND]. The regime far from QND was the main focus of Refs. [@Averin_Korotkov; @Korotkov_Osc]. This regime is realized, e.g., in the case of the transverse coupling between the qubit and the meter (magnetic field along the z-axis while $\sigma_x$ is being measured). The possibility to “observe” the coherent oscillations of a qubit was analyzed. While, due to the unavoidable noise, the oscillations can not be seen directly in the output current, the spectral density of the current noise has a peak at the frequency of the oscillations (Larmor frequency, level splitting of the qubit). The laws of quantum mechanics limit the possible height of the peak. In the case of a 100% efficient (quantum limited) detector the peak can be only 4 times higher than the background noise pedestal [@Averin_Korotkov]. Inefficiency of the detector reduces the height of the peak further. Such inefficiency implies [@Our_PRB; @Devoret_Schoelkopf_Nature; @Clerk_Efficiency] that when the detector is used in the QND regime, the measurement time, i.e., the time needed to discriminate between the states of the qubit is longer than the lowest possible limit for this time, i.e., the dephasing time. This, in turn, means that the meter produces more noise than it is necessary for the measurement, or, in other words, that some information obtained by the meter is not transferred to the output signal.
All the results described above were obtained in the limit when the voltage applied to the measuring device is much higher than the qubit’s energy level splitting $eV\gg \Delta$. In particular, in this regime, the “telegraph noise” peak around $\omega=0$ is absent in the case of the purely transverse coupling, while in the intermediate regime (between longitudinal and transverse) the two peaks coexist. The output noise spectrum, in the regime $eV\gg \Delta$ is almost symmetric (classical) at frequencies of order and smaller than $\Delta$. In this paper we relax the condition $eV\gg \Delta$. We calculate the non-symmetrized current-current correlator in the case of the purely transverse coupling between the qubit and the meter for arbitrary voltage and temperature. At low voltages, $eV \sim \Delta$, the output noise is essentially asymmetric, i.e., the output signal is quantum. In other words, we have to differentiate between the absorption ($\omega >0$) and the emission ($\omega<0$) spectra of the detector (see, e.g. Ref. [@Gardiner_book]). Thus, the detector ceases to be a device able to translate quantum information into the classical one, and the way the output is further measured becomes important. The qubit produces two symmetrically placed peaks in the output noise spectrum. The ratio of the peaks’ hight to the hight of the pedestal can reach $8$ for the negative frequency peak. We also obtain a small peak at $\omega=0$ (even for purely transverse coupling).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we define the physical system and outline the computational scheme. In Section \[sec:Formalism\], we derive general expressions for average current and fluctuations spectrum, valid for any voltage and temperature. In section \[sec:Results\] we provide results for the specific model of a qubit transversely coupled to a quantum point contact. In the appendices we establish connections and clarify distinctions between the technique developed here and the other existing approaches. In Appendix \[app:MacDoland\] we analyze the validity of the MacDonald’s formula for the current noise in our case. In Appendix \[app:Beyond\_BR\] we analyze the applicability of the Bloch-Redfield approximation. In Appendix \[app:Majorana\] we outline the perturbation theory based on spin representation by Majorana fermions.
The system {#sec:System}
==========
We study the quantum measurement process in which a quantum point contact (QPC) is used as a measuring device. These devices are known to serve as effective meters of charge (see, e.g., Refs. [@Field; @Sprinzak_Charge; @Buks; @Kouwenhoven_Charge]). In this paper we consider the simplest limit of a tunnel junction when the transmissions of all the transport channels is much smaller than unity and is controlled by the quantum state of a qubit. This model has previously been used by many authors [@Gurvitz; @Korotkov_Continuous; @Goan_Dynamics]. The measuring properties of QPCs in a more general case of open channels have been studied, e.g., in Refs. [@Pilgram_Buettiker; @Clerk_Efficiency].
The tunnel junction limit is described by the following Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
H = \sum_{l} \epsilon_{l} c_{l}^{\dag}\,c_{l} +
\sum_{r} \epsilon_{r} c_{r}^{\dag}\,c_{r}
\nonumber \\
+ H_{\rm sys} + \sum_{l,r} \Omega (c_{r}^{\dag}\,c_{l}\,e^{-ik} +
h.c.) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the tunneling amplitude $\Omega$ may in principle depend on any operator of the measured system (qubit). In this paper we focus on the case of transverse coupling between the meter and the qubit $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm
sys} &=& -(1/2)\Delta \sigma_z \\
\label{Eq:Omega}
\Omega &=& T_0 + T_1\sigma_x
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ which is optimal for “observation” of the qubit’s coherent oscillations. The transmission amplitudes $T_0$ and $T_1$ are assumed to be real positive (as the phase of the transmission amplitude does not matter in our case) and small (tunnel junction limit). Obviously, we only have to consider $T_1<T_0$. We do not, however, assume $T_1 \ll T_0$, i.e., we allow for the detectors with large (relative to the average output) response. We have also introduced the counting operator: $e^{-ik} |m\rangle =
|m+1\rangle$, where $m$ is the number of electrons that have tunneled trough the point contact. Using this trick we could in principle study the full counting statistics of the current [@Levitov_Lee_Lesovik_Review].
Following Ref. [@Schoeller_PRB] we integrate out the microscopic degrees of freedom (the electrons) in the left and the right leads and consider the time evolution of the reduced density matrix of the system. This density matrix is a function of the measured system’s coordinates as well as of the variable $m$, i.e., $\hat\rho = \hat\rho(m_1,m_2)$. Due to the translational invariance with respect to $m$ it is convenient to perform the Fourier transform $\hat\rho(k_1,k_2) \equiv \sum_{m_1,m_2}
\hat\rho(m_1,m_2)e^{-ik_1 m_1+ik_2 m_2}$. In this representation the operators $e^{\pm ik}$ in Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) are diagonal. The master equation for the density matrix with the information about the number of electrons that have tunneled was used in Ref. [@Gurvitz]. Here we do the same in the Fourier space ($k_1$ and $k_2$ indexes). We write down the Dyson equation for the propagator of the density matrix (see Fig. \[Figure:Dyson\_Diagramm\]). Taking the time derivative, one arrives [@Schoeller_PRB] at the generalized master equation $$\label{eq:Dyson_Equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\hat\rho(t)-
L_0 \hat\rho(t)
=
\int\limits_{t_0}^t dt'\; \Sigma(t-t')\;\hat\rho(t')
\ ,$$ with the zeroth order Liouvillian $$\label{eq:Zeroth_Liouvillian}
L_0 \equiv \left[ 1 \otimes i H_0^{\rm T} - i H_0 \otimes 1 \right]
\ .$$ Throughout the paper we assume $\hbar=e=1$. As we have integrated over the electronic degrees of freedom, the Liouvillian $L_0$ as well as the Hamiltonian $H_0$ operate in the direct product of the spin’s ($|\uparrow/\downarrow\rangle$) and the counting ($|m\rangle$) Hilbert spaces. As in the counting space the zeroth Hamiltonian is zero (the number $m$ changes only due to the tunneling) we have $H_0=H_{\rm sys}$ (mathematically rigorously one should write $H_0=H_{\rm sys}\otimes 0$). We have chosen to present the Liouvillian as a super-operator acting from the left on the density matrix regarded as a vector. This way of writing makes the analysis easier and is especially convenient for numerical simulations. As an example, we rewrite the product $L_0 \hat\rho$ in the matrix form: $$\label{Eq:Liouv_Matrix}
L_0\hat\rho=-\frac{i \Delta}{2}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 & -1 & \phantom{-}0\\
\phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & -1\\
-1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1\\
\phantom{-}0 & -1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}0
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hat\rho_{11}\\
\hat\rho_{12}\\
\hat\rho_{21}\\
\hat\rho_{22}
\end{array}
\right)
\ .$$
In the lowest non-vanishing approximation (second order in the tunneling Hamiltonian) for the self-energy we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Sigma_Born}
&&\Sigma(t) =
\nonumber \\
&&\phantom{+}\alpha_{+}^{*}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2}
+ \alpha_{-}^{*}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}
\nonumber \\
&&+\alpha_{+}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}
+\alpha_{-}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}
\nonumber \\
&&-\alpha_{+}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}
-\alpha_{-}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}
\nonumber \\
&&-\alpha_{+}^{*}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2} -
\alpha_{-}^{*}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}
\ ,
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega^{u}_{\pm k_1} \equiv e^{\pm ik_1}\Omega^{u}$, $\Omega^{d}_{\pm k_2} \equiv e^{\pm ik_2}\Omega^{d}$, $\Omega^{u}
\equiv (\Omega \otimes 1)$, $\Omega^{d} \equiv (1 \otimes
\Omega^{\rm T})$ and $U_0(t) \equiv e^{L_0 t}$. The superscripts $u$ and $d$ stand for the “up” and “down” Keldysh contours. We observe that all the matrix elements of the self-energy $\Sigma(t)$ in Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\_Born\]) are functions of $\Delta
k \equiv k_1-k_2$ only, i.e., they describe transitions which conserve $m_1-m_2$. In particular they connect the diagonal elements ($m_1=m_2$) with only the diagonal ones. Even though we could have multiplied the factors $e^{\pm ik_{1/2}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\_Born\]) and express $\Sigma$ as function of $\Delta k$, we keep these factors separately in this particular formula for future convenience. We also introduce the correlators $$\alpha_{+}(t) \equiv \langle X(t)X^{\dag}(0)\rangle
\ ,$$ and $$\alpha_{-}(t) \equiv \langle X^{\dag}(t)X(0)\rangle
\ ,$$ where $X^{\dag}\equiv \sum_{l,r} c_{r}^{\dag}\,c_{l}$. Their Fourier transforms are: $$\label{eq:alpha_plus}
\alpha_{+}(\omega) = \eta\,(\omega+V)
\left[\frac{1}{2}\coth\frac{\omega+V}{2T}+\frac{1}{2}\right]
\ ,$$ and $$\label{eq:alpha_minus}
\alpha_{-}(\omega) = \eta\,(\omega-V)
\left[\frac{1}{2}\coth\frac{\omega-V}{2T}+\frac{1}{2}\right]
\ ,$$ where $\eta \equiv 2\pi\rho_{\rm L}\rho_{\rm R}$. Fig. \[Figure:Sigma\_Diagramm\] shows the diagrams that lead to Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\_Born\]).
Formally, Eq. (\[eq:Dyson\_Equation\]) can be solved by applying the Laplace transformation (that is, it becomes a simple system of linear equations for each value of $s$): $$\label{eq:Laplace_Solution} \hat\rho(k_1,k_2,s) = U(s,\Delta
k)\hat\rho_0 \ ,$$ where $$\label{Eq:U} U(s,\Delta k) \equiv (s-L_0-\Sigma(\Delta k,s))^{-1}
\ ,$$ and $\hat\rho_0$ is the density matrix at $t=t_0$.
Further approximations are sometimes used to make the master equation (\[eq:Dyson\_Equation\]) Markovian. When the dissipative processes are slow in comparison with the unperturbed coherent (Hamiltonian) dynamics, the Bloch-Redfield approximation is appropriate. Within this approximation one substitutes $\hat\rho(t') \rightarrow e^{-L_0(t-t')}\hat\rho(t)$ in the RHS of Eq. (\[eq:Dyson\_Equation\]). This leads to $\Sigma(s)
\rightarrow \Sigma_{\rm BR}$ in Eq. (\[Eq:U\]), where $$\label{Eq:Sigma_BR}
\Sigma_{\rm BR}
\equiv
\int_{0}^{\infty}dt\,\Sigma(t)e^{-L_0 t}
\ .$$ In our case the validity domain of this approximation extends also to the regime when the dissipative rates are bigger than $\Delta$, i.e., when the qubit is over-damped. Below we will see that, due to the smallness of $T_0$ and $T_1$, the qubit can become over-damped only at high voltages or temperatures, i.e., when $V\gg\Delta$ or $T\gg\Delta$. In that case, however, the self-energy $\Sigma(t-t')$ decays on the time scale of order $1/V$ or $1/T$ and, thus, is Markovian for slower processes. As we are mostly interested in frequencies not much higher than $\Delta$, we can still use $\Sigma_{\rm BR}$. In this paper we will mostly employ the Bloch-Redfield approximation, which gives very simple and transparent results. In Appendix \[app:Beyond\_BR\], however, we will use the non-Markovian expression (\[Eq:U\]) to confirm that the non-Markovian corrections are small.
As an example of the Bloch-Redfield approximation, let us consider the regime $V\gg\Delta$ and $T=0$. Then, for $|\omega|\ll V$ one has $\alpha_+(\omega)
= \eta(V+\omega)$, i.e., $\alpha_+(t) = \eta(V\delta(t) +
i\delta'(t))$, while $\alpha_-(\omega) = 0$, i.e., $\alpha_-(t) =
0$. Then using the definition (\[Eq:Sigma\_BR\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Sigma_BR} \Sigma_{\rm BR}&=& \frac{\eta\,V}{2}
\left\{2e^{i\Delta
k}\Omega^{u}\,\Omega^{d}-\Omega^{u}\Omega^{u}-\Omega^{d}\Omega^{d}\right\}
\nonumber \\
&-&\frac{i\,\eta}{2} \left\{ e^{i\Delta
k}\Omega^{u}\,[L_0,\Omega^{d}]-e^{i\Delta
k}\Omega^{d}\,[L_0,\Omega^{u}] \right\}
\nonumber \\
&-&\frac{i\,\eta}{2} \left\{
\Omega^{u}\,[L_0,\Omega^{u}]-\Omega^{d}\,[L_0,\Omega^{d}] \right\}
\nonumber \\
&+& i\eta\delta_{\omega_c}(0) \left\{
\Omega^{u}\Omega^{u}-\Omega^{d}\Omega^{d} \right\} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the “value of the delta function at zero”, $\delta_{\omega_c}(0)$, should be understood as a constant depending on the high energy cut-off $\omega_c$ (diverging with it). Note that $\Omega^{u}\,\Omega^{d} = \Omega^{d}\,\Omega^{u}$. The last term of Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\_BR\]) can be rewritten as $i\eta\delta_{\omega_c}(0)\,[\Omega^2,...]$. Thus, this is a renormalization of the spin’s Hamiltonian. This renormalization is usually disregarded either because it is small or, as in Caldeira-Leggett’s approach, since a counter term has been already added in the initial Hamiltonian. Substituting the self-energy of Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\_BR\]) into Eq. (\[eq:Dyson\_Equation\]) we arrive at the generalized master equation obtained in Ref. [@Mozyrsky_Martin] by other technique.
Calculation for any voltage and temperature {#sec:Formalism}
===========================================
We start by writing down the formally exact expression for the correlator $\langle m(t)m(t')\rangle$ for $t > t'$ (see Fig. \[Figure:mm\_correlator\]):
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mm_exact} &&\langle \hat m(t)\hat m(t')\rangle = {\rm
Tr}\left[m^{u} U(t,t') m^{u}U(t',t_0)\hat\rho_0\right]
\nonumber \\
&&+\int\limits_{t'}^{t}dt_1 \int\limits_{t_0}^{t'}dt_2 {\rm
Tr}\left[m^{u} U(t,t_1) \delta
m^{u}(t_1,t',t_2)U(t_2,t_0)\hat\rho_0\right] \ ,
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
where $m^{u} \equiv (\hat m \otimes 1) = i\partial/\partial k_1$ is the bare vertex $\hat m$ on the upper Keldysh branch while $\delta m^{u}(t_2,t',t_1)$ is the vertex correction. The importance of the vertex corrections was recently pointed out in Ref. [@Johansson_Vertex_Corrections]. The ${\rm Tr[...]}$ operator is the trace of the density matrix (not of the super-matrices like $\Sigma$). The trace over the $k_{1,2}$ indexes is calculated as $\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\frac{dk_1 dk_2}{(2\pi)^2} \,2\pi\delta(k_1-k_2) ...$. For the stationary state properties, which do not depend on the initial density matrix, the trace operator over $k_{1,2}$ reduces to taking the limit $\Delta k \rightarrow 0$. This follows from the fact that all the propagators depend on $\Delta k$ only.
For the vertex correction we use the same approximation we have employed for the self-energy (\[eq:Sigma\_Born\]) (see Fig. \[Figure:vertex\_correction\]).
One easily obtains $\delta m^{u}(t_1,t',t_2)$ from Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\_Born\]) inserting the operator $m^{u}$ in all the terms between the $\Omega$ operators (from either side of $U_0$ as $m^{u}$ commutes with $U_0$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Vertex_Correction} &&\delta m^{u}(t_1,t',t_2)
\nonumber \\
&&=\alpha_{+}^{*}(t_1-t_2)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}\,U_0(t_1-t_2)\,m^{u}\,
\Omega^{d}_{k_2}
+ ... \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $...$ stand for seven more terms obtained in the same way from Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\_Born\]). We observe that $\delta
m^{u}(t_1,t',t_2)=\delta m^{u}(t_1-t_2)$ in this approximation does not explicitly depend on $t'$. We differentiate Eq. (\[eq:mm\_exact\]) over $t'$ and $t$ and use the master equation (\[eq:Dyson\_Equation\]) written in the form $dU/dt =
(L_0+\Sigma)*U = U*(L_0+\Sigma)$ to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:II_m} &&\langle I(t)I(t') \rangle ={\rm Tr}\,\left[m^{u}
A_{(t-t')}U_{(t'-t_0)}\hat\rho_0\right] \nonumber
\\
&&+{\rm
Tr}\left[m^{u}\left\{(L_0+\Sigma)*U*A\right\}_{(t-t')}\,
U_{(t'-t_0)}\hat\rho_0\right]
\nonumber \\
&&-{\rm
Tr}\left[m^{u}\left\{(L_0+\Sigma)*U\right\}_{(t-t')}\,\left\{B*U
\right\}_{(t'-t_0)}\hat\rho_0\right]\ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $A\equiv \delta m^{u} - \Sigma\, m^{u}$ and $B\equiv \delta
m^{u} - m^{u} \Sigma$. The convolutions are defined as $\{g*f\}_{(t-t')} \equiv \int_{t'}^{t}dt_1 g(t-t_1)f(t_1-t')$ and, analogously, $\{g*f*h\}_{(t-t')} \equiv \int_{t'}^{t}dt_1 \int_{t'}^{t_1}dt_2
g(t-t_1)f(t_1-t_2)h(t_2-t')$. The symbol $L_0$ in Eq. (\[eq:II\_m\]) should be understood as a local in time kernel, i.e., $L_0(t-t')=L_0 \delta(t-t'-0)$. From Eqs. (\[eq:Sigma\_Born\]) and (\[eq:Vertex\_Correction\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:A} &&A(t) =
\nonumber \\
&&\phantom{-}\alpha_{+}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}
- \alpha_{-}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}
\nonumber \\
&&-\alpha_{+}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}
+\alpha_{-}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1} \
,
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:B} &&B(t) =
\nonumber \\
&&-\alpha_{+}^{*}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2}
+\alpha_{-}^{*}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}
\nonumber \\
&&-\alpha_{+}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}
+\alpha_{-}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1} \
.
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Next we note the following property of the super-operators $L_0$, $\Sigma$, and $A$: ${\rm Tr}\left[L_0 ....\right]=0$, ${\rm
Tr}\left[\Sigma ....\right]=0$, and ${\rm Tr}\left[A
....\right]=0$. This allows us to simplify Eq. (\[eq:II\_m\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:II_simple} &&\langle I(t)I(t') \rangle ={\rm Tr}\,\left[
[m^{u},A]_{(t-t')}U_{(t'-t_0)}\hat\rho_0\right] \nonumber
\\
&&+{\rm
Tr}\left[\left\{[m^{u},\Sigma]*U*A\right\}_{(t-t')}\,
U_{(t'-t_0)}\hat\rho_0\right]
\nonumber \\
&&-{\rm
Tr}\left[\left\{[m^{u},\Sigma]*U\right\}_{(t-t')}\,\left\{B*U
\right\}_{(t'-t_0)}\hat\rho_0\right]\ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ and the commutators are readily calculated: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:[mA]} &&[m^{u},A]_{(t)} =
\nonumber \\
&&\phantom{+}\alpha_{+}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}
+ \alpha_{-}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1} ,
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:[mSigma]} &&[m^{u},\Sigma]_{(t)} =
\nonumber \\
&&\alpha_{+}^{*}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2} -
\alpha_{-}^{*}(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}
\nonumber \\
&&\alpha_{+}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{-k_1}
-\alpha_{-}(t)\,\Omega^{d}_{-k_2}\,U_0(t)\,\Omega^{u}_{k_1} \
.
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ We observe that the super-operators $A$, $B$, $[m^{u},A]$, and $[m^{u},\Sigma]$ do not contain the $\hat m$ operators, i.e., there are no differentiations over $k_{1,2}$ left in Eq. (\[eq:II\_simple\]). Thus we can safely perform the limit $\Delta k \rightarrow 0$. We introduce the functions $\alpha(t)\equiv \alpha_{+}(t)+\alpha_{-}(t)$ and $\beta(t)\equiv
\alpha_{+}(t)-\alpha_{-}(t)$ and obtain for $k_1=k_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ABmAmSigma}
&&A(t)=-\beta(t)\Omega^{u}U_0(t)\Omega^{u}
+\beta(t)\Omega^{d}U_0(t)\Omega^{u}\ , \nonumber \\
&&B(t)=-\beta^{*}(t)\Omega^{u}U_0(t)\Omega^{d}
-\beta(t)\Omega^{u}U_0(t)\Omega^{u}\ , \nonumber \\
&&[m^{u},A]_{(t)}=\alpha(t)\Omega^{d}U_0(t)\Omega^{u}\ ,
\nonumber \\
&&[m^{u},\Sigma]_{(t)}=\beta^{*}(t)\Omega^{u}U_0(t)\Omega^{d} +
\beta(t)\Omega^{d}U_0(t)\Omega^{u} \ . \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
Finally, for the stationary state we take $t_0 \rightarrow
-\infty$ and obtain (for $t>t'$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:II_stationary} &&\langle I(t)I(t') \rangle ={\rm
Tr}\,\left[ [m^{u},A]_{(t-t')}\hat\rho_{\rm st}\right] \nonumber
\\
&&+{\rm
Tr}\left[\left\{[m^{u},\Sigma]*U*A\right\}_{(t-t')}\hat\rho_{\rm
st} \right]
\nonumber \\
&&-{\rm
Tr}\left[\left\{[m^{u},\Sigma]*U\right\}_{(t-t')}\,\left\{B*1
\right\}_{(\infty)}\hat\rho_{\rm st}\right]\ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where by definition $\left\{B*1 \right\}_{(\infty)} =
\int_0^{\infty}dt_1 B(t_1) = B(s=+0)$ and $B(s)$ is the Laplace transform of $B(t)$. The stationary density matrix is given by $$\label{Eq:Staitionary_rho} \hat\rho_{\rm st} = s\,U(s,\Delta
k)\hat\rho_0|_{s\rightarrow 0,\Delta k\rightarrow 0} \ .$$
Analogously we find the expression for the average current: $$\label{eq:Current} \langle I(t) \rangle = {\rm
Tr}\left[\left\{[m^{u},\Sigma]*U\right\}_{(t-t_0)} \hat\rho_0
\right]\ ,$$ which in the stationary regime becomes: $$\label{eq:Stationary_Current} \langle I \rangle = {\rm
Tr}\left[\left\{[m^{u},\Sigma]*1\right\}_{\infty} \hat\rho_{\rm
st} \right] \ .$$ Equations (\[eq:ABmAmSigma\]), (\[eq:II\_stationary\]), and (\[eq:Stationary\_Current\]) constitute the central result of this chapter. They allow us to calculate the current-current correlator and the average current in the first order approximation for the self-energy and the vertex corrections.
Average current and noise spectrum {#sec:Results}
==================================
To formulate our results in a compact way it is convenient to introduce the two following functions: $$\begin{aligned}
&&s(\omega)\equiv\frac{\alpha(\omega)+\alpha(-\omega)}{2\eta}=
\nonumber \\
&&\frac{(V+\omega)}{2}\coth\frac{V+\omega}{2T}+
\frac{(V-\omega)}{2}\coth\frac{V-\omega}{2T}
\ ,
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&a(\omega)\equiv\frac{\beta(\omega)-\beta(-\omega)}{2\eta}=
\nonumber \\
&&\frac{(V+\omega)}{2}\coth\frac{V+\omega}{2T}-
\frac{(V-\omega)}{2}\coth\frac{V-\omega}{2T}
\ .
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ One can easily check that $\alpha(\omega) = \eta(s(\omega) + \omega)$, while $\beta(\omega) = \eta(a(\omega) + V)$.
For the average current in the stationary regime we obtain the following expression $$\label{eq:Stationary_Current_Final_G}
\langle I \rangle =
g_0 V + g_1 V\left(1 - \frac{\Delta}{V}
\frac{a(\Delta)}{s(\Delta)}\right) \ ,$$ where we have introduced the conductances $g_0\equiv \eta T_0^2$ and $g_1\equiv \eta T_1^2$. If $T=0$ the result simplifies. For $V<\Delta$ we obtain $\langle I \rangle = g_0 V$, i.e, no contribution of the qubit. For $V>\Delta$ we have $\langle I \rangle = g_0 V + g_1 V (1 - \Delta^2/V^2)$. Finally, for $V \gg \Delta$ we obtain $\langle I \rangle \approx g_0 V + g_1 V =
(I_{\uparrow_{x}} + I_{\downarrow_{x}})/2$, where we have introduced the values of the current corresponding to the two $x$-projections of the qubit: $I_{\uparrow_{x}/\downarrow_{x}} = \eta(T_0\pm T_1)^2 V = V(g_0+g_1\pm
2\sqrt{g_0 g_1})$. This result becomes intuitively clear if one notes that the relevant frequency scale of the tunneling process is equal to $V$ while the fluctuations of spin’s observable $\sigma_x$ have a characteristic frequency $\Delta$. In the regime $\max[V,T] \ll \Delta$ the spin is mostly in the ground state and the tunneling electrons “see” the quantum mechanical average value of $\sigma_x$, i.e. zero. Therefore the system behaves as if there was no spin present, i.e., one should substitute in Eq. (\[Eq:Omega\]) $\Omega \rightarrow \langle \Omega \rangle = T_0$. In the opposite regime, $\min[V,T] \gg \Delta$, the spin is in the mixed state and the electrons sometimes “see” the spin in the state $|\uparrow_x\rangle$ and sometimes in the state $|\downarrow_x\rangle$. Thus the current is the average of $I_{\uparrow_{x}/\downarrow_{x}}$.
To find the output noise spectrum we perform the Laplace transform of Eqs. (\[eq:II\_stationary\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:II_Laplace} &&\langle I^2_{s} \rangle ={\rm
Tr}\,\left[ [m^{u},A]_{(s)}\hat\rho_{\rm st}\right] \nonumber
\\
&&+{\rm
Tr}\left[\left\{[m^{u},\Sigma]_{(s)}U(s)A(s)\right\}\hat\rho_{\rm
st} \right]
\nonumber \\
&&-{\rm
Tr}\left[\left\{[m^{u},\Sigma]_{(s)}U(s)B(+0)
\right\}\hat\rho_{\rm st}\right]
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ and, then, find the Fourier transform of the current-current correlator. This last step is done using [*Mathematica*]{} as the expressions are quite extended. The Laplace transforms of the correlators $\alpha(t)$ and $\beta(t)$ contain, as usual, the real and the imaginary parts. It is possible to show that the imaginary part of $\alpha$ gives rise to the renormalization of the system parameters, e.g., the Lamb shift of the qubit’s level splitting $\Delta$, while the imaginary part of $\beta$ is only important at very high frequencies and it ensures the causality of the meter’s response functions (see Appendix \[app:Majorana\]). In what follows we neglect the Lamb shift as it is small compared to $\Delta$. The full expression splits into three parts $\langle I^2_{\omega}\rangle = C_1 + C_2 + C_3$.
The first term of Eq. (\[eq:II\_Laplace\]) does not contain the evolution operator $U(s)$. It is, thus, expected to give a non-resonant contribution to the current-current correlator, i.e., the pedestal (shot noise): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:Shot_Noise_omega}
&&C_1=
g_0\left(s(\omega)+\omega\right)
\nonumber \\
&&+
g_1\frac{s(\omega+\Delta)+s(\omega-\Delta)+2\omega}{2}
\nonumber \\
&&-g_1\frac{\Delta\left(2\Delta+s(\omega+\Delta)-s(\omega-\Delta)\right)}
{2s(\Delta)} \ . \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ For the symmetrized noise power $S_I^{\rm shot}(\omega) \equiv
C_1(\omega) + C_1(-\omega)$ we then obtain $$\label{Eq:Shot_Noise_omega=0} S_I^{\rm shot}(\omega=0) = 2g_0
s(0)+2g_1 s(\Delta)\left(1-\frac{\Delta^2}{s^2(\Delta)}\right)
\ .$$ The two terms in Eq. (\[Eq:Shot\_Noise\_omega=0\]) clearly correspond to the two terms of Eq. (\[eq:Stationary\_Current\_Final\_G\]). This is a usual situation for the shot noise. Yet, the Fano factors for these two contributions are slightly different (at $T=0$ both are equal $1$) .
The last two terms of Eq. (\[eq:II\_Laplace\]) contain the evolution operator $U(s)$ and, thus, are expected to produce resonant contributions. We, first, employ the Bloch-Redfield approximation, i.e., we substitute the self-energy $\Sigma(s)$ in Eq. (\[Eq:U\]) by $\Sigma_{\rm BR}$. Then we obtain the two remaining contributions $C_2$ and $C_3$. The contribution $C_2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:peak_at_Delta}
C_2(\omega)&=&
\frac{(\delta I)^2\Gamma\Delta^2}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2 +4\Gamma^2\omega^2}
\times
\nonumber\\
&&\left(1-\frac{\Delta a(\Delta)+\omega a(\omega)}
{2V s(\Delta)} \right) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{Eq:Gamma}
\Gamma \equiv
g_1 s(\Delta)=
\frac{(\sqrt{I_{\uparrow_{x}}}-\sqrt{I_{\downarrow_{x}}})^2}{4V}
\,s(\Delta)$$ is the qubit’s dephasing rate, while $\delta I \equiv I_{\uparrow_{x}} -
I_{\downarrow_{x}} = 4V\sqrt{g_0 g_1}$ is the sensitivity of the meter.
In the regime $\Gamma\ll\Delta$ we obtain two peaks placed around $\omega=\pm\Delta$. This is how the qubit’s damped coherent oscillations are reflected in the output noise. Interestingly, this contribution is symmetric, even though the symmetry should not have been expected in general. An asymmetric contribution would correspond to a change in the current-current susceptibility (finite frequency differential conductance) due to the presence of the spin. Such corrections have usually the Fano shape. As shown in Appendix \[app:Majorana\] the lowest order Fano resonances vanish in our model due to the non-universal behavior of the QPC’s response functions.
The contribution $C_2$ (Eq. (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\])) is a product of a Lorentzian and a reduction factor in the brackets. The Lorentzian coincides with the one obtained in Ref. [@Ruskov_Korotkov]. The reduction factor simplifies for $T=0$. Then, if $V>\Delta$, it is given by $(1-\Delta^2/V^2)$, while for $V<\Delta$ it is equal to $0$. In the last case the measuring device can not provide enough energy to excite the qubit and, therefore, the qubit remains in the ground state and does not produce any additional noise. The ratio between the peak’s hight and the pedestal’s hight is different for positive and negative frequencies. In the limit $g_1\ll g_0$, $T=0$, and $\Delta < V$ we obtain $C_1(\pm \Delta) \approx g_0 V (1 \pm \Delta/V)$ and $C_2(\pm \Delta) \approx 4g_0 V (1-\Delta^2/V^2)$ and, thus, $$\frac{C_2(\omega=\pm\Delta)}{C_1(\omega=\pm\Delta)}
\approx 4(1\mp\frac{\Delta}{V}) \ .$$ For $\Delta \rightarrow V$ the ratio for the negative frequency peak reaches $8$. In this limit, however, the peak’s hight is zero. For symmetrized spectra the maximal possible ratio is $4$ (Ref. [@Korotkov_Osc]). We see that the enhancement of the signal-to-noise ratio is due to the fact that the suppression of the qubit’s contribution to the noise by factor $(1-\Delta^2/V^2)$ is smaller than the suppression of the negative frequency background noise by factor $(1-\Delta/V)$. An interesting question is what exactly is observed in the experiments. If the setup for the measurement of the noise would be absolutely passive, like the photon counters in the fluorescence experiments, it could measure only what the system emits, i.e. the noise at negative frequencies [@Gavish_Levinson_Imry; @Lesovik_Loosen]. Moreover, if one is only interested in the [*excess*]{} noise, i.e., in the nonequilibrium addition to the noise power due to the finite transport voltage, then even an active detector may be useful. Namely, as shown in Ref. [@Gavish_Imry_Levinson_Yurke], if the excess noise power is (almost) symmetric, it can be effectively measured by a finite temperature LCR filter. In our case the excess noise consists of the shot noise, $C_1-C_1(V=0)$, and the coherent peaks $C_2$. While the second contribution is symmetric, the first one is only approximately symmetric in the limit $g_1 \ll g_0$. Thus, in this limit, the combination $C_2+C_1-C_1(V=0)$ can be measured. The question of what can be measured in the regime $g_1 \sim g_0$, when the excess noise is essentially asymmetric, will be considered elsewhere.
Note also that far from the resonance, for $|\omega| \gg V$, the reduction factor in Eq. (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\]) becomes negative, creating a very small negative contribution to the current-current correlator. This is an artifact of the Bloch-Redfield approximation. The non-Markovian corrections are expected to compensate this negative contribution so that the correlator is positive and vanishes at high negative frequencies.
As the voltage increases so that $\Gamma \sim \Delta$, the peaks given by Eq. (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\]) start to overlap. Then they form a single peak around $\omega=0$ which starts getting narrower. Finally, when $\Gamma \gg \Delta$, the width of the peak scales as $\Delta^2/\Gamma \ll \Gamma$. This is the strong measurement or Zeno [@Harris_Stodolsky] regime. The meter manages to almost localize the qubit in one of the eigenstates of the measured observable ($\sigma_x$). The rare transitions (flips) give rise to the “telegraph” noise peak around $\omega=0$. The stronger is the measurement ($\Gamma$) the longer is the average time between the flips (Zeno effect) and, thus, the narrower is the peak. In this regime the output is classical and the reduction factor plays no role (is equal to unity).
Finally, for the last contribution $C_3$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&C_3(\omega) =
\frac{\Gamma^3}{\omega^2+4\Gamma^2}\times\nonumber\\
&&\frac{\left[a(\Delta+\omega)+a(\Delta-\omega)\right]}{s^4(\Delta)}\times
\nonumber \\
&&\Big(4V\Delta s(\Delta)-2\Delta^2a(\Delta)
-
s^2(\Delta)\left[a(\Delta+\omega)+a(\Delta-\omega)\right]
\nonumber \\
&&-
\Delta s(\Delta)\left[a(\Delta+\omega)-a(\Delta-\omega)\right]\Big)
\ .\end{aligned}$$ This contribution corresponds to a small peak around $\omega=0$. For $\Gamma\ll\Delta$, $T=0$, $\omega\ll\Delta$, and $V>\Delta$ we obtain $$C_3(\omega)\approx \frac{4\Gamma^3}{\omega^2+4\Gamma^2}\,
\frac{\Delta^2}{V^2}\left(1-\frac{\Delta^2}{V^2}\right)
\ ,$$ while for the same conditions but $V<\Delta$ the contribution $C_3$ vanishes. To understand the physical meaning of the peak at zero frequency we note, that due to the asymmetry of the correlators $\alpha$ and $\beta$ the expectation values of the current corresponding to the two eigenstates of the spin’s Hamiltonian $|\uparrow_z\rangle$ and $|\downarrow_z\rangle$ are different (classically they would be equal as in both states $\langle \sigma_x \rangle=0$). Indeed substituting into Eq. (\[eq:Stationary\_Current\]) the density matrices $|\uparrow_z\rangle\langle\uparrow_z|$ or $|\downarrow_z\rangle\langle\downarrow_z|$ instead of $\hat\rho_{\rm st}$, that is forcing the steady state to be one of the eigenstates we obtain for the respective currents $I=g_0 V + g_1(V\mp a(\Delta))$. As the qubit is coherent (under-damped) the back-action noise causes random transitions between the eigenstates of the qubit’s Hamiltonian. This translates into the “telegraph” noise of the current. The effect is governed by the ratio $\Delta/V$ and is small in the limit when $V\gg\Delta$. In the quantum Zeno regime ($\Gamma\gg\Delta$) the contribution $C_3$ is always negligible as compared with $C_1$ and $C_2$.
In Fig. \[Figure:noise\] we plot an example of the output noise $\langle I^2_{\omega}\rangle$.
Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
We have calculated the output noise of the point contact used as a quantum detector for arbitrary voltage and temperature. In the regime $eV\sim \Delta$ and $T\ll \Delta$ the output noise is essentially asymmetric. The qubit’s oscillations produce two peaks at $\omega =\pm \Delta$. The peaks have almost equal height and, therefore, the negative frequency peak is much higher relative to it’s pedestal than the positive frequency one. The peak/pedestal ratio can reach 8. As the negative frequencies correspond to emission, this could be observed by further passive detectors. We have also obtained a “telegraph noise” peak around $\omega=0$ for a purely transverse coupling. This peak appears due to the quantum asymmetry of the noise spectra. It means that the detector discriminates not only between the eigenstates of the measured observable ($\sigma_x$ in our case) but also between the states of different energy. The results of this paper are obtained for the simplest and somewhat artificial model of a quantum detector. In particular, in this model, the leading contribution of the spin to the output current correlator is of the peak type at all voltages and vanishes at $V=0$. In general this should not be the case, as the coupling to an additional (discrete) degree of freedom usually changes the response functions of the continuum (Fano resonances). In our system, however, certain properties of the response functions of the meter (see Appendix \[app:Majorana\]) prevent the Fano resonances from appearing in the leading order of the perturbation expansion. It would be interesting to perform analogous calculations for more realistic detectors like SET’s or QPC’s with open channels.
Recently, Bulaevskii, Hruŝka, and Ortiz[@Bulaevskii_Ortiz] studied the problem of a spin in a magnetic field interacting with tunneling electrons with arbitrary spin polarization. They considered the case of low dissipation, $\Gamma \ll \Delta$, and the tunneling electrons were coupled to all the projections of the spin operator.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Yu. Makhlin, G. Schön, D. Averin, M. Büttiker, G. Johansson, A. Rosch, L. Bulaevskii and Y. Levinson for fruitful discussions. A.S. was supported by the EU IST Project SQUBIT, by the DIP (Deutsch-Israelisches Projekt des BMBF), and by the CFN (DFG). D.M. and I.M. were supported by the U.S. DOE.
Applicability of the MacDonald’s formula {#app:MacDoland}
========================================
For classical currents it is convenient to use the MacDonald’s formula to calculate the noise power of the current. Recently this formula has been applied in Ref. [@Ruskov_Korotkov] to calculate the output noise of a QPC used as a measuring device (the same system as in this paper). As only the limit $V\gg\Delta$ was considered, the output signal was classical and the calculation using the MacDonald’s formula was well justified. In this Appendix we clarify whether this approach is applicable when the output is quantum.
The MacDonald’s formula reads $$S_I(\omega)=2\omega\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{d\langle m^2(t) \rangle}{dt} \sin(\omega t) dt
\ ,$$ where $\sigma(t)=\langle m^2(t) \rangle$ is the dispersion of the integral of current $m=\int_{0}^{t} I(t')dt'$. One starts counting the charge that have tunneled starting from $t=0$. One also assumes that at $t=0$ the spin’s density matrix is the stationary one (see Eq. (\[Eq:Staitionary\_rho\])) and that $m=0$ at $t=0$. Then, since $\sigma(t=0) = 0$, we obtain $$S_I(\omega)=-\omega^2\,\left[\sigma(s=i\omega+0)+\sigma(s=-i\omega+0)\right]
\ .$$ To obtain $\sigma(s)$ we apply the propagator $U(s,\Delta k)$ (see Eq. (\[Eq:U\])) to the stationary density matrix and, then apply twice the operator $\hat m = i\partial/\partial \Delta k$ (as we do it after the propagator, i.e. at the left-most end of the Keldysh contour, we do not distinguish between $m^{u}$ and $m^{d}$). As a result we obtain $$\label{Eq:m_dispersion} \sigma(s) = -{\rm
Tr}\,\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \Delta k^2} U(s,\Delta
k)\hat\rho_{\rm st}\right] \ .$$ The derivative over $\Delta k$ in Eq. (\[Eq:m\_dispersion\]) can be calculated using Eq. (\[Eq:U\]): $$\label{Eq:Ukk} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \Delta k^2} U=
U\,\Sigma''\,U + 2\,U\,\Sigma'\,U\,\Sigma'\,U \ .$$ From Eq. (\[eq:Sigma\_Born\]) it is easy to obtain $i\Sigma'=[(i\partial/\partial \Delta k)\Sigma]_{\Delta
k\rightarrow 0} = [m^{u},\Sigma]=A-B$ (see Eq. (\[eq:ABmAmSigma\])) and $(i^2)\Sigma''=
[(i\partial/\partial \Delta k)^2 \Sigma]_{\Delta k\rightarrow 0} =
[m^{u},A]+h.c.$. After some algebra we conclude that the MacDonald’s formula gives for the noise $S_I$ an expression very similar to the (symmetrized) Eq. (\[eq:II\_Laplace\]). However, while in the last line of Eq. (\[eq:II\_Laplace\]) there is $B(+0)$, the MacDonald’s formula puts $B(s)$ into that place. With this substitution we obtain for the $C_2$ contribution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:C_2_MacDonald}
&&C_2(\omega)=
\frac{(\delta I)^2\Gamma\Delta^2}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2 +4\Gamma^2\omega^2}
\times\Big(1-
\nonumber\\
&&\frac{(\Delta+\omega) a(\Delta-\omega)+
(\Delta-\omega) a(\Delta+\omega)+2\omega a(\omega)}
{4V s(\Delta)} \Big)\ .
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ In the classical limit $\Delta/V \rightarrow 0$ the result (\[Eq:C\_2\_MacDonald\]) coincides with the one obtained in full quantum mechanical calculation (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\]). However the corrections (even when $\Delta/V$ is small) are not reproduced. Indeed at $T=0$ and $\Delta < V$ the reduction factor in Eq. (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\]) is $(1-\Delta^2/V^2)$ while Eq. (\[Eq:C\_2\_MacDonald\]) gives $(1-\Delta^2/2V^2)$.
Beyond the Bloch-Redfield approximation {#app:Beyond_BR}
=======================================
We have also calculated the output noise without using the Bloch-Redfield approximation, i.e., substituting the non-Markovian self energy $\Sigma(s)$ into Eq. (\[Eq:U\]). In the regime $\Gamma \ll \Delta$ we found the following correction around $\omega=\pm\Delta$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:Non-Markovian}
&&\delta C_2(\omega\approx\pm\Delta) \approx \frac{4
g_0 g_1 V \Delta (\omega^2-\Delta^2)}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2+8\Delta^2\Gamma^2}\times
\nonumber \\
&&\left(\frac{2(g_0-g_1)V\Delta + g_1 a(2\Delta)(s(\Delta)\mp\Delta)}
{s(\Delta)}\right) \
. \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ This feature has a “derivative” (Fano) shape and it makes the main peaks (Eq. (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\])) a bit asymmetric. As far as the coupling constants (conductances) are concerned, the correction (\[Eq:Non-Markovian\]) seems to be of the same order as the terms $C_2$ and $C_3$. Thus, the question arises, what does the Bloch-Redfield approximation exactly mean. Analyzing this question deeper we note, that within this approximation the self-energy $\Sigma$ and, consequently, the evolution operator $U$ factorize into two parts: the part describing the diagonal (in the eigen-basis of the qubit’s Hamiltonian) elements of the density matrix (two modes with eigenfrequencies around $\omega=0$) and the part describing the off-diagonal elements (two modes with eigenfrequencies around $\omega=\pm \Delta$). The first part is responsible for the contribution $C_3$, while the second part in responsible for $C_2$. The non-Markovian corrections to $\Sigma$ couple these two pairs of modes. These corrections are, however, proportional to the deviations from the eigenfrequencies, e.g., to $(\omega-\Delta)$ . Thus, they vanish exactly at the eigenfrequencies. More rigorously, since the width of the resonances is proportional to $\Gamma \sim g_1$, the non-Markovian corrections carry an additional factor of $g_0$ or $g_1$ within the resonances. There, the Bloch-Redfield approximation is well justified and the corrections are of the higher order in $g_0,g_1$. Outside the resonances the Bloch-Redfield approximation may be not justified. There, however, the main contribution is the shot noise term $C_1$ which does not depend on $U(s)$ and is not sensitive to the Bloch-Redfield approximation. In Appendix \[app:Majorana\] we will show, that, indeed, the Fano shaped contribution (\[Eq:Non-Markovian\]) is of the higher order than those, that could, in principle, have appeared together with the main peaks (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\]).
Standard Keldysh calculation with Majorana fermions {#app:Majorana}
===================================================
It is possible to obtain Eqs. (\[Eq:Shot\_Noise\_omega\]) and (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\]) using the standard Keldysh diagrammatic technique [@Keldysh]. For the two-level (spin-1/2) system it is convenient to employ the mixed Dirac-Majorana-fermion representation (see e.g. Ref [@Tsvelik_Majorana]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Majorana_representation}
&&\sigma_{+} = \eta_z f\nonumber \\
&&\sigma_{-} = f^{\dag} \eta_z\nonumber \\
&&\sigma_{z} = 1-2f^{\dag}f
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is the Dirac fermion while $\eta_z$ is the Majorana fermion ($\eta_z = (g+g^{\dag})$, so that $\{\eta_z,\eta_z\}=2$ ($g$ being another Dirac fermion)).
Our purpose is to calculate the correlator $\langle I(t)I(t') \rangle$ which can be presented as one of the components of the current-current Green’s function $G_{I}(t,t') = -i\langle T_{\rm K} I(t)I(t')\rangle$. Namely $$\label{Eq:II_G>}
\langle I(t)I(t') \rangle = i [\hat G_{I}]_{21} = i G_{I}^{>}
\ .$$ In what follows we use the (Keldysh) notations explained in Ref. [@Rammer_Smith]. The current operator is given by $I=i\Omega(X-X^{\dag})$, while the tunneling Hamiltonian (the vertex of the perturbation theory) is $H_{\rm T} = \Omega(X+X^{\dag})$. It is, thus, convenient to introduce the two following Green’s functions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:G_alpha}
G_{\alpha} &\equiv& -i\langle T_{\rm K}
i\left[X(t)-X^{\dag}(t)\right]\cdot
i\left[X(t')-X^{\dag}(t')\right]\rangle
\nonumber \\
&=&-i\langle T_{\rm K}
\left[X(t)+X^{\dag}(t)\right]\cdot
\left[X(t')+X^{\dag}(t')\right]\rangle
\ ,\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{Eq:G_beta}
G_{\beta} \equiv -i\langle T_{\rm K}
i\left[X(t)-X^{\dag}(t)\right]\cdot
\left[X(t')+X^{\dag}(t')\right]\rangle
\ ,$$ where the subscripts $\alpha$ and $\beta$ point to an obvious relation to the functions $\alpha$ and $\beta$ introduced above. Indeed $G_{\alpha}^{>} = -i\alpha(t-t')$ and $G_{\alpha}^{<} = -i\alpha(t'-t)$, while $G_{\beta}^{>} = \beta(t-t')$ and $G_{\beta}^{<} = -\beta(t'-t)$. The two lines of Eq. (\[Eq:G\_alpha\]) might in principle be different, for example, in the superconducting case. In our case, however they are equal. For these two Green’s functions we use the graphical representation shown in Fig. \[Figure:Loops\].
Finally we introduce the fermionic Green’s functions. For the Majorana fermions we define $G_{\eta}\equiv -i\langle T_{\rm
K}\eta_z(t)\eta_z(t')\rangle$. It is easy to obtain the bare Green’s functions $G_{\eta,0}^{>}
= -i$ and $G_{\eta,0}^{<} = i$. For the $f$ fermions it is convenient to use the Bogolubov-Nambu representation, i.e., $\Psi \equiv (f,f^{\dag})^{T}$ and $\Psi^{\dag}\equiv
(f^{\dag},f)$ and, then, $G_{\Psi}\equiv -i\langle T_{\rm
K}\Psi(t)\Psi^{\dag}(t')\rangle$.
The bosonic functions $G_{\alpha}$ and $G_{\beta}$ describe the reservoirs and, therefore, are well approximated by their unperturbed values. Making this approximation we neglect a possibility of the spin-induced correlations in the reservoirs (leads), i.e., the Kondo effect. This is justified if $\max{(T,V)} > T_{\rm K}$.
The fermionic Green’s function $G_{\Psi}$ and $G_{\eta}$ describe the spin, which can be driven far out of equilibrium. Thus, we find these functions from the the kinetic (Dyson) equations. $$\label{Eq:Dyson_Psi}
G_{\Psi}^{-1}=G_{\Psi,0}^{-1}-\Sigma_{\Psi}
\ ,$$ $$\label{Eq:Dyson_eta}
G_{\eta}^{-1}=G_{\eta,0}^{-1}-\Sigma_{\eta}
\ ,$$ where $\Sigma_{\Psi}$ and $\Sigma_{\eta}$ are the $f$ fermion’s and $\eta$ fermion’s self-energies respectively. All the quantities in Eq. (\[Eq:Dyson\_Psi\]) are matrices $4\times 4$ (in the Nambu and Keldysh spaces). The operator $G_{\Psi,0}^{-1}$ is given by $$\label{Eq:G_Psi_0}
G_{\Psi,0}^{-1}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\omega - \Delta & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & \omega + \Delta & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \omega - \Delta & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \omega + \Delta
\end{array}
\right)
\ ,$$ while for $G_{\eta,0}^{-1}$ we obtain $$\label{Eq:G_eta_0}
G_{\eta,0}^{-1}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\omega/2 & 0 \\
0 & \omega/2
\end{array}
\right)
\ .$$ In Eqs. (\[Eq:G\_Psi\_0\]) and (\[Eq:G\_eta\_0\]) we have neglected the infinitesimal terms responsible for, e.g., causality of the Green’s functions. These are no longer needed when the finite self-energies are taken into account.
For the self-energies we take the lowest non-vanishing order approximation shown in Fig. \[Figure:Sigma\_ferm\].
As usually, in the Keldysh space the self-energies are presented as $$\Sigma_{\Psi}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Sigma_{\Psi}^{R} & \Sigma_{\Psi}^{K}\\
0 & \Sigma_{\Psi}^{A}
\end{array}\right)
\ ,\ \ \
\Sigma_{\eta}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Sigma_{\eta}^{R} & \Sigma_{\eta}^{K}\\
0 & \Sigma_{\eta}^{A}
\end{array}\right)
\ .$$ From Fig. \[Figure:Sigma\_ferm\] it is easy to conclude that $\Sigma_{\Psi}^{>} = i T_1^2\hat \lambda\,G_{\alpha}^{>}\,G_{\eta}^{>}$ and $\Sigma_{\Psi}^{<} = i T_1^2\hat \lambda\,G_{\alpha}^{<}\, G_{\eta}^{<}$, where the Nambu matrix $\hat \lambda$ is defined $\hat \lambda =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\phantom{-}1 & -1\\
-1 & \phantom{-}1
\end{array}
\right)$. Analogously we obtain $\Sigma_{\eta}^{>}=iT_1^2
\,G_{\alpha}^{>}\,\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&-1\end{array}\right)
G_{\Psi}^{>}\left(\begin{array}{c}\phantom{-}1 \\ -1\end{array}\right)
$ and $\Sigma_{\eta}^{<}=iT_1^2
\,G_{\alpha}^{<}\,\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&-1\end{array}\right)
G_{\Psi}^{<}\left(\begin{array}{c}\phantom{-}1 \\ -1\end{array}\right)$. To calculate the self-energies in the lowest order we can use the unperturbed retarded and advanced fermionic Green’s functions. This is not so for the Keldysh component, which contains the information about the distribution function: $G_{\Psi/\eta}^{K}(\omega)=h_{\Psi/\eta}(\omega)
\left(G_{\Psi/\eta}^{R}(\omega)-G_{\Psi/\eta}^{A}(\omega)
\right)$. As was pointed out in Ref. [@Parcollet_Hooley] the distribution functions $h_{\Psi/\eta}(\omega)$ are determined by the reservoirs even in the zeroth order. Thus they should be found self-consistently. After some algebra we find $$\Sigma_{\Psi}^{R}-\Sigma_{\Psi}^{A}=
T_1^2\hat \lambda
\left(G_{\alpha}^{K} + h_{\eta}(0)(G_{\alpha}^{R}-G_{\alpha}^{A})
\right)$$ and $$\Sigma_{\Psi}^{K}=
T_1^2\hat \lambda
\left((G_{\alpha}^{R}-G_{\alpha}^{A}) + h_{\eta}(0)G_{\alpha}^{K}
\right)
\ .$$ In what follows we will only need the Green’s function $G_{\Psi}$. Therefore, instead of proceeding with the self-consistent determination of the functions $h_{\Psi/\eta}$, we note that $h_{\eta}(0)=0$ just by symmetry (the self-consistent calculation gives the same). Thus we obtain $${\rm Im} \Sigma_{\Psi}^{R}(\omega) = -\hat\lambda \Gamma_{\omega}
\ ,$$ where $\Gamma_{\omega}\equiv g_1 s(\omega)$ (see Eq. (\[Eq:Gamma\]) where we have introduced $\Gamma\equiv\Gamma_{\Delta}$). Analogously, ${\rm Im} \Sigma_{\Psi}^{A}(\omega) =
\hat\lambda \Gamma(\omega)$. The real parts of the retarded and advanced self-energies give the non-equilibrium generalization of the Lamb shift. Here we neglect it. For the Keldysh component we have $$\Sigma_{\Psi}^{K}(\omega)=-2 i g_1 \hat\lambda \omega
\ .$$ Substituting the self-energy $\Sigma_{\Psi}$ into the Dyson equation (\[Eq:Dyson\_Psi\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:G_Psi_(-1)}
&&G_{\Psi}^{-1}=G_{\Psi,0}^{-1}\nonumber \\
&&-\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
-i\Gamma_{\omega} & i\Gamma_{\omega} & -2ig_1\omega & 2ig_1\omega\\
i\Gamma_{\omega} & -i\Gamma_{\omega} & 2ig_1\omega & -2ig_1\omega\\
0 & 0 & i\Gamma_{\omega} & -i\Gamma_{\omega}\\
0 & 0 & -i\Gamma_{\omega} & i\Gamma_{\omega}
\end{array}
\right)\ ,
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ which is easy to invert. As a result we obtain $$G_{\Psi}^{R/A}=\frac{\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\omega+\Delta\pm i\Gamma_{\omega} & \pm i\Gamma_{\omega}\\
\pm i\Gamma_{\omega} & \omega-\Delta \pm i\Gamma_{\omega}
\end{array}
\right)}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2) \pm 2i\omega\Gamma_{\omega}}
\ ,$$ $$G_{\Psi}^{K}=\frac{2ig_1\omega\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-(\omega+\Delta)^2 & \omega^2-\Delta^2\\
\omega^2-\Delta^2 & -(\omega-\Delta)^2
\end{array}
\right)}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2 + 4\omega^2\Gamma_{\omega}^2}
\ .$$
Now we are ready to calculate the current-current correlator (\[Eq:II\_G>\]). The lowest order diagrams contributing to this correlator are shown in Fig. \[Figure:Keldysh\_Shot\]. They give $$\label{Eq:Keldysh_Shot}
\delta G_{I}^{>}(t-t') = T_0^2 G_{\alpha}^{>}(t-t')+
iT_1^2 \Pi^{>}(t-t')G_{\alpha}^{>}(t-t')
\ ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi &\equiv& -i\langle T_{\rm K}\sigma_x(t)\sigma_x(t')\rangle
\nonumber \\
&=&-i\langle T_{\rm K}(\eta_z f + f^{\dag}\eta_z)_{(t)}
(\eta_z f + f^{\dag}\eta_z)_{(t')}
\rangle
\ .\end{aligned}$$ One obtains Eq. (\[Eq:Keldysh\_Shot\]) summing all possible orientations of the lines in Fig. \[Figure:Keldysh\_Shot\].
In the Majorana representation the Green’s function $\Pi$ is a “two-particle” Green’s function (a bubble). To calculate it properly one has to take into account, e.g., the vertex corrections, which seems to be complicated. Instead we use here an identity, recently proven in Refs. [@Coleman_Identity; @Shnirman_Makhlin_Identity], which reduces $\Pi$ to a single-fermion Green’s function. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:Bubble_to_Line_Reduction}
\langle \sigma_x(t)\sigma_x(t')\rangle=
\langle [f(t)+f^{\dag}(t)][f(t')+f^{\dag}(t')]
\rangle\ .\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[Eq:Bubble\_to\_Line\_Reduction\]) it is easy to obtain the following relations $$\Pi^{>}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&\ 1\end{array}\right)
G_{\Psi}^{>}\left(\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 1\end{array}\right)
\ ,$$ and $$\Pi^{<}=-\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&\ 1\end{array}\right)
G_{\Psi}^{<}\left(\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 1\end{array}\right)
\ .$$
Performing usual Keldysh manipulations we obtain $$\label{Eq:P_R-P_A}
\Pi^{R}-\Pi^{A} = \frac{-8i g_1 \omega\Delta^2}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2 + 4\omega^2\Gamma_{\omega}^2}
\ ,$$ $$\label{Eq:P_K}
\Pi^{K} = \frac{-8i \Gamma_{\omega} \Delta^2}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2 + 4\omega^2\Gamma_{\omega}^2}
\ ,$$ and, finally, $$\label{Eq:Pi_>}
\Pi^{>} =\frac{1}{2}(\Pi^{K}+\Pi^{R}-\Pi^{A})=
\frac{-4i g_1(s(\omega)+\omega) \Delta^2}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2 + 4\omega^2\Gamma_{\omega}^2}
\ .$$ We then obtain Eq. (\[Eq:Shot\_Noise\_omega\]) from Eqs. (\[Eq:Keldysh\_Shot\]) and (\[Eq:Pi\_>\]) in the regime $\Gamma \ll \Delta$. In this case we can approximate $\Pi^{>}$ by a sum of two delta functions and perform the convolution in the second term of Eq. (\[Eq:Keldysh\_Shot\]).
The diagrams giving the peaks at $\omega=\pm \Delta$ are shown in Fig. \[Figure:Keldysh\_Peak\]. They are chosen out of many other second-order diagrams, since only in these diagrams the spin’s line (the combined loop of the $f$ and Majorana fermions), which gives the Green’s function $\Pi$, carries the external frequency $\omega$. In all other diagrams the spin’s lines participate in loops and are, thus, being integrated over the frequency. Then the resonant structure is washed out and one merely gets a second order correction to the shot noise (pedestal). Although in Fig. \[Figure:Keldysh\_Peak\] we draw the loops (bubbles) of $f$ and $\eta_z$ lines, we do not actually calculate those but use instead Eqs. (\[Eq:P\_R-P\_A\]) and (\[Eq:P\_K\]).
In it quite easy to calculate the first diagram (Fig. \[Figure:Keldysh\_Peak\]a). It is given by $T_0^2 T_1^2 G_{\beta}(\omega)\Pi(\omega)[-G_{\beta}(\omega)]$. In the other three diagrams the internal vertices, over which the integration is performed, are not further connected. Let us, for example consider the diagram b). Acting, first, in the $(11,12,21,22)$ Keldysh coordinates (see Ref. [@Rammer_Smith]) we see that the left electronic loop of this diagram, after integration over the time of the “free” vertex, gives a “Keldysh vector” $\chi_j$, where $j$ is the Keldysh index of the left external vertex. Thus the whole diagram b) can be presented as $T_0^2 T_1^2 \chi_j \hat D_{jk}$ (no summation over $j$), where $D$ denotes the rest of the expression which can be treated as a usual Keldysh matrix ($D$ in this case is given by $\Pi[-G_{\beta}]$ in the $(R,A,K)$ coordinates). For $\chi_j$ we obtain $\chi_j = [-G_{\beta}(0)]_{1j}-[-G_{\beta}(0)]_{2j} =
-G_{\beta}^{A}(0)$. Thus $\chi_j$ is actually a (Keldysh) scalar and the diagram b) can be, finally, calculated as $T_0^2 T_1^2 [-G_{\beta}^{A}(0)]\cdot \Pi(\omega)[-G_{\beta}(\omega)]$. Collecting the rest of the diagrams we obtain the following contribution to the current-current Green’s function $$\delta G_I =T_0^2 T_1^2 [G_{\beta}(\omega)-G_{\beta}^{A}(0) \cdot \hat 1]
\,\Pi(\omega)\,[G_{\beta}^{R}(0) \cdot \hat 1 - G_{\beta}(\omega)]
\ .$$
We calculate the Keldysh components of the Green’s function $G_{\beta}$ for $\omega \ll D$, where $D\propto \rho^{-1}_{\rm L/R}$ is the electronic bandwidth (the Fermi energy). As a result we obtain: $G_{\beta}^{\rm R}(\omega) = \eta V[1 + iO(\omega/D)]$, $G_{\beta}^{\rm A}(\omega) = -\eta V[1 - iO(\omega/D]$, and $G_{\beta}^{\rm K}(\omega) = 2\eta a(\omega)$. The factors $1\pm
iO(\omega/D)$ are responsible for making the functions $G_{\beta}^{\rm R}(t)$ and $G_{\beta}^{\rm A}(t)$ causal. As we are interested in the low frequencies ($\omega \ll D$) we approximate those factors by $1$. Then we obtain $$\label{Eq:G_I_Matrix}
\delta G_I = 4 g_0 g_1
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
V & a(\omega)\\
0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Pi^{\rm R} & \Pi^{\rm K}\\
0 & \Pi^{\rm A}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -a(\omega)\\
0 & V
\end{array}
\right) \ ,$$ and, finally, $\delta G^{\rm R/A}_I=0$ and $$\label{Eq:G_I_K}
\delta G^{\rm K}_I = 2\delta G^{>}_I = 4 g_0 g_1 V^2
\left(\Pi^{\rm K} -\frac{a(\omega)}{V}(\Pi^{\rm R}-\Pi^{\rm A})
\right) \ .$$ The first term in Eq. (\[Eq:G\_I\_K\]) is the standard contribution obtained in the high voltage limit, e.g., in Refs. [@Averin_Korotkov; @Korotkov_Osc]. It can also be obtained by treating the QPC as a linear amplifier, i.e., assuming the relation $I(t) = I_0(t) +
\frac{\delta I}{2} \sigma_x (t)$ [@Averin_SQUID]. Then, the first term in Eq. (\[Eq:G\_I\_K\]) is the noise of the spin being amplified by the QPC. The interpretation of the second term in Eq. (\[Eq:G\_I\_K\]) is less trivial. Now these are the internal correlations of the QPC being amplified by the combined system of the spin and the QPC. This contribution is negligible when $\omega \ll V$ but is of the same order as the first one for $\omega \sim V$. Using Eqs. (\[Eq:P\_R-P\_A\]) and (\[Eq:P\_K\]) we, finally, obtain the following contribution to the current-current correlator $$\label{Eq:peak_at_Delta_Keldysh}
i\delta G_I^{>}=
\frac{(\delta I)^2\Gamma_{\omega}\Delta^2}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2 +4\Gamma_{\omega}^2\omega^2}
\left(1-\frac{\omega a(\omega)}{V s(\omega)} \right) \ .$$
The contribution (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\_Keldysh\]) coincides with $C_2(\omega)$ (Eq. (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\])) in the limit $\Gamma \ll \Delta$.
Note that the response functions $G_{\beta}^{\rm R}(\omega)$ and $G_{\beta}^{\rm A}(\omega)$ vanish at $V=0$. This non-universal property makes the spin’s contribution to the equilibrium output current correlator to vanish. At any voltage and temperature, the contribution (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\_Keldysh\]) is of the “peak” type, and not of the Fano type. The Fano shaped resonances could have originated from the combination $\Pi^{\rm R} + \Pi^{\rm A}= 2{\rm Re}\,\Pi^{\rm R}$. Indeed, for $\Gamma\ll\Delta$ and $|\omega| \approx \Delta$ we obtain from Eq. (\[Eq:P\_R-P\_A\]) $$\label{Eq:P_R+P_A}
\Pi^{R}+\Pi^{A} \approx \frac{4\Delta^2}{s(\Delta)}\,\frac{\omega^2-\Delta^2}
{(\omega^2-\Delta^2)^2 + 4\omega^2\Gamma^2}
\ .$$ This combination does not appear in Eq. (\[Eq:peak\_at\_Delta\_Keldysh\]) due to another non-universal property of the response functions $G_{\beta}^{\rm R}(\omega)$ and $G_{\beta}^{\rm A}(\omega)$ which are purely real up to the frequencies of order $D$. Had this not been the case, the Fano type contribution would be similar to that of Eq. (\[Eq:Non-Markovian\]) but of a lower order in $g_0,g_1$ ($\propto g_0 g_1$).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=16.5cm =-2.0cm =-1.4cm
CEAB 95/1207
December 1995
hep-th/9601101
[**The renormalization group and spontaneous compactification of a higher-dimensional scalar field theory in curved spacetime**]{}
[E. Elizalde]{}[^1]\
Center for Advanced Studies CEAB, CSIC, Camí de Santa Bàrbara, 17300 Blanes,\
and Department ECM and IFAE, Faculty of Physics, University of Barcelona,\
Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain\
[R. Kantowski]{} [^2]\
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma,\
Norman, OK 73019, USA\
and\
[S.D. Odintsov]{}[^3]\
Tomsk Pedagogical University, 634041 Tomsk, Russia,\
and Department ECM, Faculty of Physics, University of Barcelona,\
Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain\
[**Abstract**]{}
The renormalization group (RG) is used to study the asymptotically free $\phi_6^3$-theory in curved spacetime. Several forms of the RG equations for the effective potential are formulated. By solving these equations we obtain the one-loop effective potential as well as its explicit forms in the case of strong gravitational fields and strong scalar fields. Using zeta function techniques, the one-loop and corresponding RG improved vacuum energies are found for the Kaluza-Klein backgrounds $R^4\times S^1\times S^1$ and $R^4\times S^2$. They are given in terms of exponentially convergent series, appropriate for numerical calculations. A study of these vacuum energies as a function of compactification lengths and other couplings shows that spontaneous compactification can be qualitatively different when the RG improved energy is used.
The renormalization group (RG) has long been used to “improve" loop corrections in perturbative quantum field theory. Gell-Mann and Low [@GML] first used it to study the asymptotic behavior of Green’s functions and in the classic work of Coleman and Weinberg [@22] the RG equation was used to improve the effective potential and study spontaneous symmetry breaking. This is just one of the many different applications that the RG has had in quantum filed theory. Recently it has been employed to put lower limits on the Higg’s mass of the standard model [@23]. In this paper we put it to use in a renormalizable Kaluza-Klein model, arguing that RG improvments are necessary if stability of the internal dimensions are to be correctly predicted. We will also develop the RG technique in order to study the scalar effective potential in this model.
We start in Sec. II using the RG equations to arrive at the 1-loop effective potential starting from a classical $\phi^3$ scalar field theory defined on a 6-dimensional curved space (denoted by $\phi^3_6$). This is a renormalizable theory which is coupled to the curvature tensor and its square. We additionally use the RG equations to find the asymptotic behavior of the effective potential when either the gravitational field is strong or when the scalar field is intense. In Sec. III we give the 1-loop vacuum energies for this scalar field on backgrounds $R^4\times S^1\times S^1$ and $R^4\times S^2$. We then compute RG improvements to these energies. We conclude that qualitative changes have occurred, i.e., minima have disappeared from the vacuum energy and that Kaluza-Klein stability will be correspondingly affected. In the conclusions we also mention other possible applications of the RG techniques in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories, as higher-derivative theories and renormalizable theories in the “modern sense.”
As an example of a renormalizable theory in higher-dimensional curved spacetime, we consider the following action in $D=6$: L &=& L\_m + L\_[ext]{},\
L\_m &=& - + M\^2 \^2 + g \^3 + h+ R \^2 + \_1 R\
&& + \_3 R\^2 + \_4 R\_ R\^ + \_5 R\_ R\^ , \[2.1\]\
L\_[ext]{} &=& - ( + kR + \_1 R\_\^2 + \_2 R\_\^2 + \_3 R\^2 + \_4 R\^3 + \_5 R R\_\^2 + \_6 R R\_\^2 .\
&& + . \_7 R\_ R\^\_[ ]{} R\^ + \_8 R\_ R\_ R\^ +\_9 R\_ R\^ R\^\_[ ]{} + \_[10]{} R\_ R\^\_[ ]{} R\^ ). Here $L_m$ and $L_{ext}$ are the Lagrangians of matter and external fields, respectively, and $\phi$ is a scalar. The Lagrangian (\[2.1\]) represents the generalization to curved space of a renormalizable $\phi_6^3$ theory [@1]. Such a theory in curved spacetime was considered a few years ago in Refs. [@2]-[@4]. Here the notation of Ref. [@3] will be adopted. In that reference, a one-loop analysis was carried out. The form of $L_{ext}$ in (\[2.1\]), as well as of the non-minimal gravitational terms in $L_m$, are such as to make the theory multiplicatively renormalizable in curved spacetime. We will consider only spacetimes of constant curvature, excluding terms of the form $\phi \Box R$, etc., from the Lagrangian (\[2.1\]). Finally, $\lambda_i =\{ M^2, g, h, \xi, \ldots, \alpha_{10} \}$ are all coupling constants whose dimensionality is clear from the form of the Lagrangian (\[2.1\]).
One-loop divergences of the model (\[2.1\]) are found in Ref. [@3]. They yield the following running coupling constants (we give here their explicit expressions in the massless sector only): g\^2(t) &=& g\^2B\^[-1]{}(t), B(t)=1+ ,\
(t)&=& + ( - ) B\^[- 5/9]{} (t),\
\_1(t) &=& \_1 B\^[1/18]{}(t), \[2.2\]\
\_3(t) &=& B\^[1/18]{}(t) ,\
\_[4,5]{}(t) &=& B\^[1/18]{}(t) ,\
h(t)&=& h B\^[1/18]{}(t).It is clear from expression (\[2.2\]) that the theory is asymptotically free at high energies ($g^2(t) \rightarrow 0$), and that it is asymptotically conformal invariant in the matter sector (see [@9] for a review). From the complete set of one-loop divergences, given explicitly in Ref. [@3], there are no problems in writing down all running coupling constants, including $M\neq 0$. To save space we have listed only those needed in this section.
Working with the massless version of the theory (\[2.1\]) we use (\[2.2\]) first to find the effective potential at one-loop and second to find RG improved asymptotic forms of this potential. We start by writing the effective action of this theory as: = . |\_[=0]{} + d\^6x V + , \[2.4\] where the first term is the vacuum energy, the second is the effective potential. Terms that have not been explicitly included provide non-constant $\phi$ contributions to $\Gamma$. The multiplicative renormalizability of the theory guarantees that the effective action as well as the effective potential satisfies the RG equations: ( + \_[\_i]{} - \_ ) V =0, \[2.5\] where $\gamma_{\phi} $ is the $\gamma$-function of the scalar field (computed here from [@3]), \_=[g\^212(4)\^3]{}. \[2.4+\]
In order to find the effective potential as an expansion over curvature invariants, we will write the classical potential as (its form is clear from (\[2.1\])) V\^[(0)]{} = \_i V\^[(0)]{}\_i, V\^[(0)]{}\_i = a\_i\_iP\_i\^[k\_i]{}, \[2.6\] where the $a_i$ are numerical multipliers, $k_i\geq 1$ are integers, and the $P_i$ are curvature invariants. Applying the method described in Ref. [@5] (see also [@4]), we can solve the RG equations (\[2.5\]) for a potential of the form (\[2.6\]). Restricting ourselves to one-loop and using the tree level potential (\[2.6\]) as boundary condition, we find (we skip technical details): V &=& g\^3 - ( - )+ h + R\^2 - ( - ) R\^2 ( - 3 )\
&& + \_1 R+ \_3 R\^2 + \_4 R\_\^2 + \_5 R\_\^2 \[2.7\]\
&& - ( - 2 ) . This is the one-loop effective potential up to terms quadratic in the curvature. It is clear that this potential is not bounded from below (this is the well-known instability of the $\varphi_6^3$-theory). This kind of potential is useful for studying six-dimensional cosmology coupled to a $\varphi_6^3$ quantum field.
Another applications of the RG equations to the effective potential $V$, is to study the asymptotics of the effective potential in curved spacetime [@6; @4]. The homogeneity condition of $V$ has the form V ( e\^[2t]{}, e\^[d\_[\_i]{}t]{} \_i, e\^[- 2t]{}g\_, e\^t) = e\^[6t]{} V ( , \_i,g\_,) , \[2.8\] where $t=$ const. and $d_{\lambda_i}$ is the dimension of $\lambda_i$. Relation (\[2.8\]) leads to the following equations: && ( \_t +\_+ d\_[\_i]{} \_i \_[\_i]{} + 2\_-6) V ( , e\^[-2t]{} g\_, …) = 0, \[2.9\]\
&& ( \_t +\_+ d\_[\_i]{} \_i \_[\_i]{} - 2g\_ -6) V ( e\^[2t]{} , g\_, …) = 0, \[2.10\] where the parameters of the potential that are not written explicitly are not scaled. Combining Eq. (\[2.5\]) with Eqs. (\[2.9\]) and (\[2.10\]), we obtain the following: && V ( , e\^[-2t]{} g\_, …) = 0, \[2.11\]\
&& { \_t + ( 1 + \_/2)\^[-1]{} } V ( e\^[2t]{} , g\_, …) = 0. \[2.12\] The RG equations (\[2.11\]) and (\[2.12\]) describe the asymptotics of the effective potential. In particular, when $g_{\alpha\beta} \rightarrow e^{-2t} g_{\alpha\beta}$, $R^2
\rightarrow e^{4t} R^2$, Eq. (\[2.11\]) gives the asymptotic behavior of the effective potential in a strong gravitational field. Similarly, Eq. (\[2.12\]) gives the behavior of $V$ in the case of a strong scalar field. Solving Eq. (\[2.11\]) we get (see also [@6; @4]): && V ( , e\^[-2t]{} g\_, \_i ) = e\^[6t]{} V ( (t), g\_, \_i (t) ),\
&& \_i (t) = \_[\_i]{} (t) - d\_[\_i]{} \_i (t), \_i (0) = \_i, \[2.13\]\
&& (t) = - (t), (0) = . Selecting the leading coupling constants from (\[2.2\]) and using (\[2.4+\]) we obtain V ( , e\^[-2t]{} g\_, \_i ) \~e\^[6t]{} (t) , \[2.15\] where (t) = e\^[-2t]{}B\^[-1/18]{} (t). \[2.14\] Thus, the asymptotics of the effective potential in a strong gravitational field are defined by the non-minimal interaction of the scalar with the quadratic curvature invariants. Such approximations can be useful in studying quantum effects in the early universe (e.g. in the Kaluza-Klein framework).
In a similar way, we can solve Eq. (\[2.12\]), with the result V ( e\^[2t]{} , g\_, \_i ) = V ( , g\_ (t), \_i (t) ), \[2.16\] where && A(t) = \^[-1]{}, (t) = ,\
&& \_ (t,x) = 2A(t) g\_ (t,x), g\_ (0,x) = g\_ (x),\
&& \_i (t) = A(t) . \[2.17\] As we see, contrary to what happens with Eqs. (\[2.13\]) for the effective couplings, the multiplier $A(t)$ appears on the rhs of Eqs. (\[2.17\]). Using arguments similar to the ones given in Ref. [@7] (where the procedure to study the asymptotics of the effective potential in flat spacetime was developed), one can show that the presence of $A(t)$ does not influence the asymptotics of the effective couplings. Again, due to the fact that the theory is asymptotically free, it is natural to expect that the asymptotic behavior of the effective potential is given by the lowest order of perturbation theory, with the parameters replaced by the corresponding effective couplings.
Now, since $\phi (t)=\phi$, and the effective curvature is always small, $R(t) \sim e^{-2t}$ (see (\[2.17\])), we get V ( e\^[2t]{} , g\_, \_i ) = e\^[6t]{} g(t) \^3. \[2.18\] The asymptotic value of the effective potential, in the limit of strong scalar curvature, is not bounded from below. This result can be useful for the study of six-dimensional quantum cosmology near the initial singularity. We conclude this discussion of the application of RG equations to the effective potential for the curved spacetime $\phi_6^3$-theory and go on to an application the RG equations to the vacuum energy.
Starting from the works [@12] and [@8], the vacuum energy of matter and gravitational fields on spherically compactified internal spaces was calculated and the process of quantum spontaneous compactification was studied. For a review and a list of references of papers on related question concerning Kaluza-Klein theories, see [@10; @9]. In particular, in [@13]-[@17] and [@11] vacuum energies were evaluated for scalar fields etc. (including gravity) defined on even-dimensional compactified spaces. In most of these studies only the divergent parts (in dim-reg) of the vacuum energies were evaluated.
Our goal here is to obtain the RG improved one-loop vacuum energies corresponding to the theory (\[2.1\]) on two Kaluza-Klein backgrounds, namely $R^4\times S^1\times S^1$ and $R^4\times S^2$, and to investigate the process of spontaneous compactification.
At the one-loop level, the vacuum energy is given by \^[(1)]{} = ( - + M\^2 ). \[2.19\] The calculation can be done with the help of zeta function regularization (for an introduction, see [@18]). The spectrum has the form = k\_4\^2 + ( )\^2 + ( )\^2 + X, \[2.20\] with $X=M^2$ here, and the corresponding ‘Euclideanized’ zeta function is \_E (s) &=& \_\^[-s]{} = \_\_0\^dt t\^[s-1]{} e\^[-t]{}\
&=& \_[n\_1n\_2]{} \_0\^dt t\^[s-1]{} {- t}\
&=& . \[2.21\] $E(s;a,b,c;q)$ is the zeta function introduced and studied in [@Eli1], E(s;a,b,c;q) ’ (am\^2+bmn+cn\^2+q)\^[-s]{}, (s) >1. \[2.22\] In the general theory [@Eli1], one requires that $a,c >0$, that the discriminant =4ac-b\^2 = ( )\^2 >0, \[2.23\] and that $am^2+bmn+cn^2+q \neq 0$, for all $ m,n \in
$ [**Z**]{}. These conditions are all satisfied in this case. The analytic continuation [@Eli2] of this zeta function is: && E(s;a,b,c;q) = -q\^[-s]{} + + .This explicit form (\[cse1\]) and its derivative (given below) appeared for the first time in [@Eli2]. It is remarkable that the only simple pole ($s=1$) is so explicit in (\[cse1\]). This expression also has excellent convergence properties, in fact, for large $q$ the convergence behavior of the series of Bessel functions is at least exponential. Particular values for $s=-n$, $n=0,1,2,3,\ldots$ are : E(-n;a,b,c;q) = -q\^n - , and E(-n;a,b,c;0) =0. For the corresponding derivative at zero we have E’(0;a,b,c;q) &=& -+ ( 1 + ) q\
&&-2 ( 1 - e\^[-2]{} ) + 4 \_[n=1]{}\^n\^[-1]{} K\_1 ( 4n ) \[eh22n\]\
&& + 4\_[n=1]{}\^n\^[-1]{} (nb/a) \_[d|n]{} d , and, in general, for $s=-n$, $n=0,1,2,3,\ldots$, && E’(-n;a,b,c;q) = -+ q\^n ( 1 + ) q\
&& + 4 . These are the only expressions needed for what follows. We want to evaluate the effective action $\Gamma^{(1)} /V_4$, where \^[(1)]{} = , \[2.24\] and $V_4$ is the four-volume, $V_4 \equiv \int d^4x$. The result is immediate from the expressions above: &=& ( - + ) + 2 \_[n=1]{}\^n\^[-5/2]{} K\_[5/2]{} ( nML\_1)\
&& + \_[n=1]{}\^n\^[-3]{} K\_3 ( nML\_1 ) \[2.25\]\
&& + \_[n=1]{}\^n\^[-5/2]{} \_[d|n]{} d\^5 ( + )\^[5/4]{} K\_[5/2]{} ( nL\_1 ).Notice that the result is given in terms of a rapidly convergent series, very well suited for numerical computation. In the massless case ($M^2 =0$), we are left with the last term . |\_[M\^2=0]{} = \_[n=1]{}\^n\^[-5/2]{} \_5 (n) K\_[5/2]{} ( 2n ).
In this case, for simplicity, the vacuum energy will be calculated for the massless theory only \^[(1)]{} = ( - + R ). \[3b1\] The spectrum is now = k\_4\^2 - \_l\^2 + X, \[3b2\] where $X=\xi R$. For the 2-sphere $ R=2/r^2$ when written in terms of the sphere’s radius $r$. For scalar fields, \_l\^2 = - , l = 0,1,2,… \[3b3\] with associated multiplicities D\_l = 2l+1. \[3b4\] The corresponding zeta function is \_E (s) &=& \_l D\_l (\_l\^2 +X)\^[2-s]{}\
&=& \_[l=0]{}\^(2l+1) \^[2-s]{} \[3b5\]\
&=& - . F(s-3;c;Xr\^2-1/4) |\_[c=1/2]{}, where $F(s;c;q)$ is another typical zeta function studied in full detail in [@Eli1], F(s;c;q) \_[n=0]{}\^\^[-s]{} G(s;1,c;q). \[3b6\] From the general asymptotic expansion of $G(s;a,c;q)$ in powers of $q^{-1}$ (see [@Eli1]), && G(s;a,c;q) \_[n=0]{}\^ \^[-s]{} \~ \_[m=0]{}\^ ( )\^[-m]{} \_H (-2m, c) \[if11\]\
&& + q\^[1/2 -s]{} + a\^[-1/4-s/2]{} q\^[1/4-s/2]{} \_[n=1]{}\^n\^[s-1/2]{} (2nc) K\_[s-1/2]{} (2n), we easily obtain the asymptotic expansion: \_E (s) \~- \_[n=0]{}\^ (Xr\^2-1/4)\^[3-s-n]{}, \[3b7\] where the $B_{2n}$ are Bernoulli numbers. This yields immediately \_E (0)&=& (Xr\^2-1/4)\^3 , \[3b8\] and \_E (0)&=& -\_E(0) ( X - ) + (Xr\^2-1/4)\^3 . \[3b9\] Finally, &=& ( 2- )\^3 { \[3b10\]\
&& + . ( ) }, which is an asymptotic expansion for large $\xi$, valid for $\xi > 1/8$. The optimal truncation of this asymptotic expansion is obtained after the $n=4$ term. The point $\xi = 1/8$ has nothing to do with the conformal coupling value but instead depends on how the expansion of $\zeta_E (s)$ was done. This result ceases to be valid when $\xi \leq 1/8$. For the particular value $\xi =
1/8$, we can go back to the definition of the zeta function and show that $F$ reduces to an ordinary Riemann zeta function: $F(s;1/2;0) = \zeta_H (2s;1/2) = (2^{2s}-1) \zeta (2s)$, and $ \frac{\partial}{\partial c} \zeta_H (s;c) =-s\zeta_H (s+1;c)$, resulting in \_E (s) = (2s-5), = 1/8. Then = { - - 31 ’(-5) }, =1/8. For $\xi < 1/8$ the expansion (\[3b10\]) is replaced by a convergent series stemming from the binomial expansion of $F(s;,c;q)$ in powers of $q$, $0 \leq
q <1$ (see Eq. (\[3b6\])). This can be easily done, as described in detail in [@Eli1; @Eli2]. One would then have expressions which cover the whole range of values of $\xi$. However, in order to limit discussion we will illustrate the physical argument with the help of the $\xi >1/8$ case, i.e., Eq. (\[3b10\]). Similar considerations would also apply to the $\xi \leq 1/8$ cases.
Using the vacuum energies that we have calculated above, we can now study the process of quantum spontaneous compactification on Kaluza-Klein backgrounds (see, e.g. [@10]). In particular, we want to investigate consequences of using RG improvements to these energies on spontaneous compactification.
Turning back to our first example, we will now consider a $\phi_6^3$ theory on a $R^4\times S^1\times S^1$ background where, for simplicity, we set $L_1=L_2= L$. The effective action which takes into account the one-loop corrections (\[2.25\]) is given by = - L\^2 + . \[2.41a\] The conditions of spontaneous compactification are: =0, ( ) = 0. \[2.42\] In the case under discussion, we have $\Gamma = \Gamma (\Lambda,
M^2,\mu, L)$. Having two conditions and four parameters, the expectations of finding some solution of Eq. (\[2.42\]) are great. We will fix $M^2$ and $\mu$ and consider $\Gamma$ as a function of the compactification length, $L$, only. In Fig. 1 we call this effective action (i.e., $\Gamma$ divided by the four-volume) simply $V(L)$, and show its form explicitly for some specified values of $M^2, \mu$ and $\Lambda$ that correspond to one of those situations in which spontaneous compactification takes place for a definite value of the compactification length $L$. Note that in this case we are beyond the range of validity of our approximation (which is analogous to that of the Coleman-Weinberg potential [@22]), because of the large logarithmic contribution. For reasonably small values of the log (where the one-loop result can be trusted), that is up to $|\ln (M^2 /\mu^2 )| \simeq 1$, there is no minimum.
Let us now see how this picture changes, in general, when we take into account RG effects, e.g., when we enlarge the parameter space. As the theory is multiplicatively renormalizable, the effective action satisfies the RG equation (\[2.5\]). This equation can be solved using the method of the characteristics, yielding the so-called RG improved effective action (or Wilsonian effective action [@21]). The corresponding RG improved effective potential [@22] has been widely discussed in renormalizable theories with a Higgs sector, both in flat [@23] and in curved spacetime [@24].
The solution of the RG equation (\[2.5\]) (at $\phi =0$) for the effective action gives (\_i, g\_, ) = (\_i (t), g\_, e\^t ), \[2.43\] where the effective couplings are given in (\[2.2\]). As boundary condition for (\[2.43\]) it is convenient to use the one-loop effective action (\[2.41a\]). Then, the RG improved effective action is given by the same expression (\[2.41a\]) but with the following changes of variables: && M\^2 M\^2(t) = M\^2 ( 1 + )\^[-5/9]{},\
&& \^2 \^2(t) = \^2 e\^[2t]{}, (t) = - . \[2.44\] In order to define $t$ we may choose the standard and most natural condition of dropping out the logarithmic term (for more details and different ways of defining $t$, see the last reference in [@23]) M\^2(t)= \^2 e\^[2t]{}. \[2.45\] The solution of (\[2.45\]) determines the value of $t$ as a function of $g$, $M^2$ and $\mu$. Fixing $M^2$ and $\mu$, as before, we obtain now the corresponding picture for the RG improved effective potential $\Gamma$ as a function of $L$. This is depicted in Fig. 2 for specified values of $M,\mu,\Lambda$ and $g$ that correspond to those of Fig. 1. The value of $t$ which is a solution of Eq. (\[2.45\]) is here $t=3.2182$. Differences in the effective potential $\Gamma$ as a function of $L$ caused by the RG improvement can be seen by comparing Figs. 1 and 2. A virtue of the RG improvement is that now it has physical sense to let the quocient $M^2/\mu^2$ take such big values as in Fig. 1: the range of validity of the approximation is greatly enlarged. However, as is clearly observed in these figures, the RG improvement can modify the spontaneous compactification pattern dramatically. It actually happens in this case: the minimum disappears completely, at best it can turn into an inflection point (of the type of Fig. 3, although here it corresponds to the non-improved case). We see also that the renormalization group acting over an inflection point makes it evolve into the non-compactifying case (cf. Figs. 3 and 4). And this is all what happens in the model considered: the effect of the RG is destructive, concerning spontaneous compactification (it need not be so in other situations).
The same calculation can be repeated for the case of the RG improved effective action corresponding to the theory defined on the space $R^4\times S^2$. Using the same principle as above, we can write = d\^6 x L\_[ext]{} + , \[2.48\] where $L_{ext} = L_{ext} (\Lambda, k, \alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{10})$ (see Eq. (\[2.1\])), and $\Gamma^{(1)}$ is given by (\[3b10\]). Expression (\[2.48\]) yields the one-loop effective action. The corresponding RG improved effective action is given by the same formula (\[2.48\]) but with the substitutions: (t) = + ( 1- ) B\^[-5/9]{} (t), \_i \_i (t), where $i=4,5, \ldots, 10$. The explicit form of $\alpha_i (t)$ can be easily obtained from Refs. [@3; @4]. One can establish the same comparison as before between the results of the spontaneous compactification process corresponding to the one-loop and to the RG improved effective actions on $R^4\times S^2$. In this case there are a total of 14 parameters to satisfy just two conditions. Setting aside exceptional situations, an enormous variety of possibilities occur. For this case the difference in the process of compactification introduced by the RG improvement of the effective action is found again. We omit plots similar to ones corresponding to the previous example.
In this work we have investigated renormalization group effects in the $\phi_6^3$ curved spacetime theory. Using this case as an example, the usefulness of the RG improvement in higher-dimensional theories has been demonstrated by calculating the one-loop effective potential and its asymptotics in strong fields. Additionally using the one-loop vacuum energy and the RG improved vacuum energy on Kaluza-Klein backgrounds $R^4\times S^1 \times S^1$ and $R^4\times S^2$, we have shown that the RG improvement can lead to significant qualitative differences in the spontaneous compactification of these theories. Such results clearly show that, in general, one-loop predictions in Kaluza-Klein theories should not always be trusted.
There are not many theories which are renormalizable in the standard way in higher dimensions. But the number increases by the introduction of higher-derivative kinetic terms (probably paying the price of spoiling unitary). For example, in $D=6$ one can consider a gauge theory with $F_{\mu\nu}^3$-terms as kinetic terms plus any other term not prohibited by dimensional arguments (they can have equal or lower dimensionality) or gauge invariance. Such a theory will be renormalizable in the same sense as $R^2$-gravity in $D=4$ is (see [@9] for a review).
On the other hand, one can consider Kaluza-Klein theories to be renormalizable in the sense of the inclusion of an infinite number of additional terms and their corresponding counterterms (for a recent discussion, see [@25]). Under these circumstances, the RG analysis can be applied again, but, of course, the RG equations will be infinite in number. Nevertheless, there are ways of truncating them in a systematic and consistent way, keeping just a finite number of terms. This can be done by considering, say just one-loop effects (in the even-dimensional case), or terms up to some particular order in the derivatives. As we have shown here, if the goal is studying spontaneous quantum compactification, the RG improved vacuum energy should be used.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} SDO is grateful to the members of the Department ECM, Barcelona University, for warm hospitality. This work has been supported by DGICYT (Spain), project PB93-0035 and grant SAB93-0024, by CIRIT (Generalitat de Catalunya), grant GR94-8001, and by RFFR, project 94-020324. RK is supported by the US Department of Energy.
[99]{}
M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Phys. Rev. [**95**]{} (1954) 1300.
S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**D7**]{} (1973) 1888.
M. Einhorn and D.R.T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. [**B211**]{} (1983) 29; G.B. West, Phys. Rev. [**D27**]{} (1983) 1402; K. Yamagishi, Nucl. Phys. [**B216**]{} (1983) 508; M. Sher, Phys. Rep. [**179**]{} (1989) 274; C. Ford, D.R.T. Jones, P.W. Stephenson and M.B. Einhorn, Nucl. Phys. [**B395**]{} (1993) 17.
A.J. Macfarlane and G. Woo, Nucl. Phys. [**B77**]{} (1974) 91.
I.T. Drummond, Phys. Rev. [**D19**]{} (1979) 1123.
D.J. Toms, Phys. Rev. [**D26**]{} (1982) 2713.
S.D. Odintsov, Izw. VUZov. Fiz. (Sov. Phys. J.) No3 (1988) 75.
I.L. Buchbinder, S.D. Odintsov and I.L. Shapiro, [*Effective action in quantum gravity*]{} (IOP, Bristol and Philadelphia, 1992).
I.L. Buchbinder and S.D. Odintsov, Class. Quant. Grav. [**2**]{} (1985) 721.
I.L. Buchbinder and S.D. Odintsov, Lett. Nuovo Cim. [**44**]{} (1985) 601.
B.L. Voronov and I.V. Tyutin, Yad. Fiz. (Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.) [**23**]{} (1976) 1316.
P. Candelas and S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. [**B237**]{} (1984) 397.
T. Appelquist and A. Chodos, Phys. Rev. [**D28**]{} (1983) 772.
T. Appelquist, A. Chodos, and P.G.O. Freund, Eds., [*Modern Kaluza-Klein theories*]{}, (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, 1987)
R. Kantowski and K.A. Milton, Phys. Rev. [**D35**]{} (1987) 549; [**D36**]{} (1987) 3712.
E. Myers, Phys. Rev. [**D33**]{} (1986) 1663.
D. Birmingham and S. Sen, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**176**]{} (1986) 451.
Danny Birmingham, R. Kantowski, H.P. Leivo, and Kimball A. Milton, Nucl. Phys (Proc.Suppl.) [**B6**]{}, (1989) 151.
I.L. Buchbinder, E.N. Kirillova and S.D. Odintsov, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A4**]{} (1989) 633.
N. Shtykov and D.V. Vassilevich, Theor. Math. Phys. [**90**]{} (1992) 12.
H.T. Cho and R. Kantowski, Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{} (1995) 4600.
E. Elizalde, S.D. Odintsov, A. Romeo, A.A. Bytsenko and S. Zerbini, [*Zeta regularization techniques with applications*]{} (World Sci., Singapore, 1994); E. Elizalde, [*Ten physical applications of spectral zeta functions*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1995).
E. Elizalde, J. Math. Phys. [**35**]{} (1994) 6100.
E. Elizalde, [*Formulas for generalized Epstein zeta functions and their derivatives at specified points*]{}, preprint CEAB 95/1018.
K.G. Wilson and J. Kogut, Phys. Rep. [**12**]{} (1974) 75.
E. Elizalde and S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. [**B303**]{} (1993) 240; Z. Phys. [**C64**]{} (1994) 699.
J. Gomis and S. Weinberg, preprint UTTG-18-95 (1995).
The effective action $V\equiv \Gamma /V_4$, as a function of $L$, for the specified values of $M^2, \mu$ and $\Lambda$ (in units of $10^4$). They correspond to a situation in which spontaneous compactification takes place. At the minimum, the value of the compactification length $L$ is selected.
Plot of the renormalization group improved effective action for values of $M,\mu,\Lambda$ and $g$ that correspond to those of Fig. 1. When comparing with Fig. 1, it is clearly observed that the RG improvement can modify the spontaneous compactification pattern.
Plot of the effective action for values of $M,\mu,\Lambda$ and $g$ that yield an inflection point, a situation that stays in the verge of spontaneous compactification.
Plot of the RG improved effective action for values of $M,\mu,\Lambda$ and $g$ corresponding to Fig. 3. The inflection point has disappeared and we are driven far away from spontaneous compactification.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Markov Logic Networks join probabilistic modeling with first-order logic and have been shown to integrate well with the Semantic Web foundations. While several approaches have been devised to tackle the subproblems of rule mining, grounding, and inference, no comprehensive workflow has been proposed so far. In this paper, we fill this gap by introducing a framework called [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}, which implements a workflow for knowledge discovery specifically on RDF datasets. Our framework imports knowledge from referenced graphs, creates similarity relationships among similar literals, and relies on state-of-the-art techniques for rule mining, grounding, and inference computation. We show that our best configuration scales well and achieves at least comparable results with respect to other statistical-relational-learning algorithms on link prediction.'
author:
- |
Tommaso Soru\
University of Leipzig, Germany\
`[email protected]` Diego Esteves\
University of Bonn, Germany\
`[email protected]` Edgard Marx\
Leipzig University of Applied Sciences, Germany\
`[email protected]` Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo\
University of Paderborn, Germany\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'mandolin.bib'
- 'aksw.bib'
title: 'Mandolin: A Knowledge Discovery Framework for the Web of Data'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The *Linked Data cloud* has grown considerably since its inception. To date, the total number of facts exceeds 130 billion, spread in over 2,500 available datasets.[^1] This massive quantity of data has thus become an object of interest for disciplines as diverse as Machine Learning [@spohr2011machine; @nikolov2012unsupervised; @rowe2011predicting], Evolutionary Algorithms [@wang2006gaom; @NGLY12], Generative Models [@bhattacharya2006latent], and Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) [@singla2006entity]. One of the main objectives of the application of such algorithms is to address the fourth Linked Data principle, which states *“include links to other URIs, so that they \[the visitors\] can discover more things”* [@berners2006linked]. Two years later, [@domingos2008just] proposed Markov Logic Networks (MLNs) – a well-known approach to Knowledge Discovery in knowledge bases [@richardson2006markov] – to be a promising framework for the Semantic Web. Bringing the power of probabilistic modeling to first-order logic, MLNs associate a weight to each formula (i.e., first-order logic rule) and are able to natively perform probabilistic inference. Several tools based on MLNs have been designed so far [@kok2009alchemy; @niu2011tuffy; @noessner2013rockit; @bodart2014arthur]. Yet, none of the existing MLN frameworks develops the entire pipeline from the generation of rules to the discovery of new relationships in a dataset. Moreover, the size of the Web of Data represents today an enormous challenge for such learning algorithms, which often have to be re-engineered in order to scale to larger datasets. In the last years, this problem has been tackled by proposing algorithms that benefit of massive parallelism. Approximate results with some confidence degree have been preferred over exact ones, as they often require less computational power, yet leading to acceptable performances.
In this paper, we propose a new workflow for probabilistic knowledge discovery on RDF datasets and implement it in a framework called [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}, rkov Logic etworks for the iscovery f ks. To the best of our knowledge, our framework is the first one to implement the entire pipeline for link prediction on RDF datasets. Making use of RDFS/OWL semantics, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}can (i) import knowledge from referenced graphs, (ii) compute the forward chaining, and (iii) create similarity relationships among similar literals. We show that this additional information allows the discovery of links even between different knowledge bases. We evaluate the framework on two benchmark datasets for link prediction and show that it can achieve comparable results w.r.t. other SRL algorithms and outperform them on two accuracy indices.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Machine-learning techniques have been successfully applied to ontology and instance matching, where the aim is to match classes, properties, and instances belonging to different ontologies or knowledge bases [@NGO+11; @NGLY12; @DBLP:conf/semweb/2015om]. Also, evolutionary algorithms have been used to the same scope [@martinez2008optimizing]. For instance, genetic programming has shown to find good link specifications (i.e., similarity-based decision trees) in both a semi-supervised and unsupervised fashion [@NGLY12]. Generative models are statistical approaches which do not belong to the ML and SRL branches. Latent Dirichlet allocation is an example of application to entity resolution [@bhattacharya2006latent] and topic modeling [@ESWC_Tapioca2016].
SRL techniques such as Markov-logic [@richardson2006markov] and tensor-factorization models [@nickel2014reducing] have been proposed for link prediction and triple classification; the formers have also been applied on problems like entity resolution [@singla2006entity]. Among the frameworks which operate on MLNs, we can mention NetKit-SRL [@macskassy2005netkit], Alchemy [@kok2009alchemy], Tuffy [@niu2011tuffy], ArThUR [@bodart2014arthur], and RockIt [@noessner2013rockit]. Several approaches which rely on translations have been devised to perform link prediction via generation of embeddings [@TransE/bordes2013translating; @TransR/lin2015learning; @TransRrules/wang2015knowledge; @TransG/xiao2015transg]. The Google Knowledge Vault is a huge structured knowledge repository backed by a probabilistic inference system (i.e., ER-MLP) that computes calibrated probabilities of fact correctness [@dong2014knowledge].
This work is also related to link prediction in social networks [@liben2007link; @scellato2011exploiting]. Being social networks the representation of social interactions, they can be seen as RDF graphs having only one property. Recently, approaches such as DeepWalk [@perozzi2014deepwalk] and node2vec [@grovernode2vec] showed impressive scalability to large graphs.
The link discovery frameworks Silk [@volz2009silk] and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Limes</span>]{} [@NGAU11] present a variety of methods for the discovery of links among different knowledge bases [@jentzsch2010silk; @NGLY12; @sherifDPSO]. As presented in the next section, instance matching is a sub-problem of link discovery where the sought property is an equivalence linking instances. Most instance matching tools [@li2009rimom; @jimenez2011logmap] take or have taken part in the *Ontology Matching Evaluation Initiative* (OAEI).
{width="50.00000%"}
Preliminaries {#sec:prel}
=============
First-order knowledge bases are composed of statements and formulas expressed in first-order logic [@Genesereth:1987:LFA:31838]. In probabilistic knowledge bases, every statement (i.e., edge) has a weight associated with it [@wuthrich1995probabilistic]. The weighting function can be represented as $\omega : E \rightarrow [0,1]$. This means that a relationship might exist within some confidence or probability degree. The current Semantic Web vision does not foresee weights for a given triple. However, a probabilistic interpretation of RDF graphs with weights partly lower than 1 has shown to be able to help to solve many problems, such as instance matching, question answering, and class expression learning [@leitao2007structure; @SHE+14; @Buehmann2014].
As mentioned in the introduction, MLNs join first-order logic with a probabilistic model by assigning a weight to each formula. Formally, a *Markov Logic Network* can be described as a set $(F_i, w_i)$ of pairs of formulas $F_i$, expressed in first-order logic, and their corresponding weights $w_i \in \mathbb{R}$. The weight $w_i$ associated with each formula $F_i$ softens the crisp behavior of Boolean logic as follows. Along with a set of constants $C$, an MLN can be viewed as a template for building a Markov Network. Given $C$, a so-called *Ground Markov Network* is thus constructed, leaving to each grounding the same weight as its respective formula. In a ground network, each ground node corresponds to a statement. Once such network is built, it is possible to compute a probability value $\in [0,1]$ for each statement [@richardson2006markov].
The Workflow {#sec:mandolin}
============
Our workflow comprises five modules: *RDFS/OWL enrichment*, *Rule mining*, *Interpretation*, *Grounding*, and *Inference*. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:overview\], the modules are aligned in a sequential manner. Taking a union of RDF graphs $G=\bigcup_i G_i$ as input, the process ends with the generation of an enriched graph $G'=(V',E')=lp(G)$ where $lp$ is the link prediction algorithm modeled as function.
RDFS/OWL enrichment {#sec:enrichment}
-------------------
The *RDFS/OWL enrichment* module activates optionally and features three different operations: *Similarity join*, *Ontology import*, and *Forward chaining*. Its function is to add a layer of relationships to the input graph $G$.
### Similarity join.
A node in an RDF graph may represent either a URI, a literal, or a blank node. While URI or a blank node have no restrictions w.r.t. their end in the triple (i.e., they can both be subjects or objects), a literal can only be put as an object (i.e., have only incoming edges). Literals can be of different datatype (e.g., strings, integers, floats). In order to generate the similarity relationships, we first collect all literals in the graph into as many buckets as there are datatype properties. We chose to use the Jaccard similarity on *q-grams* [@Gravano:2001:ASJ:645927.672200] to compare strings. To tackle the quadratic time complexity for the extraction of similar candidate pairs, we apply a positional filtering on prefixes and suffixes [@Xiao:2008:ESJ:1367497.1367516] as implemented in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Limes</span>]{}framework [@NGON12] within a similarity threshold $\theta$. Once the candidate pairs (i.e., datatype values) are extracted, we create a new similarity property for each datatype property and for $\theta=0.1,...,1.0$ to connect the respective subjects (e.g., `:foaf_name_0.6` to link two persons having names with similarity greater than $0.6$). Intuitively, these similarity properties form a hierarchy where properties with a higher threshold are sub-properties of the ones with lower threshold. The procedure above is repeated for each datatype property. Numerical and time values, are sorted by value and linked via a similarity predicate whenever their difference is less than the threshold $\theta$. The rationale behind the use of similarity joins is that (i) they can foster the discovery of equivalence relationships and (ii) similarity properties can be included in inference rules.
### Ontology import and Forward chaining.
RDF datasets on the Web are published so that their content can be accessible from everywhere. The vision of the Semantic Web expects URIs to be referenced from different knowledge bases. In any knowledge-representation application, one option to process the semantics associated with a URI is to import the ontology (or the available RDF data) which defines such entity. To accomplish this, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}dereferences external URIs, imports the data into its graph $G$, and performs forward chaining (i.e., semantic closure) on the whole graph. This additional information can be useful for the Markov logic, since it fosters connectivity on $G$.
Rule mining and Interpretation
------------------------------
The mining of rules in a knowledge base is not a task strictly related to MLN systems. Instead, the set of MLN rules is usually given as input to the MLN system. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}integrates the rule mining phase in the workflow exploiting a state-of-the-art algorithm.
The rule mining module takes an RDF graph as input and yields rules expressed as first-order Horn clauses. A Horn clause is a logic clause having at most one positive literal if written in the disjunctive normal form (DNF). Any DNF clause $\neg a(x,y) \vee c(x,y)$ can be rewritten as $a(x,y) \Rightarrow c(x,y)$, thus featuring an implication. The part that remains left of the implication is called *body*, whereas the right one is called *head*. In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}, a rule can have a body size of 1 or 2, belonging to one of 6 different classes: $a(x,y) \Longrightarrow c(x,y)$, $a(y,x) \Longrightarrow c(x,y)$, $a(z,x) \wedge b(z,y) \Longrightarrow c(x,y)$, $a(x,z) \wedge b(z,y) \Longrightarrow c(x,y)$, $a(z,x) \wedge b(y,z) \Longrightarrow c(x,y)$, and $a(x,z) \wedge b(y,z) \Longrightarrow c(x,y)$. Intuitively, considering only a subset of Horn clauses decreases expressivity but also the search space. In large-scale knowledge bases, this strategy is preferred since it allows to scale. For the search of rules in the graph, we rely on the *AMIE+* algorithm described in [@galarraga2015fast].
In the interpretation module, the set of rules returned by the rule miner is collected, filtered, and translated for the next phase, i.e. the grounding. At the end of the mining phase, we perform a selection of rules based on their head coverage, i.e. $F'=\{F \in \mathcal{F} : \eta(F) \geq \bar{\eta}\}$. We preferred to use PCA confidence over head coverage because previous literature showed its greater effectiveness [@dong2014knowledge; @galarraga2015fast].
Grounding
---------
Grounding is the phase where the ground Markov network (factor graph) is built starting from the graph and a set of MLN rules. A factor graph is a graph consisting of two types of nodes: factors and variables where the factors connect all the variables in their scope. Given a set of factors $\phi=\{\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_N\}$, $\phi_i$ is a function over a random vector $X_i$ which indicates the value of a variable in a formula. As the computational complexity for grounding is NP-complete, the problem of scalability has been addressed by using relational databases. However, frameworks such as *Tuffy* or *Alchemy* showed they are not able to scale, even in datasets with a few thousand statements [@chen2013web]. Tuffy, for example, stores the ground network data into a DBMS loaded on a RAM-disk for best performances [@niu2011tuffy]; however, growing exponentially, the RAM cannot contain the ground network data, resulting in the program going out of memory. For this reason, in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}module for grounding, we integrated *ProbKB*, a state-of-the-art algorithm for the computation of factors. The main strength of this approach is the exploitation of the simple structure of Horn clauses [@chen2014knowledge], differently from other frameworks where any first-order logic formula is allowed. It consists of a two-step method, i.e. (1) new statements are inferred until convergence and (2) the factor network is built. Each statement is read in-memory at most 3 times; differently from Tuffy, where it is read every time it appears in the knowledge base [@chen2013web].
Inference
---------
MAP Inference in Markov networks is a P\#-complete problem [@Roth:1996:HAR:227773.227790]. However, the final probability values can be approximated using techniques such as Gibbs sampling – which showed to perform best [@noessner2013rockit] – and belief propagation [@richardson2006markov]. Every statement $a(x,y)$ is associated with a node in the factor graph. Therefore, its probability is proportional to the product of all potential functions $\phi_k(x_{\{k\}})$ applied to the state of the cliques touching that node. Once we compute the probabilities of all sampled candidates, we normalize them so that the minimum and maximum values are $0$ and $1$ respectively. The final set $P$ of predicted links is then defined as those statements whose probability is greater than a threshold $\tau \in [0,1]$. Typically, the number of iterations for the Gibbs sampler is $\gamma=100*|E|$ [@noessner2013rockit].
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
Any directed labeled graph can be easily transformed into an RDF graph by simply creating a namespace and prepending it to entities and properties in statements. We thus created an RDF version of a benchmark for knowledge discovery used in [@TransE/bordes2013translating; @TransR/lin2015learning; @TransRrules/wang2015knowledge; @TransG/xiao2015transg; @nickel2015holographic]. The benchmark consists of two datasets: *WN18*, built upon the WordNet glossary, and *FB15k*, a subset of the Freebase collaborative knowledge base. Using these datasets, we evaluated [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}on link prediction. Finally, we employed the DBLP-ACM [@DBLP:journals/pvldb/KopckeTR10] dataset to test cross-dataset linking, as well as the large-scale dataset DBpedia 3.8 to evaluate the scalability of our approach. All experiments were carried out on a 64-core server with 256 GB RAM equipped with Ubuntu 16.04. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}framework was mainly developed in *Java 1.8* and its source code is available online[^2] along with all datasets used for the evaluation.
**Dataset** **\# triples** **\# nodes** **\# prop.**
----------------- ---------------- ----------------- --------------
[WN18]{} 146,442 40,943 18
[FB15k]{} 533,144 14,951 1,345
[DBLP–ACM]{} 20,759 5,003 34
[DBpedia 3.8]{} 11,024,066 $\sim$2,200,000 650
: Datasets used in the evaluation.[]{data-label="tab:datasets"}
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
(lr)[2-5]{} (lr)[6-9]{} MRR Hits@1 Hits@3 Hits@10 MRR Hits@1 Hits@3 Hits@10
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">TransE</span> 0.495 11.3 88.8 94.3 0.463 29.7 57.8 **74.9**
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">TransR</span> 0.605 33.5 87.6 94.0 0.346 21.8 40.4 58.2
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ER-MLP</span> 0.712 62.6 77.5 86.3 0.288 17.3 31.7 50.1
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RESCAL</span> 0.890 84.2 90.4 92.8 0.354 23.5 40.9 58.7
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HolE</span> **0.938** **93.0** **94.5** 94.9 **0.524** 40.2 **61.3** 73.9
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{} 0.892 89.2 94.3 **96.0** 0.404 **40.4** 48.4 52.6
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
We evaluated the link prediction task on two measures, *Mean Reciprocal Rank* (MRR) and *Hits@k*. The benchmark datasets are divided into training, validation, and test sets. We used the training set to build the models and the validation set to find the hyperparameters, which are introduced later. Afterwards, we used the union of the training and validation sets to build the final model. For each test triple $(s,p,o)$, we generated as many corrupted triples $(s,p,\tilde{o})$ as there are nodes in the graph such that $o \neq \tilde{o} \in V$. We computed the probability for all these triples when this value was available; when not, we assumed it $0$. Then, we ranked the triples in descending order and checked the position of $(s,p,o)$ in the rank. The Hits@k index is the ratio (%) of test triples that have been ranked among the top-$k$. We computed Hits@1,3,10 with a filtered setting, i.e. all corrupted triples ranked above $(s,p,o)$ which are present in the training sets were discarded before computing the rank.
The results for link prediction on the *WN18-FB15k* benchmark are shown in Table \[tab:lp2\]. We compare [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}with other SRL techniques based on embeddings and tensor factorization. On *WN18*, we overperform all other approaches w.r.t. the Hits@10 index (96.0%). However, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HolE</span> [@nickel2015holographic] recorded the highest performance on MRR and Hits@1; the two approaches achieved almost the same value on Hits@3. Since the two datasets above contain no datatype values and no statements using the RDF schema[^3], we did not activate the RDF-specific settings introduced in the previous section.
Our framework depends on the following hyperparameters:
- *minimum head coverage* ($\bar{\eta}$), used to filter rules;
- *Gibbs sampling iterations* ($\gamma$).
To compute the optimal configuration on the trade-off between computational needs and overall performances, we performed further experiments on the link prediction benchmark. We investigated the relationship between number of Gibbs sampling iterations, runtime, and accuracy by running our approach using the following values: $\gamma=\{1,2,3,5,10,50,100\} \cdot 10^6$. The runtime is, excluding an overhead, linear w.r.t. the number of iterations. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:sampliter\], the Hits@10 index tends to stabilize at around $\gamma=5 \cdot 10^6$, however higher accuracy can be found by increasing this value.
table \[x=samplings, y=hits10, col sep=tab\] [mln.csv]{};
We performed tests on the DBLP–ACM dataset for the discovery of equivalence relationships and on the large-scale dataset DBpedia[^4]. We compared our approach with other MLN frameworks, i.e. NetKit-SRL, ProbCog, Alchemy, and Tuffy. As these frameworks can learn rule weights but not rules themselves, we fed them with the rules found by our rule miner. We set $\bar{\eta}=0.9$ and $\gamma=10^7$. The results (see Table \[tab:scala\]) showed that, in all cases, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}is the only framework that was able to terminate the computation. In the DBLP–ACM dataset, we were able to discover equivalence links among articles and authors that had not been linked in the original datasets. After dividing the mapping $M$ into two folds ($90\%-10\%$), we used the larger as training set. We were able to predict $71.0\%$ of the correct `owl:sameAs` links in the remaining test set.
**Dataset** **Runtime (s)** ($|\mathcal{F}'|$) ($|P|$)
------------- ----------------- -------------------- ---------
DBLP–ACM 2,460 1,500 4,730
DBpedia 85,334 1,500 179,201
: Runtime, number of rules after the filtering, and number of predicted links for $\bar{\eta}=0.9$ and $\gamma=10^7$.
\[tab:scala\]
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have witnessed a different behavior of our algorithm when evaluated on the two datasets for link prediction. This might be explained by the different structure of the graphs: Relying on first-order Horn clauses, new relationships can only be discovered if they belong to a 3-vertex clique where the other two edges are already in the graph. Therefore, rule-based algorithms might need one more step, such as longer body in rules or more iterations, to discover them on a less connected graph such as FB15k. A more detailed view on the learned rules is provided at the project repository. The reason why approaches like <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RESCAL</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ER-MLP</span> have performed worse than others is probably overfitting. Embedding methods have shown to achieve excellent results, however no method significantly overperformed the others. We thus believe that heterogeneity in Linked Data sets is still an open challenge and structure plays a key role to the choice of the algorithm. Although our MLN framework showed to be more scalable and to be able to provide users with *justifications* for adding triples through the rules it generates, we recognize that this aspect can be further investigated by replacing one or more of its components to decrease the overall runtime.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we proposed a workflow for probabilistic knowledge discovery as implemented in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mandolin</span>]{}, a framework specifically designed for the Web of Data. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first complete framework for RDF link prediction based on Markov Logic Networks which features the entire pipeline necessary to achieve this task. We showed that it is able to achieve results beyond the State of the Art for some measures on a well-known link prediction benchmark. Moreover, it can predict equivalence links across datasets and scale on large graphs. We plan to extend this work in order to refine domain and range in rules and build functionals using OWL rules and evaluate their effectiveness on the predicted links.
[^1]: Retrieved on February 15, 2017, from <http://lodstats.aksw.org/>.
[^2]: <https://github.com/AKSW/Mandolin>
[^3]: <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/>
[^4]: Version 3.8 from <http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/departments/ontologies/projects/amie/>.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Spontaneous oscillations induced by time delays are observed in many real-world systems. Phase reduction theory for limit-cycle oscillators described by delay-differential equations (DDEs) has been developed to analyze their synchronization properties, but it is applicable only when the perturbation applied to the oscillator is sufficiently weak. In this study, we formulate a nonlinear phase-amplitude reduction theory for limit-cycle oscillators described by DDEs on the basis of the Floquet theorem, which is applicable when the oscillator is subjected to perturbations of moderate intensity. We propose a numerical method to evaluate the leading Floquet eigenvalues, eigenfunctions, and adjoint eigenfunctions necessary for the reduction and derive a set of low-dimensional nonlinear phase-amplitude equations approximately describing the oscillator dynamics. By analyzing an analytically tractable oscillator model with a cubic nonlinearity, we show that the asymptotic phase of the oscillator state in an infinite-dimensional state space can be approximately evaluated and non-trivial bistability of the oscillation amplitude caused by moderately strong periodic perturbations can be predicted on the basis of the derived phase-amplitude equations. We further analyze a model of gene-regulatory oscillator and illustrate that the reduced equations can elucidate the mechanism of its complex dynamics under non-weak perturbations, which may be relevant to real physiological phenomena such as circadian rhythm sleep disorders.'
author:
- 'Kiyoshi Kotani [^1]'
- Yutaro Ogawa
- Sho Shirasaka
- Akihiko Akao
- Yasuhiko Jimbo
- Hiroya Nakao
title: ' Nonlinear phase-amplitude reduction of delay-induced oscillations '
---
Introduction \[sec. intro\]
===========================
Time-delayed feedback can break continuous time-translational symmetry and lead to oscillatory behavior in many physical, biological, social, and engineered systems [@Glass+; @Lewis+; @Dfiremother; @Brent+; @Peterka+; @Soriano; @Kalmar+; @Szydlowski+]. In biology, for example, ultradian oscillations in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system are induced by time-delayed synthesis of hormones in the adrenal cortex [@Walker+]. Also, somite segmentation in zebrafish is regulated by oscillatory dynamics induced by time delays in the synthesis of proteins [@Ishimatsu], and mammalian circadian rhythm is generated by feedback regulations of clock genes in suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) [@Lema+]. Such oscillatory dynamics in systems with time delays can be described as stable limit-cycle orbits of delay-differential equations (DDEs).
In many of such systems, each oscillatory unit, or oscillator, is not isolated but perturbed by external forcing or by mutual coupling with other oscillators, and the state of each oscillator may deviate from the unperturbed limit cycle of an isolated oscillator when the perturbation is not sufficiently weak. Therefore, it is important to understand how perturbations of moderate intensity can modulate the period, amplitude, and other properties of delay-induced oscillations.
For example, in the case of zebrafish somite segmentation, it is known that strong couplings between cells are necessary for the spatio-temporal oscillatory dynamics of [*her1*]{} (zebrafish [*hairy-related gene1*]{}) expression [@Ishimatsu]. In the case of circadian clock genes, the oscillatory period in the free-running condition is known to be slightly different from 24 h, but they are entrained by the periodic external day-and-night lights through retinal ganglion cells [@SackI; @Berson]. Strong light stimulation can further induce large modulation in the activities of the clock genes [@Ukai+]. Since irregular dynamics of circadian rhythms manifest themselves as diseases such as sleep disorders [@SackI; @Thorpy+; @Jones; @Moldofsky], understanding of the dynamics of circadian clock genes under strong perturbations may facilitate therapies for sleep disorders.
The phase reduction theory is a standard mathematical framework for characterizing response properties of weakly perturbed limit-cycle oscillators and analyzing their synchronization dynamics via dimensionality reduction [@Winfree2; @Kuramoto; @Pikovsky; @Ermentrout2; @Nakao; @KuramotoPTRSA; @Ashwin]. Recently, the phase reduction theory has been extended also to DDEs exhibiting stable limit-cycle oscillations, which requires non-trivial mathematical generalization because DDEs are infinite-dimensional dynamical systems [@Kotani; @Pyragas]. However, the phase reduction has a strong limitation in that it is applicable only when the oscillator state remains sufficiently close to the unperturbed limit cycle. Specifically, when non-weak perturbations are applied or relaxation time of the system state to the limit cycle is not sufficiently small, the amplitude degrees of freedom may no longer be enslaved by the phase, leading to the breakdown of the lowest-order phase-only description. In such cases, the nonlinear interaction of the phase and amplitude may lead to non-trivial dynamics that cannot be captured by the phase reduction.
To overcome this difficulty, several mathematical frameworks have been proposed for oscillatory systems described by ordinary differential equations (ODEs), such as higher-order phase resetting curves [@Canavier+], extended phase equations [@Rubin+], and higher-order phase-amplitude equations [@Castejon+]. Still, for oscillatory dynamics of DDEs away from the limit cycle, much remains unknown because of their infinite-dimensional nature. Thus, a general framework for dimensionality reduction of limit-cycle oscillators described by DDEs that can analyze the effect of moderately strong perturbations is needed. Such a framework would shed light on oscillatory dynamical systems in which nonlinearity, time delay, and strong perturbations coexist.
In this study, our interest lies in the situation where the phase and amplitude of DDEs interact significantly in a nonlinear manner. We develop a nonlinear phase-amplitude reduction theory for DDEs, which gives a general mathematical framework for reducing DDEs describing limit-cycle oscillators to low-dimensional ordinary differential equations on the basis of the Floquet theory [@Stokes; @Hale; @Simmendinger]. We also propose a practical numerical method, which we call the extended adjoint method, to evaluate the Floquet eigenvalues, eigenfunctions, and their adjoint functions, which are necessary for the reduction. By using biorthogonality of the Floquet eigenfunctions and their adjoints, we project the oscillator state onto an eigenspace spanned by a few slowly-decaying Floquet eigenfunctions and derive a set of phase-amplitude equations which takes into account nonlinear interactions between the slowly-decaying Floquet eigenmodes. In contrast to the standard lowest-order phase reduction, the amplitude component associated with the second Floquet eigenfunction is included, which can play important roles when the relaxation of the system is slow or when the system is strongly perturbed.
We confirm the validity of the theory using an analytically-tractable DDE with a cubic nonlinearity by showing that the reduced phase-amplitude equations accurately predict the amplitude of the phase-locked oscillations under a periodic force, which exhibits non-trivial bistable response induced by the non-weak amplitude effects. We then apply the theory to a model of a gene-regulatory oscillator under moderately strong forcing and analyze its synchronization dynamics. We show that the reduced phase-amplitude equations can also predict nontrivial bistable dynamics of the system, which is analogous to a circadian disorder called advanced sleep-phase syndrome (ASPS) [@Thorpy+; @Jones; @Moldofsky].
Theory
======
In this section, we derive a set of reduced nonlinear phase-amplitude equations for limit-cycle oscillators described by DDEs on the basis of the Floquet theory and propose a practical numerical method to calculate the Floquet eigenvalues, eigenfunctions and their adjoints that are necessary for the reduction. We also derive approximate phase-amplitude equations for the oscillators subjected to periodic external forcing.
DDEs with a stable limit-cycle solution
---------------------------------------
We consider general delay-differential equations (DDEs) that have a stable limit-cycle solution. Mathematical analysis of such DDEs, for example, analyzing the synchronization properties when they are periodically perturbed, is not easy because they describe nonlinear infinite-dimensional dynamical systems on Banach spaces. Our aim is to derive simpler tractable equations by reducing them to low-dimensional ODEs while preserving their essential quantitative properties and to analyze synchronization dynamics of nonlinear oscillators described by such DDEs under moderately strong external perturbations. In previous studies [@Kotani; @Pyragas], phase reduction methods for stable limit-cycle solutions of DDEs have been developed, which are applicable when the perturbations given to the system is sufficiently weak. In this study, we develop a nonlinear phase-amplitude reduction theory for DDEs.
We consider a DDE for $X(t)\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$, represented as a column vector, with a maximum delay time $\tau > 0$. To construct a solution of the DDE, we have to take into account the history of $X(t)$ from $t-\tau$ to $t$. Thus, we introduce its history-function representation, $X^{(t)}({\sigma})\equiv X(t+{\sigma})$ $(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)$ [@Stokes; @Hale; @Simmendinger]. Here, $X^{(t)}(\cdot)\in C_0$ and $C_{0}=C([-\tau,0]\to \mathbb{R}^{N})$ is a Banach space of (column) vector-valued continuous functions mapping $[-\tau , 0]$ into $\mathbb{R}^N$, which is equipped with a norm $||x||_{C_0} = \sup_{\theta \in [-\tau,0]}||x(\theta)||$, where $||\cdot||$ is the usual Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{R}^{N}$. This history function $X^{(t)}$ represents the state of the dynamical system described by the DDE at time $t$, where the state space of the system is given by the infinite-dimensional Banach space $C_0$.
Using the above notation, a DDE can generally be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{d}{dt}}X^{(t)}(\sigma)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
{\displaystyle {\displaystyle {\frac{d}{d\sigma}}X^{(t)}(\sigma)}} & (-\tau\leq\sigma<0),\\
\\
{\displaystyle \mathcal{N}(X^{(t)} (\cdot) )}+G\left(X^{(t)} (\cdot), t\right) & (\sigma=0).
\end{array}\right.\label{2}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the vector-valued functional $\mathcal{N} : C_0 \to {\mathbb R}^N$ represents the system dynamics and $G: C_0 \times \mathbb{R} \to {\mathbb R}^N$ denotes external perturbation applied to the system that depends on the system state $X^{(t)}$. Both functionals are assumed to be sufficiently smooth. This DDE can describe not only systems with discrete delays but also systems with distributed delays [@Wischert]; see Ref. [@Palm] for the relation between nonlinear functionals and their kernel representations, which are widely used for systems with distributed delays described by integro-differential equations.
We consider a situation in which the DDE (\[2\]) without the external perturbation ($G=0$) has a stable limit-cycle solution $X_{0}(t)$ whose period is $T$, i.e., $X_{0}(t+T) = X_{0}(t)$, and represent it as a history function $X_0^{(t)} (\cdot) \in C_0$ satisfying $X_0^{(t+T)} = X_0^{(t)}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
X_0^{(t)}(\sigma) \equiv X_0(t+\sigma) \quad (-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0).\end{aligned}$$ In what follows, we also denote the limit cycle as $X_{0}^{(\phi)}$, where we use the phase $\phi$ ($0 \leq \phi < T$) in place of the time $t$ to parametrize system state on the limit cycle. The phase $\phi$ increases from $0$ to $T$, where the origin $\phi = 0$ can be chosen as a specific system state on the limit cycle. When the system state evolves along the limit cycle without perturbation, the phase $\phi$ increases with a constant frequency $1$, i.e., $\phi = t \ (\mbox{mod}\ T)$. Similarly, we also denote $T$-periodic history functions, such as the Floquet eigenfunctions, using the phase $\phi$ instead of $t$ when necessary.
The definition of the phase can further be extended to the basin of attraction of the limit cycle by assigning the same phase value $\phi$ to the set of system states $\{ X^{(t)} \}$ that asymptotically converge to the same system state as $X_{0}^{(\phi)}$ when the system evolves without perturbation [@Kotani; @Pyragas], i.e., $\lim_{t \to \infty} \| X^{(t)} - X_0^{(\phi + t)} \|_{C_0}= 0$, yielding the notion of [*asymptotic phase*]{} $\Phi(X^{(t)}) : C_0 \to [0, T)$ that maps a system state $X^{(t)}$ in the basin to a phase value. The asymptotic phase $\Phi$ satisfies $$\frac{d}{dt} \Phi(X^{(t)})=1
\label{eq. as_p}$$ when the system state evolves in the basin of the limit cycle without perturbation. The isosurfaces of $\Phi$, called [*isochrons*]{}, are not simply hyperplanes in general. For ordinary differential equations, the asymptotic phase has been used as a canonical representation of rhythms of stable oscillatory dynamics [@Winfree2; @Kuramoto; @Pikovsky; @Ermentrout2; @Hale_ODE] and provides in-depth insights into strongly-perturbed oscillatory dynamics [@Ashwin; @Canavier+; @Rubin+; @Castejon+; @Rabinovitch+]. Recently, it has also been defined for DDEs and other non-conventional oscillatory systems [@Kotani; @Pyragas].
We assume that the relaxation dynamics of the system state to the limit cycle can be decomposed into a few slow modes and remaining faster modes, which are well separated in time scale from each other. In this case, a rectangular coordinate frame moving along the periodic orbit, which was used in Refs. [@Hale_ODE; @Wedgwood; @Medvedev], is not useful for reducing the dynamics to low-dimensional ODEs, because fast and slow components interact already at the lowest order in this coordinate frame. It is also not easy to proceed with the asymptotic phase and associated amplitudes, because they are generally given by highly nonlinear functionals of the system state $X{(t)}$. We therefore use a coordinate frame defined by the Floquet eigenfunctions to decompose the system state as discussed in Ref. [@KuramotoPTRSA] for ODEs. The space spanned by the Floquet eigenfunctions with non-vanishing relaxation rates is tangent to the isochron at each point on the limit cycle. For this purpose, we need to calculate the Floquet eigenvalues, eigenfunctions, and their adjoints of DDEs.
Floquet theory for DDEs
-----------------------
We first describe the Floquet theory for the DDE (\[2\]) without the perturbation term, i.e., $G = 0$. We denote small deviation of $X(t)$ from $X_{0}(t)$ as $Y(t)=X(t)-X_{0}(t)$, and introduce its history-function representation $Y^{(t)}(\cdot) \in C_{0}$ with $Y^{(t)}({\sigma}) \equiv Y(t+{\sigma})$ $(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{(t)}({\sigma}) = X^{(t)}({\sigma}) - X_0^{(t)}({\sigma}) \quad (-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0).\end{aligned}$$ The linearized variational equation for $Y^{(t)}$ is given by $$\frac{d}{dt}Y^{(t)}(\sigma)=L^{(t)}\left(Y^{(t)} \right) (\sigma) \quad (-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0), \label{eq. var}$$ where $L^{(t)}(Y^{(t)})$ is a history representation of a linear functional defined by $$\begin{aligned}
L^{(t)}\left(Y^{(t)}\right)(\sigma)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\sigma}Y^{(t)}(\sigma)} & (-\tau\leq\sigma<0),\\
\\
{\displaystyle \int_{-\tau}^{0}d\sigma'{\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(t)}(\sigma')Y^{(t)}(\sigma')} & (\sigma=0).
\end{array}\right.\label{2-1}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(t)}(\sigma) \equiv \left. \frac{\delta {\mathcal N}(X^{(t)}(\cdot))}{\delta X^{(t)}(\sigma)} \right|_{X^{(t)}=X_0^{(t)}}\end{aligned}$$ is a functional differentiation of $\mathcal{N}$ with respect to $X^{(t)}$ evaluated at the system state $X^{(t)} =X_0^{(t)}$ on the limit cycle. Note that Eq. (\[eq. var\]) gives a periodically driven linear system because $X_0^{(t)}$ is $T$-periodic. In what follows, we expand $\mathcal{N}$ in a functional Taylor series in $Y^{(t)}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}( X^{(t)} (\cdot) ) = \mathcal{N}( X_0^{(t)} (\cdot) ) + L^{(t)} \left( Y^{(t)} \right)(0) + F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(Y^{(t)}(\cdot)\right),
\label{eq:taylorexpandN}\end{aligned}$$ where $L^{(t)} \left( Y^{(t)} \right)(0)$ represents a linear functional of $Y^{(t)}$ defined in Eq. (\[2-1\]) with $\sigma = 0$ and $F_{\mathrm{nl}}(Y^{(t)}(\cdot))$ represents the remaining nonlinear functional of $Y^{(t)}$, respectively, and both of these functionals are evaluated at $X^{(t)} = X_0^{(t)}$.
As an example, let us consider a simple DDE, $$\frac{d}{dt}X(t)=\mathcal{N}(X(t),X(t-\tau)), \label{eq. simpledde}$$ which is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{d}{dt}}X^{(t)}(\sigma)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
{\displaystyle {\displaystyle {\frac{d}{d\sigma}}X^{(t)}(\sigma)}} & (-\tau\leq\sigma<0),\\
\\
{\displaystyle \mathcal{N}(X^{(t)}(0),X^{(t)}(-\tau))} & (\sigma=0),
\end{array}\right.\label{eq. simplesg}\end{aligned}$$ in the history-function representation. By using the chain rule for functional differentiation and representing the terms in ${\mathcal N}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
X^{(t)}(0) &=& \int_{-\tau}^0{d\sigma'\delta (\sigma') X^{(t)}(\sigma')}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
X^{(t)}(-\tau) &=& \int_{-\tau}^0{d\sigma'\delta (\sigma'+\tau) X^{(t)}(\sigma')}\end{aligned}$$ using Dirac’s delta function $\delta(\cdot)$, we obtain $${\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(t)}(\sigma) = \mathcal{N}_1(t)\delta(\sigma) + \mathcal{N}_2(t)\delta(\sigma+\tau),$$ where $\mathcal{N}_j(t) \equiv \partial_{x_j}\mathcal{N}(x_1,x_2)$ $(j=1,2)$ is evaluated at $(x_1,x_2)=(X_0^{(t)}(0),X_0^{(t)}(-\tau))$. The linearized dynamics for the deviation $Y(t)$ can then be written as $$\begin{aligned}
L^{(t)}\left(Y^{(t)}\right)(\sigma)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\sigma}Y^{(t)}(\sigma)} & (-\tau\leq\sigma<0),\\
\\
{\displaystyle \mathcal{N}_1(t)Y^{(t)}(0) + \mathcal{N}_2(t)Y^{(t)}(-\tau)} & (\sigma=0).
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
Let us introduce a time-periodic linear operator $\hat{L}$ of period $T$, which acts on a complexified Banach space $(C_0)_{\mathbb{C}}$ [@Diekmann Sec. III.7] as $$\left( \hat{L}Y^{(t)} \right)(\sigma) \equiv -\frac{d}{dt}Y^{(t)}(\sigma)+L^{(t)}\left(Y^{(t)}\right)(\sigma) \quad (-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0), \label{eq. hatL}$$ and rewrite Eq. (\[eq. var\]) as $( \hat{L} Y^{(t)} )(\sigma) = 0$. Because $Y^{(t)}$ obeys a periodically driven linear system, by the Floquet theorem for linear DDEs [@Stokes; @Hale; @Simmendinger], the spectrum of $\hat{L}$ is at most countable and $$\left(\hat{L}q_{i}^{(t)}\right)(\sigma)=\lambda_{i}q_{i}^{(t)}(\sigma)\label{3}
\quad (-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)$$ is satisfied, where $\lambda_{i} \in {\mathbb C}$ is the $i$-th Floquet eigenvalue and $q_{i}^{(t)}\in (C_0)_{\mathbb C}$ is the corresponding $T$-periodic Floquet eigenfunction ($i=0, 1, 2, ...$). Here, the largest eigenvalue, which is $0$ and simple by the Floquet theorem, is denoted as $\lambda_0=0$ and the other eigenvalues are arranged in descending order of the real part.
We also introduce adjoint eigenfunctions with respect to a bilinear form appropriate for DDEs [@bilinear]. Following Refs. [@Stokes; @Hale; @Simmendinger], we define a bilinear form of two functions, $A \in (C_{0})_{\mathbb{C}}$ and $B\in (C_{0})_{\mathbb{C}}^{*}$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{B^{(t)}}, A^{(t)};t\rangle\equiv \left[B^{(t)}(0), A^{(t)}(0)\right]-\int_{-\tau}^{0}d\sigma\int_{0}^{\sigma}d\xi\left[B^{(t)}(\xi-\sigma),\ {\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(t+\xi-\sigma)}(\sigma)A^{(t)}(\xi)\right]\label{bilinear}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $(C_{0})_{\mathbb{C}}^{*}=C([0,\tau]\to \mathbb{C}^{N*} )$ is the dual space of $(C_{0})_{\mathbb{C}}$ with respect to the bilinear form, consisting of (row) vector-valued functions that map the interval $[0,\tau]$ to $\mathbb{C}^{N*}$, and $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denotes the Hermitian scalar product of $V\in \mathbb{C}^{N*}$ and $U\in \mathbb{C}^{N}$ defined as $[V,U] = \sum_{k=1}^N V_k \overline{U_k}$ where $V_k$ and $U_k$ are vector components of $V$ and $U$, respectively. An adjoint operator $\hat{L}^{*}$ of $\hat{L}$ with respect to this bilinear form can then be derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \hat{L}^{*}Y^{(t)*} \right)(s)=\frac{d}{dt}Y^{(t)*}(s)+L^{(t)*}\left(Y^{(t)*}\right)(s)
\quad
(0\leq s\leq\tau) \label{3*},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
L^{(t)*}\left(Y^{(t)*}\right)(s)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{lc}
{\displaystyle -\frac{d}{ds}Y^{(t)*}(s)} & (0<s\leq\tau),\\
\\
{\displaystyle \int_{0}^{\tau}ds'Y^{(t)*}(s'){\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(t+s')}(-s')} & (s=0).
\end{array}\right.\label{3*-1}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $Y^{*}(t)\ \in \mathbb{C}^{N*}$ is a row vector of $N$ complex components and $Y^{(t)*}(s)\equiv Y^{*}(t+s)$ $(0\leq s\leq\tau)\in (C_{0})_{\mathbb{C}}^{*}$ is its history-function representation.
The adjoint eigenfunction $q_{i}^{(t)*} \in (C_0)^*_{\mathbb C}$ of $q_{i}^{(t)}$, which is also $T$-periodic, satisfies $$\left(\hat{L}^{*}q_{i}^{(t)*}\right)(s)=\bar{\lambda}_{i}q_{i}^{(t)*}(s)
\quad
(0\leq s\leq\tau), \label{3*-2}$$ where $\bar{\lambda}_{i}$ is the complex conjugate of ${\lambda}_{i}$. If $\lambda_i \neq \lambda_j$, $q_{i}^{(t)}$ is orthogonal to $q_{j}^{(t)*}$ with respect to the bilinear form Eq. (\[bilinear\]), and hence they can be normalized to satisfy the biorthogonal relation $\langle{q_i^{(t)*}}, q_j^{(t)};t\rangle = \delta_{i, j}$. The zero eigenfunction of the linear operator $\hat{L}$ can be chosen as $q_0^{(t)}(\sigma)=dX_{0}/dt|_{t+\sigma}$ ($-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0$), which can be confirmed by differentiating Eq. (\[2\]) with respect to $t$ at $X^{(t)} = X_{0}^{(t)}$ on the periodic orbit [@Kotani]. Note that this definition specifies the normalization of $q_0^{(t)}$. For the other eigenfunctions $q_{i}^{(t)}$ ($i=1, 2, ...$), we normalize them such that $\max_{0 \leq t \leq T} \left( q_{i}^{(t)}(0)\right) =1$. We use this convention for the normalization throughout this study. We note that the zero eigenfunction of the linear operator $\hat{L}$ corresponds to the tangential component along the limit cycle, namely, the phase direction. Moreover, the zero eigenfunction $q_{0}^{(t)*}$ of the adjoint operator $\hat{L}^{*}$ gives the [*phase sensitivity function*]{} of the limit cycle, which characterizes linear response property of the oscillator phase to weak perturbations [@Kotani; @Pyragas]. Similarly, the other eigenfunctions $q_{i}^{(t)*} $ ($i=1, 2, ...$) characterize linear response properties of the amplitudes and called [*isostable response curves*]{} for the case of ODEs [@ErmentroutPTRSA].
The adjoint eigenfunctions can numerically be obtained by an extension of the adjoint method for DDEs, which was previously used to calculate the adjoint zero eigenfunction of $\hat{L}$ [@Kotani; @Pyragas]. That is, we numerically integrate the linearized and its adjoint equations while subtracting unnecessary functional components by using the biorthogonality between the eigenfunctions and adjoint eigenfunctions. The main difference from the adjoint method for $q_{0}^{(t)*}$ developed in the previous studies is that we calculate the adjoint eigenfunctions also for $\lambda_i \: (i\geq 1)$. Therefore, during numerical integration, we need to remove unnecessary functional components in the directions of the lower-order eigenfunctions from $0$-th to $(i-1)$-th, which grow faster than the $i$-th component in order to calculate the $i$-th eigenfunction precisely. For $i \geq 1$, we also need to renormalize the solutions of the equations by a factor $e^{\lambda_i t}$ determined by the Floquet exponent in order to obtain the correct eigenfunctions.
To numerically calculate the $i$-th eigenfunction $q_{i}^{(t)}$, we integrate the linearized equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}Y^{(t)}(\sigma)=L^{(t)}\left(Y^{(t)}\right)(\sigma)
\quad (-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)
\label{eq:linearizedeq}\end{aligned}$$ forward in time. During the calculation, we subtract the $0$-th to $(i-1)$-th eigencomponents from the numerical $Y^{(t)}$, which are unnecessary but arises due to numerical errors. The Floquet eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ is numerically evaluated from the exponential decay rate of $Y^{(t)}$. Then the eigenfunction $q_{i}^{\left(t\right)}\left(\sigma\right)$ is obtained by compensating the exponential decay of $ Y^{(t)}(\sigma)$ as $q_{i}^{\left(t\right)}\left(\sigma\right)=e^{-\lambda_{i}t} \ Y^{(t)}(\sigma)$ ($-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0$). See Sec. III.C and Ref. [@footnotesec3c] for further details. In a similar way, the $i$-th adjoint eigenfunction $q_{i}^{(t)^*}$ is calculated by numerically integrating the adjoint linear equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}Y^{(t)*}(s)=-L^{(t)*}\left(Y^{(t)*}\right)(s)
\quad
(0\leq s\leq\tau)
\label{eq:adjoint}\end{aligned}$$ backward in time while subtracting unnecessary eigencomponents and then compensating the numerical result by a factor $e^{- \lambda_i t}$. We call this procedure the extended adjoint method in this study.
Nonlinear phase-amplitude equations \[sec. pa\]
-----------------------------------------------
Our aim is to derive a set of low-dimensional dynamical equations from the original DDE by projecting the system state onto a moving coordinate frame spanned by a small number of Floquet eigenfunctions. That is, we decompose the deviation of the system state $X^{(t)}$ from that on the limit cycle $X_0^{(t)}$ by using the eigenfunctions associated with the leading $M$ eigenvalues other than $0$, which are assumed to be real and simple for the sake of simplicity [@lambda_complex], as $$\begin{aligned}
X^{(t)}(\sigma) \simeq X_0^{(\phi)}(\sigma) + \sum_{i=1}^{M} \rho_i(t) q_i^{(\phi)}(\sigma),
\quad
(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0),\end{aligned}$$ where $X_0^{(\phi)}$ is a system state on the limit cycle parametrized by the phase $\phi \in\left[0,T\right)$, $q_i^{(\phi)}$ ($i=1, ..., M$) is the Floquet eigenfunction associated with $\lambda_i$ and denoted as a function of $\phi$ rather than $t$, and $\{ \rho_i(t) \}$ are real expansion coefficients representing amplitudes of the Floquet eigenmodes. The symbol $\simeq$ indicates that we approximate $X^{(t)}(\sigma)$ by its projection on the space spanned by the $M$ eigenfunctions $\{ q_1^{(\phi)}, ... ,q_M^{(\phi)}\} $. We here use the term “amplitude” in a generalized sense, allowing it to take both positive and negative values; it is the component of the system state along the Floquet eigenfunction corresponding to the direction transversal to the limit cycle and represents the deviation of the system state from the limit cycle. Here, the phase value $\phi$ for a given state $X^{(t)}$ is determined in such a way that the state difference $X^{(t)} - X_0^{(\phi)}$ does not have a tangential functional component $q_0^{(\phi)}$ along the limit cycle. Thus, we assume the following orthogonality condition: $$\left\langle q_{0}^{\left(\phi\right)*}, X^{(t)}-X_{0}^{\left({\phi}\right)};{\phi}\right\rangle = 0,
\label{orthogonality}$$ namely, the difference $X^{(t)} - X_0^{(\phi)}$ is on the hyperplane that is tangent to the isochron on the limit cycle at $X_0^{(\phi)}$. Note that the phase defined in this way is different from the asymptotic phase. Because we use a linear coordinate frame spanned by the Floquet eigenfunctions $\{ q_i ^{(\phi)} \}$ ($i=1, ..., M$), nonlinear interactions between different eigenmodes generally arise. Specifically, when the eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$ with the largest non-zero part is close to $0$, the perturbed system state does not go back to the limit cycle quickly, and hence nonlinear interactions between the phase eigenmode and the slowest-decaying amplitude eigenmode should be taken into account for better description of the system.
For ordinary differential equations, such coupled nonlinear phase-amplitude equations have been derived by transforming the original equations around the limit cycle in several contexts [@Wedgwood; @Morita]. Such transformation methods have also been developed for DDEs in Refs. [@Stokes2; @Hale2], though the treatments of oscillatory dynamics in these studies are rather abstract. Quantitative analysis of synchronization dynamics of DDEs using the coordinate transform proposed therein have not been very fruitful despite their potential advantages, mainly due to the lack of practical methods for numerically evaluating the Floquet eigenfunctions.
We hereafter restrict ourselves to the case in which $\lambda_1$ takes a negative real value near zero and $\mbox{Re}\{\lambda_2\}\ll \lambda_1$ for simplicity. To derive the phase and amplitude equations, we retain only the slowest two modes associated with $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ and approximate $X^{(t)}({\sigma})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
X^{(t)}({\sigma}) \simeq X_{0}^{(\phi)}({\sigma}) + R(t) q_{1}^{(\phi)}(\sigma),\end{aligned}$$ where $R(t) = \rho_1(t)$ is the amplitude of the eigenmode corresponding to $\lambda_1$. The symbol $\simeq$ here indicates that we further approximate $X^{(t)}(\sigma)$ by its projection on a one-dimensional space spanned by $q_1^{(\phi)}$. We substitute this expression into Eq. (\[2\]) and then project both sides of Eq. (\[2\]) onto the eigenfunctions $q_{0}^{(\phi)}$ and $q_{1}^{(\phi)}$, respectively, by using biorthogonality of the eigenfunctions and derive the equations for the phase $\phi$ and the amplitude $R$.
As explained in Appendix \[app. pae\], the phase equation can be derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\phi}{dt}&=&1+\frac{q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right)}{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle },
\label{eq:13before_combined}\end{aligned}$$ or, by rewriting the right-hand side, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\phi}{dt}
=&
1
+ q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right)
\cr
&-\frac{R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle}{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle }
q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right),
\label{eq:13before}\end{aligned}$$ and the amplitude equation can similarly be derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dR}{dt}=&\lambda_{1}R
+q_{1}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right)
\cr
&-\frac{ R\left[\left\langle q_{1}^{(\phi)*}, L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle - \lambda_{1} \right] }{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle } q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right),
\label{eq:16before}\end{aligned}$$ where the nonlinear functional $\mathcal{N}$ in Eq. (\[eq:taylorexpandN\]) is approximated by an ordinary function of $\phi$ and $R$, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)
&\equiv&
F_{\mathrm{nl}} \left( R q_{1}^{(\phi)} (\cdot) \right)
=
\mathcal{N}\left(X_{0}^{(\phi)} (\cdot) + R q_{1}^{(\phi)} (\cdot)\right)-\mathcal{N}\left(X_{0}^{(\phi)} (\cdot) \right)
-L^{(\phi)}\left( R q_1^{(\phi)} \right)(0),
\label{eq:def_fnl}\end{aligned}$$ and the external perturbation is also approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
G(\phi, R, t) \equiv G\left(X_0^{(\phi)} (\cdot) + R q_1^{(\phi)} (\cdot) , t\right).
\label{eq:G}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:13before\]) and Eq. (\[eq:16before\]), both the second and third terms on the right-hand side depend on $F_{\mathrm{nl}}$ and $G$. Note that $F_{\mathrm{nl}}(\phi, R)$ includes only terms of $O(R^2)$ or higher, because the constant terms and linear terms in $R$ have already been subtracted in Eq. (\[eq:def\_fnl\]).
Thus, by projecting the DDE onto the first two eigenfunctions, a set of two-dimensional coupled ordinary differential equations for the phase $\phi$ and amplitude $R$ is obtained. In order to consider the higher-order effects of the amplitude deviations, we have not expanded the third-order terms in Eq. (\[eq:13before\]) and Eq. (\[eq:16before\]) in a series of $R$ and hence the dynamics of $\phi$ and $R$ are nonlinearly coupled at the second and higher orders in $R$. This nonlinearity can be a source of intriguing oscillatory dynamics [@Canavier+; @Rubin+; @Castejon+; @Rabinovitch+]. We also note that the lowest-order phase-amplitude equations (see Refs. [@Castejon+; @ErmentroutPTRSA; @KuramotoPTRSA] for the case of ODEs) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\phi}{dt}
=&
1
+ q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot G\left(\phi,R,t\right)
\cr
\frac{dR}{dt}
=&\lambda_{1}R
+q_{1}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot G\left(\phi,R,t\right) \end{aligned}$$ are obtained at the lowest-order approximation in $R$, where $F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)$ is $O(R^2)$ and does not appear at the lowest order.
Finally, before proceeding, we note that there are also other formulations of phase or phase-amplitude reduced equations for analyzing higher-order effects of perturbations on limit cycles described by ODEs, such as non-pairwise phase interactions [@KuramotoPTRSA], higher-order phase reduction [@Pazo], nonlinear phase coupling function [@RosenblumPTRSA], and higher-order approximations of coupling functions [@ErmentroutPTRSA], which can capture more detailed aspects of synchronization than the lowest-order phase equation.
Averaged phase-amplitude equations
----------------------------------
When the perturbation applied to the oscillator is a periodic external force whose frequency is close to the natural frequency of the oscillator, we may further derive simpler, approximate phase-amplitude equations by averaging out the fast oscillatory component as follows.
We assume that the perturbation $G$ is purely external (i.e. independent of the system state and periodic in $t$ with period $T' = T/r$ (frequency $r$), i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
G(t + T/r) = G(t).\end{aligned}$$ We also assume that the detuning between the natural frequency of the oscillator and the periodic force is small and denote it as $\Delta\omega = 1 - r$.
We introduce a slow phase variable $\psi \equiv \phi - r t$. The equations for $\psi$ and $R$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\psi}{dt} &=& \Delta \omega + \frac{q_{0}^{(\psi+rt)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\psi+rt, R\right)+G\left(t\right)\right)}{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\psi+rt)*},L^{(\psi+rt)}\left(q_{1}^{(\psi+rt)}\right);\psi+rt\right\rangle },
\label{eq:psinonavg}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dR}{dt}=&\lambda_{1}R
+q_{1}^{(\psi+rt)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\psi+rt,R\right)+G\left(\psi+rt,R,t\right)\right)
\cr
&-\frac{ R\left[ \left\langle q_{1}^{(\psi+rt)*}, L^{(\psi+rt)}\left(q_{1}^{(\psi+rt)}\right);\psi+rt\right\rangle -\lambda_{1} \right] }{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\psi+rt)*},L^{(\psi+rt)}\left(q_{1}^{(\psi+rt)}\right);\psi+rt\right\rangle } q_{0}^{(\psi+rt)*}\left(0\right)
\cr
&\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\psi+rt,R\right)+G\left(\psi+rt,R,t\right)\right).
\label{eq:Rnonavg}\end{aligned}$$ We also expand the nonlinear term $F_{\mathrm{nl}}$ in Taylor series of $R$ up to $R^N$ as $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mathrm{nl}}(\psi + rt, R) &= \sum_{\ell=2}^{N} R^\ell F_{\mathrm{nl},\ell}(\psi + rt) + O(R^{N+1}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\{ F_{\mathrm{nl},\ell} \}$ ($\ell=2, 3, ...$) are expansion coefficients. Note that the series for $F_{\mathrm{nl}}$ starts from $O(R^2)$.
Considering that $\psi$ evolves only slowly while $r t$ rapidly increases, we approximate the terms with $\psi+rt$ in Eqs. (\[eq:psinonavg\]) and (\[eq:Rnonavg\]) by their one-period average, for example, as $$\begin{aligned}
q_0^{(\psi+rt)*}(0) \cdot F_{\mathrm{nl},2}(\psi + rt)
\approx
\frac{1}{T'} \int_0^{T'} q_0^{(\psi+r s)*}(0) \cdot F_{\mathrm{nl},2}(\psi + rs) ds
= \frac{1}{T} \int_0^{T} q_0^{(\theta)*}(0) \cdot F_{\mathrm{nl},2}(\theta) d\theta
= a_1\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
q_0^{(\psi+rt)*}(0) \cdot G(t)
\approx
\frac{1}{T'} \int_0^{T'} q_0^{(\psi+r s)*}(0) \cdot G(s) ds
=
\frac{1}{T} \int_0^{T} q_0^{(\theta)*}(0) \cdot G\left( \frac{\theta - \psi}{r} \right) d\theta
=
g_0(\psi),\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ is kept constant during the integration. Expanding $F_{\mathrm{nl}}(\psi+rt, R)$ up to $O(R^3)$ and averaging the coefficients, we obtain approximate equations for $\psi$ and $R$ as
$$\frac{d\psi}{dt}=\Delta\omega+\frac{1}{1+Ra_{0}}\left(a_{2}R^{2}+a_{3}R^{3}+g_0(\psi) \right),
\label{eq:psi_expand}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dR}{dt} = \lambda_1 R
+b_{2}R^{2}+b_{3}R^{3}- \frac{R(b_0 - \lambda_1)}{1+Ra_{0}}\left(a_{2} R^{2} + a_{3}R^{3} + g_0(\psi) \right)
+g_1(\psi),
\label{eq:R_expand}\end{aligned}$$ where the equations for the individual coefficients are given in Appendix \[app:coefficients\]. We check the validity of the above averaging approximation numerically in the next section.
Evaluation of the phase and amplitude
-------------------------------------
Numerically, the values of the phase $\phi$ and amplitude $R$ can be evaluated from the system state $X^{(t)}$ by the following two-step procedure. First, we evaluate the phase of the state $X^{(t)}$ by choosing the phase value $\phi$ so that it satisfies the orthogonality condition Eq. (\[orthogonality\]). Numerically, we find the value $\hat{\phi}$ that minimizes the mean squared error, $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \left\langle q_{0}^{\left(\hat{\phi}\right)*}, X^{(t)}-X_{0}^{\left(\hat{\phi}\right)};\hat{\phi}\right\rangle \right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ There exists a neighborhood of the periodic orbit where the phase and amplitude components defined by using the Floquet eigenfunctions are uniquely determined [@Hale2 Lemma1]. However, in general, there can exist multiple values of $\hat{\phi}$ that satisfy Eq. (\[orthogonality\]) in the range $0\leq\hat{\phi}<T$. To choose the appropriate value from them, for each candidate of $\hat{\phi}$, we evaluate the corresponding $q_{1}$ component as $$\hat{R} = \left\langle q_{1}^{\left(\hat{\phi}\right)*}, X^{(t)}-X_{0}^{\left(\hat{\phi}\right)};\hat{\phi}\right\rangle
\label{orthogonality_i}$$ and adopt the value of $\hat{\phi}$ that has the smallest $\left|\hat{R}\right|$ as the estimate of $\phi$, and the smallest $\hat{R}$ as the estimate of $R$.
Approximate evaluation of the asymptotic phase
----------------------------------------------
The phase $\phi$ defined by the Floquet eigenfunction, which we use in the present study for the phase-amplitude description, is different from the asymptotic phase $\Phi$; the isosurface of $\Phi$ is generally curved and tangent to the isophase plane of $\phi$ at each point on the limit cycle. Since the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ provides useful information on the nonlinear dynamical properties of the oscillator, it is convenient if we can approximate $\Phi$ using $\phi$ and $R$. In this subsection, we propose a method to approximately evaluate the asymptotic phase of an unperturbed oscillator from $\phi$ and $R$ defined by the Floquet eigenfunctions, which is valid when $R$ is sufficiently small.
When the perturbation is absent ($G=0$), Eq. (\[eq:13before\_combined\]) for $\phi$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\phi}{dt} = 1+ d(\phi, R)
\label{eq:R1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
d(\phi, R) = \frac{q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right) \cdot F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right) }{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle }.\end{aligned}$$ The asymptotic phase $\Phi$ of the system state $X^{(t_0)}$ at time $t_0$ with phase $\phi_0$ and amplitude $R_0$ can approximately be obtained by integrating $d(\phi(s), R(s))$ until the system state goes back sufficiently close to the limit cycle as $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi (X^{(t_0)}) = \phi_0 + \int_{t_0}^\infty d(\phi(s), R(s)) ds.\end{aligned}$$
When $R$ is sufficiently small, we may ignore the higher-order terms in $R$ in the equations for $\phi$ and $R$ and assume that $\phi$ increases constantly with frequency $1$ and $R$ decays exponentially with rate $\lambda_1$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi=\phi_0 + t - t_0,
\quad
R \left(t\right)=R_0 \exp\left(\lambda_1 (t-t_0) \right),
\label{eq:R2}\end{aligned}$$ at the lowest-order approximation. The asymptotic phase $\Phi$ of the system state $X^{(t_0)}$ can then be approximately evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Phi} = \phi_0+\int_{t_0}^{\infty} d\left( \phi_0 + s - t_0, R_0 \exp\left(\lambda_1 (s-t_0) \right) \right) ds.
\label{eq:R3}\end{aligned}$$ In Sec. III E and Sec. IV, we use the above method to estimate the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ of the oscillator and compare it with direct numerical results.
Analytically tractable model
============================
To demonstrate the validity of the proposed framework, we first consider a limit-cycle oscillator described by a scalar DDE with a cubic nonlinearity, for which approximate expressions of the Floquet eigenfunctions and their adjoints can be analytically derived, and analyze the effect of a periodic force on the dynamics.
Model
-----
The model is represented as $$\frac{dx(t)}{dt}=-x\left( t-\frac{\pi}{2} \right) + \epsilon x(t) \left[ 1-x(t)^{2}-x \left(t-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{2} \right] + G(t),\label{X}$$ where $x(t)\in \mathbb{R}$, $\epsilon=0.05$ is a small constant, and the external periodic force is described by $$\begin{aligned}
G(t)=G_{0}\sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{T} r t \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $G_0$ is the intensity of the periodic force and $r$ is the ratio of the natural frequency $2\pi/T$ of the limit cycle to that of the external force. It is assumed that $r$ is sufficiently close to $1$.
When $G = 0$, this DDE has a limit cycle of period $T=2\pi$ given by $x_{0}(t)=\sin t$, or $$\begin{aligned}
x_{0}^{(t)}(\sigma) =\sin ( t + \sigma )
\quad
(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)\end{aligned}$$ in the history-function representation, and its rate of attraction to the limit cycle is determined by $\epsilon$. When $\epsilon$ is small, the relaxation time of the system state to the limit cycle is considerably large as compared to the oscillation period as shown in Figs. \[figs\](a) and (b).
We denote the small deviation of the system state from the limit cycle as $y^{(t)}(\sigma)=x^{(t)}(\sigma)-x_{0}^{(t)}(\sigma)$ $(-\tau \leq \sigma \leq 0)$. The linear operator $\hat{L}$ of this system is given by Eq. (\[2-1\]) with $${\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(t)}(\sigma)=\delta(\sigma) \left[ \epsilon(1-3x_{0}(t)^{2} - x_{0}\left(t-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{2} \right]
- \delta\left(\sigma+\frac{\pi}{2}\right) \left[ 1+2\epsilon x_{0}(t) x_{0}\left(t-\frac{\pi}{2}\right) \right],
\label{Omega}$$ where $\delta$ is Dirac’s delta function. By retaining the first two leading eigenvalues, the nonlinear phase-amplitude equations can be derived as Eqs. (\[eq:13before\]) and (\[eq:16before\]).
[Approximate analytical expressions of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions]{} \[app. exadj\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We first derive approximate Floquet eigenvalues, eigenfunctions, and adjoint eigenfunctions of the model Eq. (\[X\]) without the external force ($G=0$) analytically. In what follows, we consider the case in which the relaxation of the system state to the limit cycle is slow and assume that $\lambda_{1}$ is small and $O(\epsilon)$. First, the zero eigenfunction of $\hat{L}$ is given exactly as $$\begin{aligned}
q_{0}^{(t)}(\sigma)=\cos(t+\sigma)
\quad
(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)\end{aligned}$$ and the adjoint eigenfunction is $$\begin{aligned}
q_{0}^{(t)*}(s)=\frac{8}{\epsilon\pi+4}\cos(t+s)
\quad
(0\leq s\leq\tau).\end{aligned}$$ To find the exponent $\lambda_1$ with the second largest real part, we introduce an ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
q_{1}^{(t)}(\sigma)=Ce^{\lambda_{1}\sigma}(\sin(t+\sigma)+l\cos(t+\sigma))
\quad
(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ is a constant and plug this into Eqs. (\[eq. var\]) and (\[2-1\]). We then obtain the approximate eigenvalue and the associated eigenfunction up to $O(\epsilon)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{1}=-\frac{8\epsilon}{\pi^{2}+4}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
q_{1}^{(t)}(\sigma)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{4+\pi^{2}}}e^{-\frac{8\epsilon\sigma}{\pi^{2}+4}}\left( \sin(t+\sigma)-\frac{\pi}{2} \cos(t+\sigma) \right)
\quad
(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0),\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Similarly, for the corresponding adjoint eigenfunction, we approximately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
q_{1}^{(t)*}(s)=C_{1}^{*} e^{\frac{8\epsilon s}{\pi^{2}+4}} \left( \sin(t+s)+\frac{\pi}{2} \cos(t+s) \right)
\quad
(0\leq s\leq\tau),\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C_{1}^{*}$ is determined from the normalization condition $\langle q_{1}^{(t)*},q_{1}^{(t)};t\rangle=1$.
Numerical evaluation of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions
----------------------------------------------------------
To confirm the validity of the approximate analytical results for the Floquet eigenvalues, eigenfunctions, and adjoint eigenfunctions obtained in the previous subsection, we numerically evaluate these quantities by the extended adjoint method and compare with the approximate analytical results.
First, as in the conventional adjoint method for DDEs [@Kotani; @Pyragas], we compute $q_{0}^{(t)}(\sigma)$ $(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)$, which is simply $dX_0/dt|_{t+\sigma}$, and then $q_{0}^{(t)*}(\sigma)$ $(-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0)$ by backwardly integrating the adjoint linear equation. The adjoint eigenfunction $q_{0}^{(t)*}$ is normalized such that $\langle q_{0}^{(t)*},q_{0}^{(t)};t\rangle=1$. Next, we obtain the eigenfunction $q_{1}^{(t)}$ with the largest negative eigenvalue ($\lambda_{1}<0$, $\lambda_{1}>\lambda_{i}$ for $i=2,\cdots ,M$) [@lambda_complex]. As an initial function, we take an arbitrary function $Y_{\mathrm{ini}}^{(t=0)}$ at $t=0$ [@comment0], subtract the $q_{0}^{(t=0)}$ component from this initial function as $Y^{(t=0)}(\sigma) = Y_{\mathrm{ini}}^{(t=0)}(\sigma)-\langle q_{0}^{(0)}{}^{*},Y_{\mathrm{ini}}^{(0)};0\rangle q_{0}^{(0)}(\sigma)$ ($-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0$), where the second term represents the projection of $Y_{\mathrm{ini}}^{(t=0)}$ onto $q_0^{(0)}$, and numerically integrate the linear equation (\[eq:linearizedeq\]) for $Y^{(t)}$ from this initial condition to $t=T$ as explained before.
Similarly, in order to compute the eigenfunction $q_{1}^{(t)*}$, we initialize $Y^{(t=0)*}(s)$ ($0\leq s\leq \tau$) appropriately and numerically integrate Eq. (\[eq:adjoint\]) backward in time, subtracting the $q_{0}^{(t)*}$ component at every period, and compensate the exponential decay in the numerical solution. The adjoint eigenfunction $q_{1}^{(t)*}$ is normalized so that $\langle q_{1}^{(t)*},q_{1}^{(t)};t\rangle=1$.
Figure \[figs\](c) shows the exponential decay of the peak heights of $Y^{(t=nT)}(0)$, from which we obtain the Floquet eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$. Figure \[figs\](d) shows the time course of $e^{-\lambda_{1}t}\ Y^{(t)}(0)$ that is used for numerical computation of eigenfunction $q_1^{(\phi)}$. Figures \[figs\](e) and (f) show the obtained pair of Floquet eigenfunctions, where $q_{0}^{(\phi)}(0)$ and $q_{0}^{(\phi)*}(0)$ are plotted with respect to $\phi$ in Fig. \[figs\](e), and $q_{1}^{(\phi)}(0)$ and $q_{1}^{(\phi)*}(0)$ are plotted with respect to $\phi$ in Fig. \[figs\](f). We can confirm a good agreement between the numerical results and approximate analytical results for the eigenfunctions. The numerical value of the largest negative exponent $\lambda_{1}$ is approximately evaluated as $-0.030$, which is also close to the theoretical value $-8\epsilon/(\pi^{2}+4)=-0.029$.
Phase-amplitude equations
-------------------------
We now derive a set of nonlinear phase-amplitude equations from Eq. (\[X\]) with the periodic sinusoidal force. The nonlinear term $F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)$ in Eq. (\[eq:def\_fnl\]) is explicitly given by $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)
&=& \epsilon R q_{1}^{(\phi)}(0) \left\{ -\left(x_{0}^{(\phi)}(0)+R q_{1}^{(\phi)}(0) \right)^2+\left(x_{0}^{(\phi)}(0)\right) ^2
-\left( x_{0}^{(\phi)}\left(-\frac{\pi}{2}\right) + R q_{1}^{(\phi)} \left(-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right)^2
+\left(x_{0}^{(\phi)}\left(-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right)^2 \right\} \nonumber \\
&+& \epsilon x_{0}^{(\phi)}(0) \left(-\left(R q_{1}^{(\phi)}(0)\right) ^2- \left(R q_{1}^{(\phi)}\left(-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right) ^2\right)\end{aligned}$$ and the reduced equations (\[eq:13before\]) and (\[eq:16before\]) for $\phi$ and $R$ can be derived using this equation.
Expanding the nonlinear term $F_{\mathrm{nl}}$ and applying the averaging procedure, the approximate equations for the phase difference $\psi = \phi - rt$ and $R$ are given in the form of Eqs. (\[eq:psi\_expand\]) and (\[eq:R\_expand\]) with $$\begin{aligned}
g_0(\psi) = G_0 \frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot \sin \left( \frac{2\pi \left(\phi-\psi \right) }{T} \right) d\phi
=
G_0\left( g_{01} \sin \frac{2\pi \psi}{T} + g_{02} \cos \frac{2\pi \psi}{T} \right)
\label{eq:28-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
g_1(\psi) = \int_{0}^{T}q_{1}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot \sin\left(2\pi \frac{\left(\phi-\psi \right)}{T} \right) d\phi
=
G_0 \left( g_{11} \sin \frac{2\pi \psi}{T} + g_{12} \cos \frac{2\pi \psi}{T} \right).\end{aligned}$$
Using numerically evaluated eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, the coefficients in Eqs. (\[eq:psi\_expand\]) and (\[eq:R\_expand\]) can be calculated as $\lambda_{1}=-0.029$, $a_{0}=1.8418$,$a_{2}=0.0436$, $a_{3}=0.0415$; $b_{0}=1.5353$,$b_{2}=-0.0053$, $b_{3}=0.0212$; and $g_{01}=-0.9622$, $g_{02}=0$, $g_{11} =-0.8239$, and $g_{12}=0.5245$. From these coefficients, the equations for the phase difference $\psi$ and the amplitude $R$ are obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\psi}{dt} &=\Delta\omega+\frac{1}{1+ 1.8418 R}\left(0.0436 R^{2}+0.0415 R^{3} -0.9622 G_0\sin \frac{2\pi \psi}{T} \right),
\cr
\frac{dR}{dt} &= \lambda_1 R
-0.0053 R^{2}+ 0.0212 R^{3} -0.8239 G_0 \sin \frac{2\pi \psi}{T} + 0.5245 G_0 \cos \frac{2\pi \psi}{T}
\cr
&- \frac{R(1.5353-\lambda_1 )}{1+1.8418 R}\left(0.0436 R^{2} + 0.0415 R^{3} -0.9622 G_0\sin \frac{2\pi \psi}{T} \right).
\label{eq:phaseamplitudeactual}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have approximately reduced an infinite-dimensional dynamical system described by a DDE to a set of ODEs for the phase and amplitude.
Approximate evaluation of the asymptotic phase
----------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we verify the validity of the approximate expression for the asymptotic phase derived in Sec. II F by evolving the present model from initial conditions far from the limit cycle. From the reduced phase-amplitude equations and Eq. (\[eq:R3\]), the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ for the present model can be approximately evaluated from the phase $\phi$ and amplitude $R$ as $$\hat{\Phi} = \phi+(0.7553 + 0.0448 \sin(2\phi+4.1499) + 0.0006 \sin(4\phi+2.6902)) R^{2}
\label{eq:34}$$ up to $O(R^2)$. For a given system state $x^{(t)}$, the phase $\phi$ and amplitude $R$ can be evaluated as explained in Sec. II E, and the approximate asymptotic phase $\hat{\Phi}$ can then be obtained by Eq. (\[eq:34\]). We also directly evaluate the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ for several initial conditions by numerically integrating the system and measuring the time necessary for the system state to converge sufficiently close to the limit cycle for comparison.
As the first example, we try to estimate $\Phi$ when the initial function is on the $\phi$-$R$ plane, that is, $x^{(t=0)}(\sigma)=x_{0}^{(\phi)}(\sigma)+R q_{1}^{(\phi)}(\sigma)$ ($-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0$). Figure \[fig2\] (a) shows $\Phi - \phi$ for given initial values of $\phi$ and $R$ obtained by direct numerical integration of the DDE, and Fig. \[fig2\] (b) shows analytical results of $\hat{\Phi} - \phi$ obtained from Eq. (\[eq:34\]). Figure \[fig2\] (c) shows the absolute difference between $\Phi$ and its analytical estimation $\hat{\Phi}$. We can confirm a good agreement between the approximate analytical curve and direct numerical results for the whole range of $\phi$ when $|R|$ is not too large.
As the second example, we consider initial functions that are not on the $\phi$-$R$ plane. We set the initial functions as $x^{(t=0)}(\sigma)=\sin\sigma+p\sin(\sigma/2)$ $(-\tau \leq \sigma \leq0$) with varying values of $p$ [@comment1], and evaluated their asymptotic phase $\Phi$ by direct numerical integration of the DDE. Figure \[fig2\] (d) shows the phase $\phi$, the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ estimated by Eq. (\[eq:34\]), and the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ obtained by direct numerical integration. We can confirm that the approximate analytical estimate of the asymptotic phase given by Eq. (\[eq:34\]) gives reasonable agreement with the direct numerical results even though the system state is considerably far from the $\phi$-$R$ plane.
Effect of a periodic force on the amplitude
-------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we consider the effect of a periodic external force of moderate intensity with small frequency detuning. In particular, we focus on the average effect of the periodic force on the amplitude $R$ in the phase-locked state, which cannot be analyzed without the amplitude equation.
Since $g_{02} = 0$ in Eq. (\[eq:28-1\]), the $\psi$-nullcline on which $\dot{\psi} = 0$ is obtained from the averaged equation (\[eq:psi\_expand\]) as $$\psi=\frac{T}{2\pi}\arcsin\left[-\frac{1+Ra_{0}}{g_{01} G_{0}}\left(\Delta\omega+\frac{1}{1+Ra_{0}}\left(a_{2}R^{2}+a_{3}R^{3}\right)\right)\right]
\label{eq:34-1}$$ when the argument of $\arcsin$ is in the range $[-1, 1]$. By substituting Eq. (\[eq:34-1\]) into Eq. (\[eq:R\_expand\]), we can obtain the fixed points of the averaged amplitude dynamics satisfying $\dot{R} = F_{s}\left(R,G_{0},\Delta\omega\right)=0$, where $F_{s}$ represents the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:R\_expand\]). The effect of the intensity of the periodic force $G_{0}$ and the detuning $\Delta\omega$ on the stationary amplitude $R$ of the oscillation in the steady state can be evaluated from the partial derivatives of $F_{s}\left(R,G_{0},\Delta\omega\right)$ by the implicit function theorem.
Figure \[fig3-1-1\] shows the predicted amplitude of the oscillation. The dependence of the amplitude on $G_{0}$ at $r = 1$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig3-1-1\](a), where the stationary amplitude obtained from the averaged phase-amplitude equations (\[eq:psi\_expand\]) and (\[eq:R\_expand\]) are compared with the linear approximation of the stationary amplitude with a slope ${\partial R} / {\partial G_{0}}\mid_{R=0,G_{0}=0,\Delta\omega=0}=18.2$. Similarly, Fig. \[fig3-1-1\] (b) shows the dependence of the amplitude on $r$ at $G_{0}=0.1$, where the result of the phase-amplitude equations are compared with linear approximation of the amplitude with a slope ${\partial R} / {\partial r}\mid_{R=0.72,G_{0}=0.1,\Delta\omega=0}=9.91$. We can confirm that the linear approximation appropriately predicts the changes in the stationary amplitude of the delay-induced oscillator subjected to a non-weak external periodic force when it is slightly modulated. Moreover, the nonlinear phase-amplitude equations can predict the amplitude more precisely than the linear approximation in the given parameter range.
Bistable response of delay-induced oscillation to a periodic force
------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we demonstrate that the present model can exhibit a nontrivial bistable response to a periodic force by a bifurcation analysis of Eq. (\[eq:psi\_expand\]) and Eq. (\[eq:R\_expand\]). Such a phenomenon results from higher-order amplitude effects and cannot be described by the phase-only equation nor the lowest-order phase-amplitude equations. Using XPP-AUTO [@XPP], we numerically find stationary solutions in the range $R>-0.5$ where the inverse $1/(1+Ra_{0})$ exists (note that $a_{0} = 1.8418$). Depending on the parameters $G_0$ and $r$, we observe quantitatively different behaviors of the system state as shown in Fig. \[fig3\].
Figures \[fig3\] (a) and (b) show the stable and unstable fixed points on the ($R$, $r$)-plane at two different values of $G_{0}$. The system is always monostable when $G_{0}=0.02$, while a bistable region where $R$ can take two stable fixed points is found around $r=1.052$ when $G_{0}=0.1$. Thus, it is expected that DDE (\[X\]) with $G(x,t)=0.1\sin\left(1.052t\right)$ shows bistable dynamics. Figure \[fig3\] (c) shows the nullclines and stable fixed points on the $\psi$-$R$ plane at $r=1.052$ and $G_{0}=0.1$. The two crosses show the stable fixed points at $(-0.722, 0.992)$ and $(-2.647, -0.064)$, and the two black lines show the trajectories started from $(-2, 0)$ and $(-2.5, 0)$. These predictions from the reduced phase-amplitude equations can be confirmed in Fig. \[fig3\] (d), which shows the results of direct numerical integration of DDE (\[X\]) with $G(x,t)=0.1\sin\left(1.052t\right)$. We can clearly observe the bistable dynamics of the oscillator caused by moderately strong periodic forcing.
Gene-regulatory oscillator
==========================
In this section, as a more complex, biologically-motivated example of DDEs, we investigate a model of gene regulation [@Dfiremother] under a periodic sinusoidal force given by ****** $$\frac{dx(t)}{dt}=\frac{\alpha C_{0}^{2}}{[C_{0}+x(t-\tau)]^{2}}-\frac{\gamma x(t)}{R_{0}+x(t)}-\beta x(t) +G(t),\label{nonlinear}$$ where $x(t) \in {\mathbb R}$ is the state variable representing protein concentration and $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, C_0, R_0$, and the delay time $\tau$ are real parameters. The first term of the right-hand side represents protein synthesis with time delay for transcription and translation, while the second and the third terms represent degradation and dilution of the protein, respectively. Following the previous research [@Dfiremother], we set $\beta=0.1$, $C_{0}=10$, and $\tau=1$. The external periodic force is $G(t)=G_{0}\sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{T} r t \right)$ with intensity $G_0$ and frequency mismatch $r$. We set the rate constant of synthesis as $\alpha=100$, degradation as $\gamma=100$, and Michaelis constant of degradation as $R_{0}=10$ so that the system exhibits a slow convergence to a limit cycle orbit and the effect of the amplitude dynamics can be clearly observed.
This system has a stable limit cycle with a period $T=2.46$, which can be obtained only numerically. Figures \[fig3-1\] shows the system state $x^{(t)}$ converging toward the limit-cycle attractor; Fig. 5(a) plots the time course of $x(t)$ as a function of $t$ and Fig. 5(b) shows the system trajectory projected on the $(x,dx/dt)$-plane. The time constant of the relaxation to the limit cycle is much larger than the period of the oscillation as can be seen from the figures. For this model, the $T$-periodic linear operator $\hat{L}$ is given by Eq. (\[eq. hatL\]) with $${\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(t)}(\sigma)=\delta(\sigma)\left\{ -\beta-\frac{\gamma R_{0}}{\left(R_{0}+x_{0}(t)\right)^{2}}\right\} +\delta(\sigma+\tau)\left\{ \frac{-2\alpha C_{0}^{2}}{\left(C_{0}+x_{0}(t-\tau)\right)^{3}}\right\} .$$ Figures \[fig3-1\] (c) and \[fig3-1\](d) show the first two eigenfunctions and adjoint eigenfunctions of $\hat{L}$ obtained by the extended adjoint method [@origin], respectively. The second largest Floquet exponent is $\lambda_{1} = -0.0255$ in this case. From these eigenfunctions, the phase-amplitude equations (\[eq:psi\_expand\]) and (\[eq:R\_expand\]) under the sinusoidal force can be obtained, where the coefficients are given by $a_0=0.330$, $a_2=-5.33 \times 10^{-4}$, $a_3=1.13 \times 10^{-4}$, $g_{01}=-0.0296$, $g_{02}=-7.57 \times 10^{-3}$, $b_0=-2.48$, $b_2=-4.74 \times 10^{-3}$, $b_3=1.15 \times 10^{-3}$, $g_{11}=-0.176$, and $g_{12}=0.282$.
We first evaluate the validity of the approximate expression of the asymptotic phase in the absence of the external force ($G=0$). We take the initial condition as a constant function, $x^{(t=0)}(\sigma)=p$, and evaluate the asymptotic phase by Eq. (\[eq:R3\]) and by direct numerical integration of the DDE. Figure \[fig5\] (a) shows the phase ${\phi}$, the asymptotic phase ${\Phi}$ estimated by using Eq. (\[eq:R3\]), and the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ evaluated by direct numerical integration of the DDE. It can be seen that the approximate analytical result reproduces the result of direct numerical measurement of the asymptotic phase.
We next consider how the gene-regulatory oscillator behaves when it is subjected to a periodic external force. We conduct bifurcation analysis for different values of $G_0$ and $r$ in the same way as that for Eq. (\[X\]) using XPP-AUTO. When the external periodic force is weak ($G_0=0.05$) and the frequency mismatch is small enough, the system is synchronized to the periodic force with a single stable amplitude as shown in Fig. \[fig5\](b), namely, the amplitude response is monostable. When we apply a stronger force, $G_{0}=0.4$, the region of synchronization becomes wider. The amplitude of synchronized oscillations is positive when the frequency mismatch is small, whereas the amplitude is negative when the mismatch is large. Moreover, there exists a bistable region around $r=0.99$ as shown in Fig. \[fig5\](c), where $R$ can take either of two stable values, similar to the previous simpler model with a cubic nonlinearity described by Eq. (\[X\]).
Figure \[fig5\] (d) shows two time courses of DDE (\[nonlinear\]) with $G_{0}=0.4$ and $r=0.9911$ with different initial conditions. In this case, a small-amplitude out-of-phase oscillation emerges in addition to the large-amplitude oscillation that exists in a wider range of $r$. Both types of oscillations are stable. In the video in the Supplemental Material [@supp], the slow convergence of the system state to either of these two oscillatory states are visualized by projecting the system state onto the $(x,dx/dt)$-plane. It is noteworthy that the frequency mismatch required for this bistable dynamics is very small (less than 1 %) in this model.
Summary
=======
In this study, we have developed a general mathematical framework for reducing delay-induced limit-cycle oscillators described by DDEs into a set of nonlinear phase-amplitude equations on the basis of the Floquet theory. By projecting the original equation onto the reduced phase space spanned by the first two Floquet eigenfunctions, we derived a set of nonlinear phase-amplitude equations. We proposed an extended adjoint method for DDEs to numerically calculate the Floquet eigenfunctions and their adjoint eigenfunctions. We also developed a method to estimate the asymptotic phase of the system states in a neighborhood of the limit cycle from the phase and amplitude defined by the Floquet eigenfunctions. The validity of the framework has been confirmed by analyzing two models of delay-induced oscillations. In the present framework, the derivation of the reduced equations requires only the calculation of the first two Floquet and adjoint eigenfunctions. Therefore, the reduction is practically manageable even though the dynamical system to be reduced is an infinite-dimensional DDE.
Despite the simplicity, the resulting reduced equations convey richer information than simply linearizing the system state around the periodic orbit. To illustrate this, we first studied an analytically tractable DDE with a cubic nonlinearity. We derived an approximate expression of the nonlinear asymptotic phase in terms of the phase and amplitude and verified its validity using direct numerical integration of the original system. Moreover, we revealed nontrivial bistable synchronization of the system with a periodic external forcing, where the amplitude can take two different stable values depending on the initial condition, which cannot be analyzed within the conventional phase-only or the lowest-order phase-amplitude equations. We also analyzed a model of gene-regulatory oscillator and showed that the reduced phase-amplitude equations also enabled us to capture the nontrivial bistable synchronization with a non-weak periodic force.
The result for the gene-regulatory oscillator provides analytical insights into how the weak attraction of the limit cycle and nonlinear interactions between the phase and amplitude can alter the synchronization dynamics of gene regulatory systems for circadian oscillations. For example, it is known that, in the case of ASPS, out-of-phase (phase-advanced) synchronized oscillation with the day-and-night lights is stabilized in a similar manner to that is shown in Fig. \[fig5\](d) of the second model. It has also been reported that the free-running period of circadian oscillation in ASPS patients is shorter than 24 h [@Jones], and the temporal therapy (phase advance chronotherapy) can alter the out-of-phase synchronization into in-phase synchronization [@Moldofsky]. Our theoretical results imply that weak attraction of the limit cycle and nonlinear interactions between the phase and amplitude could induce small-amplitude oscillations and bistability of the out-of phase and in-phase synchronized states. If this is the case, the rate of attraction of the system state to the limit cycle, the Floquet exponent $\lambda_1$ in our study, could be used as another effective index to understand circadian rhythm disorders in addition to conventional indices like the free-running periods and amplitudes of oscillation [@Lema+; @Thorpy+; @Jones; @Ukai+]. Thus, the phase-amplitude analysis of delay-induced oscillations developed in this study can shed new light on the complex biological rhythms. There are many other examples of natural and artificial systems that exhibit complex oscillations due to the effect of time delay [@Glass+; @Lewis+; @Dfiremother; @Brent+; @Peterka+; @Soriano; @Kalmar+; @Szydlowski+]. For example, breathing of chronic heart failure patients is a typical example of such natural systems [@Glass+]. The present study would provide further insights into nontrivial breathing dynamics. An example of artificial systems is the Mackey-Glass electrical circuit [@MGC] that can be modeled by a DDE, for which the present theory is readily applicable to analyze the synchronization dynamics. The present framework for reducing such time-delayed systems to a set of nonlinear phase-amplitude equations can be useful as a general analytical method to elucidate the origin of complex synchronization properties under the effect of non-weak perturbations or fluctuations. Further investigation on the nonlinear phase-amplitude equations would provide us with more insight into the synchronization dynamics in time-delayed systems.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Yuki Shimono for helpful advice on computation of the eigenfunctions and G. Bard Ermentrout for fruitful discussion. This study is supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI (18H04122), The Asahi Glass Foundation, and JST PRESTO (JPMJPR14E2) to KK, and JSPS KAKENHI (JP16K13847, JP17H03279, 18K03471, and JP18H03287) and JST CREST (JPMJCR1913) to HN.
Derivation of the nonlinear phase-amplitude equations\[app. pae\]
=================================================================
In this section, details of the derivation of the phase-amplitude equations are presented. We first define a phase $\phi\in\left[0,T\right)$ along the unperturbed limit cycle of Eq. (\[2\]), and represent the $T$-periodic eigenfunctions $q_{j}^{(t)}$ as functions of the phase $\phi\left(t\right)$ as $q_{j}^{(\phi)} $, where $\phi\left(t\right)=t \: (\mathrm{mod} \: T)$. Because we assume that the functional components associated with the eigenvalues $\lambda_i \: (i \ge 2)$ decay quickly, we approximate the system state $X^{(t)}$ as $X^{(t)}({\sigma})\simeq X_{0}^{(\phi)}({\sigma})+R q_{1}^{(\phi)}(\sigma)$ ($-\tau\leq\sigma\leq0$), where $X_0^{(\phi)}$ is the system state with phase $\phi$ on the limit cycle and $R$ is the amplitude of the eigencomponent corresponding to $\lambda_1$. Substitution of this approximation into the functional differential equation (\[2\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\left[\frac{d}{d\phi}X_{0}^{(\phi)}(\sigma)+R\frac{d}{d\phi}q_{1}^{(\phi)}\left(\sigma\right)\right]\dot{\phi}+q_{1}^{(\phi)}\left(\sigma\right)\dot{R}
\cr
&&=
\begin{cases}
\frac{d}{d\sigma}X_{0}^{(\phi)}(\sigma)+R\frac{d}{d\sigma}q_{1}^{(\phi)}\left(\sigma\right), &(-\tau\leq\sigma<0)\\
\begin{split}
& \mathcal{N}(X_{0}^{(\phi)} (\cdot) )+R\int_{-\tau}^{0}d\sigma'{\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(\phi)}(\sigma')q_{1}^{(\phi)}(\sigma')
+F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right),
\end{split} &(\sigma=0)
\end{cases}\label{eq:10}\end{aligned}$$ where $$F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)=\mathcal{N}\left(X_{0}^{(\phi)} (\cdot) +Rq_{1}^{(\phi)}\left(\cdot\right) \right)-\mathcal{N}\left(X_{0}^{(\phi)} (\cdot) \right)-R\int_{-\tau}^{0}d\sigma'{\bf \bar{\Omega}}^{(\phi)}(\sigma')q_{1}^{(\phi)}\left(\sigma'\right).$$
To derive the phase equation, we project both sides of Eq. (\[eq:10\]) onto the eigenfunction $q_{0}^{(\phi)}$. Using the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\phi}X_{0}^{(\phi)}(\sigma)=q_{0}^{(\phi)}\left(\sigma\right),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\phi}q_{1}^{(\phi)}\left(\sigma\right)=-\lambda_{1}q_{1}^{(\phi)}\left(\sigma\right)+L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right)\left(\sigma\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}\left(X_{0}^{(\phi)} (\cdot) \right)=q_{0}^{(\phi)}\left(0\right),\end{aligned}$$ which follows from the definition $q_{0}^{(\phi)}\left(0\right) = dX_{0}/dt|_{t}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left[1+R \left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*}, L^{(\phi)} \left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle \right]\dot{\phi} &=& 1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&& + q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R \right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ The phase equation is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\phi}&=&1+\frac{q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right) }{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle } \nonumber\\
&=&1
+ q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle}{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle }
q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right).
\label{eq:13}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, by projecting both sides of Eq. (\[eq:10\]) onto the eigenfunction $q_{1}^{(\theta)}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left[R\left\langle q_{1}^{(\phi)*}, \left(-\lambda_{1}q_{1}^{(\phi)}+L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right)\right);\phi\right\rangle \right]\dot{\phi}+\dot{R} &=& R\left\langle q_{1}^{(\phi)*}, L^{(\phi)} \left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&& + q_{1}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right).
\label{eq:15}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting Eq. (\[eq:13\]) into Eq. (\[eq:15\]), the amplitude equation is derived as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{R}&=&\lambda_{1}R
+q_{1}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right)
\cr
&-&\frac{R\left[\left\langle q_{1}^{(\phi)*}, L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle -\lambda_{1} \right]}{1+R\left\langle q_{0}^{(\phi)*},L^{(\phi)}\left(q_{1}^{(\phi)}\right);\phi\right\rangle} q_{0}^{(\phi)*}\left(0\right)\cdot\left(F_{\mathrm{nl}}\left(\phi,R\right)+G\left(\phi,R,t\right)\right)
\label{eq:16}\end{aligned}$$
Coefficients of the phase-amplitude equations\[app:coefficients\]
=================================================================
The expressions for the individual expansion coefficients in the phase and amplitude equations (\[eq:psi\_expand\]) and (\[eq:R\_expand\]) are as follows.
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{0}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\left\langle q_{0}^{(\theta)*},L^{(\theta)}\left(q_{1}^{(\theta)}\right);\theta\right\rangle d\theta, \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{2}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}q_{0}^{(\theta)*}\left(0\right)\cdot F_{\mathrm{nl},2}\left(\theta\right)d\theta,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{3}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}q_{0}^{(\theta)*}\left(0\right)\cdot F_{\mathrm{nl},3}\left(\theta\right)d\theta,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
g_0(\psi) = \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} q_{0}^{(\theta)*}\left(0\right)\cdot G \left( \frac{\theta - \psi}{r} \right) d\theta,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
b_{0}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\left\langle q_{1}^{(\theta)*},L^{(\theta)}\left(q_{1}^{(\theta)}\right);\theta\right\rangle d\theta, \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
b_{2}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}q_{1}^{(\theta)*}\left(0\right)\cdot F_{\mathrm{nl},2}\left(\theta\right)d\theta,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
b_{3}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}q_{1}^{(\theta)*}\left(0\right)\cdot F_{\mathrm{nl},3}\left(\theta\right)d\theta, \end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
g_1(\psi) = \frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} q_{1}^{(\theta)*}\left(0\right)\cdot G \left( \frac{\theta - \psi}{r} \right) d\theta.\end{aligned}$$
Supplementary video
===================
This supplementary video shows how the oscillators converge to either of the two stable oscillatory states. We numerically integrated the DDE (\[nonlinear\]) of $15$ gene-regulatory oscillators subjected to a common sinusoidal external periodic force from several initial conditions from $t=0$ to $t=10^3$. The parameters of the external force are $G_{0}=0.4$ and $r=0.9911$. The initial amplitude and phase of each oscillator is $R_k=0$ and $\phi_k = \frac{k}{15}T~(k=1,2,...,15)$. In panel (a) of the video, the states of the oscillators projected onto the $(x,dx/dt)$-plane are plotted. In panel (b) of the video, the time courses from two representative initial conditions are shown, where the magenta line is for $\phi_{\mathrm{ini}}=\frac{7}{15}T$ and the blue one is for $\phi_{\mathrm{ini}}=\frac{2}{15}T$.
![ (a) Time course of a scalar DDE with a cubic nonlinearity, Eq. (\[X\]), showing a slow convergence of the system state to the limit cycle. (b) Time course of the oscillator state projected onto the $(x,dx/dt)$-plane. \[(c), (d)\] Extended adjoint method for calculating $q_1^{(t)}$; (c) Peak heights of the time course of $Y^{(t=nT)}(0)$ measured at each period vs. $t$. The red squares are the data from which the Floquet exponent $\lambda_1$ is evaluated. (d) Time evolution of $\exp\left(-\lambda_{1}t\right) Y^{(t)}(0)$ after compensating the exponential decay. (e) Eigenfunctions and adjoint eigenfunctions associated with $\lambda_{0} = 0$ plotted as functions of $\phi$. The functions $q_{0}^{(\phi)}(0)$ and $q_{0}^{(\phi)*}(0)$ are analytically derived, while $\bar{q}_{0}^{(\phi)}(0)$ and $\bar{q}_{0}^{(\phi)*}(0)$ are numerically obtained by the extended adjoint method. (f) Eigenfunctions $q_{1}^{(\phi)}(0)$ and adjoint eigenfunctions $q_{1}^{(\phi)^*}(0)$ associated with $\lambda_{1}$. []{data-label="figs"}](REVISE_knew_fig1)
![ Evaluation of the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ from $\phi$ and $R$. (a) Difference $\phi - \Phi$ between $\phi$ and $\Phi$ plotted on the $(\phi, R)$-plane. The data are obtained by direct numerical integration from initial system states given by $x^{(t=0)}(\sigma)=x_{0}^{(\phi)}(\sigma)+R q_{1}^{(\phi)}(\sigma)$. (b) Difference $\phi - \hat{\Phi}$ between $\phi$ and $\hat{\Phi}$ estimated by using Eq. (\[eq:34\]). (c) Absolute difference $|\Phi - \hat{\Phi}|$ between the asymptotic phase $\Phi$ measured directly by numerical integration and $\hat{\Phi}$ estimated by using Eq. (\[eq:34\]). (d) Asymptotic phase of the initial system states given by $x^{(t=0)}(\sigma)=\sin\sigma+p\sin(\sigma/2)$, which is not on the plane spanned by the first two Floquet eigenfunctions. The black points indicate the numerical results, the blue line indicates the phase $\phi$ evaluated using the linearized isochrons, and the red line indicates the analytical estimation of asymptotic phase ${\Phi}$. []{data-label="fig2"}](REVISE_knew_fig2){width="8.6cm"}
![Maximum amplitude of the DDE (\[X\]) subjected to a periodic input. (a) Dependence of maximum amplitude on $G_{0}$ at $r=1$. (b) Dependence of maximum amplitude on $r$ at $G_{0}=0.1$. Blue points show numerical results obtained by direct numerical integration of the original DDE (\[X\]). The red lines are analytical predictions by the linear approximation, while black lines are numerical solutions of the phase-amplitude equations (\[eq:psi\_expand\]) and (\[eq:R\_expand\]). []{data-label="fig3-1-1"}](REVISE_knew_fig3)
![ (a) Stable and unstable fixed points of the amplitude $R$ plotted against the frequency detuning $r$ at $G_{0}=0.02$. (b) Stable and unstable fixed points at $G_{0}=0.1$. A bistable region exists near $r=1.052$. (c) Nullclines and stable fixed points on the ($\psi$, $R$)-plane at $r=1.052$ and $G_{0}=0.1$. The gray broken lines show the nullclines satisfying $\dot{\psi}=0$ and the gray solid line shows $\dot{R}=0$. The orange and green dots show the stable fixed points (sp1 and sp2) and black lines show the trajectories started from $(-2, 0)$ and $(-2.5, 0)$. Sp1 is located at $(-0.722, 0.992)$ and sp2 is at $(-2.647, -0.064)$. (d) Time course of Eq. (\[X\]) with $G(x,t)=0.1\sin\left(1.052t\right)$. The orange line corresponds to the sp1, while the green line corresponds to the sp2 in panel (c). []{data-label="fig3"}](REVISE_knew_fig4)
![(a) Time course of the gene-regulatory oscillator Eq. (\[nonlinear\]) without perturbation ($G=0$), showing a slow convergence to the limit cycle. (b) Trajectory of the system state projected onto the $(x,dx/dt)$-plane. (c) Floquet and adjoint eigenfunctions $q_{0}^{(\phi)}(0)$ and $q_{0}^{(\phi)^*}(0)$ associated with $\lambda_{0}=0$. (d) Floquet and adjoint eigenfunctions $q_{1}^{(\phi)}(0)$ and $q_{1}^{(\phi)^*}(0)$ associated with $\lambda_{1}$. []{data-label="fig3-1"}](REVISE_knew_fig5)
![(a) Asymptotic phase values of initial functions $x^{(t=0)} (\sigma)\equiv p$ far from the limit cycle. The black points indicate the asymptotic phase obtained by direct numerical integration, the blue line indicates analytical estimation of the phase $\hat{\phi}$, and the red line indicates analytical estimation of the asymptotic phase $\hat{\Phi}$. (b) Stable and unstable fixed points plotted with respect to $r$ at $G_{0}=0.05$. (c) Fixed points at $G_{0}=0.4$. A bistable region exists around $r=0.9911$. (d) Time course of the DDE (\[nonlinear\]) with $G_0=0.4$ and $r=0.9911$. The red line shows the result for the initial condition [$x^{(t=0)} (\sigma)=X_0^{(\phi_{{\rm ini}}=0.6T)} (\sigma)$, while the blue shows the result for $x^{(t=0)} (\sigma)=X_0^{(\phi_{{\rm ini}}=0.2T)} (\sigma)$ ($-\tau \leq \sigma \leq 0$). The green line represents the external force.]{} []{data-label="fig5"}](REVISE_knew_fig6)
[10]{}
0 L. Glass and M.C. Mackey, *From Clock to Chaos: The Rhythms of Life* (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1988).
B. Balachandran, T. Kalmár-Nagy, and D.E. Gilsinn (eds.), *Delay Differential Equations: Recent Advances and New Directions* (Springer Verlag, New York, 2009).
T. Erneux, [*Applied Delay Differential Equations*]{} (Springer, New York, 2009).
F. M. Atay (ed.), *Complex Time-Delay Systems* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010). L. Glass and M.C. Mackey, *From Clock to Chaos: The Rhythms of Life* (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1988); B. Balachandran, T. Kalmár-Nagy, and D.E. Gilsinn (eds.), *Delay Differential Equations: Recent Advances and New Directions* (Springer Verlag, New York, 2009); T. Erneux, [*Applied Delay Differential Equations*]{} (Springer, New York, 2009); F. M. Atay (ed.), *Complex Time-Delay Systems* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010).
0 J. Lewis, “Autoinhibition with Transcriptional Delay: A Simple Mechanism for the Zebrafish Somitogenesis Oscillator”, Current Biology **13**, 1398–1408 (2003).
L. Herrgen, S. Ares, L.G. Morelli, C. Schröter, F. Jülicher, and A.C. Oates, "Intercellular Coupling Regulates the Period of the Segmentation Clock”, Current Biology **20**, 1244–1253 (2010).
M. Das, T. Drake, D. J. Wiley, P. Buchwald, D. Vavylonis, and F. Verde, “Oscillatory Dynamics of Cdc42 GTPase in the Control of Polarized Growth”, Science **337**, 239–243 (2012).
I. Imayoshi, A. Isomura, Y. Harima, K. Kawaguchi, H. Kori, H. Miyachi, T. Fujiwara, F. Ishidate, and R. Kageyama, “Oscillatory Control of Factors Determining Multipotency and Fate in Mouse Neural Progenitors”, Science **342**, 1203–1208 (2013).
J. Lewis, Current Biology **13**, 1398–1408 (2003); B. Novák and J. J. Tyson, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology **9**, 981–991 (2008); L. Herrgen, S. Ares, L.G. Morelli, C. Schröter, F. Jülicher, and A.C. Oates, Current Biology **20**, 1244–1253 (2010); M. Das, T. Drake, D. J. Wiley, P. Buchwald, D. Vavylonis, and F. Verde, Science **337**, 239–243 (2012); I. Imayoshi, A. Isomura, Y. Harima, K. Kawaguchi, H. Kori, H. Miyachi, T. Fujiwara, F. Ishidate, and R. Kageyama, Science **342**, 1203–1208 (2013).
W. Mather, M. R. Bennett, J. Hasty, and L. S. Tsimring, Physical Review Letters **102**, 068105 (2009).
0 B. Doiron, B. Lindner, A. Longtin, L. Maler, and J. Bastian, “Oscillatory Activity in Electrosensory Neurons Increases with the Spatial Correlation of the Stochastic Input Stimulus”, Physical Review Letters, **93**, 048101 (2004).
S. A. Campbell, “Time Delays in Neural Systems”, in [*Handbook of Brain Connectivity*]{} (V. K. Jirsa and A. R. Mclntosh eds.), (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007).
J.W. Kim and P.A. Robinson, “Compact dynamical model of brain activity”, Physical Review E **75**, 031907 (2007).
G. Stepan, “Delay effects in brain dynamics”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences **367**, 1059–1062 (2009).
I. Yamaguchi, Y. Ogawa, Y. Jimbo, H. Nakao, and K. Kotani, “Reduction Theories Elucidate the Origins of Complex Biological Rhythms Generated by Interacting Delay-Induced Oscillations”, PLoS ONE **6**, e26497 (2011).
M. C. Mackey, M. Tyran-Kamińska, and H.-O. Walther, “Response of an oscillatory differential delay equation to a single stimulus”, Journal of Mathematical Biology **74**, 1139–1196 (2017). B. Doiron, B. Lindner, A. Longtin, L. Maler, and J. Bastian, Physical Review Letters, **93**, 048101 (2004); S. A. Campbell, “Time Delays in Neural Systems”, in [*Handbook of Brain Connectivity*]{} (V. K. Jirsa and A. R. Mclntosh eds.), (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007); J.W. Kim and P.A. Robinson, Physical Review E **75**, 031907 (2007); I. Yamaguchi, Y. Ogawa, Y. Jimbo, H. Nakao, and K. Kotani, PLoS ONE **6**, e26497 (2011); M. C. Mackey, M. Tyran-Kamińska, and H.-O. Walther, Journal of Mathematical Biology **74**, 1139–1196 (2017).
0 R. J. Peterka and P. J. Loughlin, “Dynamic Regulation of Sensorimotor Integration in Human Postural Control”, Journal of Neurophysiology [**9**1]{}, 410–423 (2004).
C. Julien, “The enigma of Mayer waves: Facts and models”, Cardiovascular Research **70**, 12–21 (2006).
J. J. Batzel and F. Kappel, “Time delay in physiological systems: Analyzing and modeling its impact”, Mathematical Biosciences **234**, 61–74 (2011). R. J. Peterka and P. J. Loughlin, Journal of Neurophysiology [**9**1]{}, 410–423 (2004); C. Julien, Cardiovascular Research **70**, 12–21 (2006); J. J. Batzel and F. Kappel, Mathematical Biosciences **234**, 61–74 (2011). M. C. Soriano, J. Garc[i]{}a-Ojalvo, C. R. Mirasso, and I. Fischer, Review of Modern Physics **85**, 421–470 (2013). 0 T. Kalmár-Nagy, G. Stépán, and F. C. Moon, “Subcritical Hopf Bifurcation in the Delay Equation Model for Machine Tool Vibrations”, Nonlinear Dynamics **26**, 121–142 (2001).
S. Chatterjee, “Self-excited oscillation under nonlinear feedback with time-delay”, Journal of Sound and Vibration **330**, 1860–1876 (2011). T. Kalmár-Nagy, G. Stépán, and F. C. Moon, Nonlinear Dynamics **26**, 121–142 (2001); S. Chatterjee, Journal of Sound and Vibration **330**, 1860–1876 (2011); E. Stone and S. A. Campbell, Journal of Nonlinear Science **14**, 27–57 (2004).
0 E. Villermaux, “Memory-Induced Low Frequency Oscillations in Closed Convection Boxes”, Physical Review Letters **75**, 4618 (1995).
B. W. Righolt, S. Kenjereš, R. Kalter, M. J. Tummers, and C. R. Kleijn, “Dynamics of an oscillating turbulent jet in a confined cavity”, Physics of Fluids **27**, 095107 (2015). A. Keane, B. Krauskopf, and C. M. Postlethwaite, “Climate models with delay differential equations”, Chaos **27**, 114309 (2017).
0 M. Szydłowski, A. Krawiec, and J. Toboła, “Nonlinear oscillations in business cycle model with time lags”, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals **12**, 505–517 (2001).
P. Brunovský, A. Erdélyi, and H.-O. Walther, “On a Model of a Currency Exchange Rate – Local Stability and Periodic Solutions”, Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations **16**, 393–432 (2004). M. Szydłowski, A. Krawiec, and J. Toboła, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals **12**, 505–517 (2001); P. Brunovský, A. Erdélyi, and H.-O. Walther, Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations **16**, 393–432 (2004). 0 J. Burridge, “Limit cycles and the benefits of a short memory in rock-paper-scissors games”, Physical Review E **92**, 042111 (2015).
W. Deng, X. Liao, T. Dong, and B. Zhou, “Hopf bifurcation in a love-triangle model with time delays”, Neurocomputing **260**, 13–24 (2017).
J. J. Walker, J. R. Terry, and S. L. Lightman, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences **277**, 1627–1633 (2010); S. L. Lightman and B. L. Conway-Campbell, Nature Reviews Neuroscience **11**, 710–718 (2010).
K. Horikawa, K. Ishimatsu, E. Yoshimoto, S. Kondo, and H. Takeda, Nature **441**, 719–723 (2006).
M. A. Lema, D. A. Golombek, and J. Echave, Journal of Theoretical Biology **204**, 565–573 (2000); M. Doi *et al.*, Nature Communications **2**, 327 (2011); M. Ukai-Tadenuma, R. G. Yamada, H. Xu, J. A. Ripperger, A. C. Liu, and H. R. Ueda, Cell **144**, 268–281 (2011).
D. M. Berson, F. A. Dunn, and M. Takao, Science **295**, 1070–1073 (2002).
Sack, R. L., Auckley, D., Auger, R. R., Carskadon, M. A., Wright Jr, K. P., Vitiello, M. V., and Zhdanova, I. V. Sleep, 30(11), 1460–1483. (2007).
H. Ukai, T. J. Kobayashi, M. Nagano, K.-h. Matsumoto, M. Sujino, T. Kondo, K. Yagita, Y. Shigeyoshi, and H. R. Ueda, Nature Cell Biology **9**, 1327–1334 (2007); S. R. Pulivarthy, N. Tanaka, D. K. Welsh, L. De Haro, I. M. Verma, and S. Panda, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America **104**, 20356–20361 (2007).
Michael J. Thorpy. Neurotherapeutics. 9(4), 687–701;(2012) Sack, R. L., Auckley, D., Auger, R. R., Carskadon, M. A., Wright Jr, K. P., Vitiello, M. V., and Zhdanova, I. V. (2007). Sleep, 30(11), 1484-1501.
C. R. Jones, S. S. Campbell, S. E. Zone, F. Cooper, A. Desano, P. J. Murphy, B. Jones, L. Czajkowski, and L. J. Ptček, Nature Medicine **5**, 1062–1065 (1999).
Moldofsky, H, Musisi, S, and Phillipson, EA. Sleep 1986;9:61-5.
A.T. Winfree, *The Geometry of Biological Time* (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1980).
Y. Kuramoto, *Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence* (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1984).
A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, *Synchronization: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences* (Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 2001).
G. B. Ermentrout and D. H. Terman, *Mathematical Foundations of Neuroscience* (Springer, New York, 2010).
H. Nakao, Contemporary Physics **57**, 188–214 (2016).
Y. Kuramoto and H. Nakao, “On the concept of dynamical reduction: the case of coupled oscillators”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A [**377**]{}, 20190041 (2019).
P. Ashwin, S. Coombes, and R. Nicks, Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience **6**, 2 (2016). K. Kotani, I. Yamaguchi, Y. Ogawa, Y. Jimbo, H. Nakao, and G. B. Ermentrout, Physical Review Letters **109**, 044101 (2012).
V. Novi[č]{}enko and K. Pyragas, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena **241**, 1090-1098 (2012). 0 C. C. Canavier and S. Achuthan, “Pulse coupled oscillators and the phase resetting curve”, Mathematical Biosciences **226**, 77–96 (2010).
S. A. Oprisan and D. I. Austin, “A generalized phase resetting method for phase-locked modes prediction”, PLoS ONE **12**, e0174304 (2017). C. C. Canavier and S. Achuthan, Mathematical Biosciences **226**, 77–96 (2010); S. A. Oprisan and D. I. Austin, PLoS ONE **12**, e0174304 (2017). 0 J. J. Rubin, J. E. Rubin, and G. B. Ermentrout, “Analysis of Synchronization in a Slowly Changing Environment: How Slow Coupling Becomes Fast Weak Coupling”, Physical Review Letters **110**, 204101 (2013).
W. Kurebayashi, S. Shirasaka, and H. Nakao, “Phase Reduction Method for Strongly Perturbed Limit Cycle Oscillators”, Physical Review Letters **111**, 214101 (2013).
K. Pyragas and V. Novi[č]{}enko, “Phase reduction of a limit cycle oscillator perturbed by a strong amplitude-modulated high-frequency force”, Physical Review E **92**, 012910 (2015).
Y. Park and G. B. Ermentrout, “Weakly coupled oscillators in a slowly varying world”, Journal of Computational Neuroscience **40**, 269–281 (2016).
V. Klinshov, S. Yanchuk, A. Stephan, and V. Nekorkin, “Phase response function for oscillators with strong forcing or coupling”, Europhysics Letters **118**, 50006 (2017). J. J. Rubin, J. E. Rubin, and G. B. Ermentrout, Physical Review Letters **110**, 204101 (2013); W. Kurebayashi, S. Shirasaka, and H. Nakao, Physical Review Letters **111**, 214101 (2013); K. Pyragas and V. Novi[č]{}enko, Physical Review E **92**, 012910 (2015); Y. Park and G. B. Ermentrout, Journal of Computational Neuroscience **40**, 269–281 (2016); V. Klinshov, S. Yanchuk, A. Stephan, and V. Nekorkin, Europhysics Letters **118**, 50006 (2017). 0 O. Castejón, A. Guillamon, and G. Huguet, Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience **3**, 13 (2013).
D. Wilson and J. Moehlis, Physical Review E **94**, 052213 (2016).
S. Shirasaka, W. Kurebayashi, and H. Nakao, Chaos **27**, 023119 (2017).
D. Wilson and G. B. Ermentrout, Journal of Mathematical Biology, **76**, 37-66 (2018): O. Castejón, A. Guillamon, and G. Huguet, Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience **3**, 13 (2013); D. Wilson and J. Moehlis, Physical Review E **94**, 052213 (2016); S. Shirasaka, W. Kurebayashi, and H. Nakao, Chaos **27**, 023119 (2017); D. Wilson and G. B. Ermentrout, Journal of Mathematical Biology, **76**, 37-66 (2018): 0 A. Ray, A. R. Chowdhury, and D. Ghosh, “Effect of noise on chaos synchronization in time-delayed systems: Numerical and experimental observations”, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications **392**, 4837-4849 (2013).
R. P. Jenkins, A. Hanisch, C. Soza-Ried, E. Sahai, and J. Lewis, “Stochastic Regulation of her1/7 Gene Expression Is the Source of Noise in the Zebrafish Somite Clock Counteracted by Notch Signalling”, PLoS Computational Biology **11**, e1004459 (2015).
A. Stokes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America **48**, 1330-1334 (1962).
J. K. Hale and S. M. V. Lunel, *Introduction to Functional Differential Equations* (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993).
C. Simmendinger, A. Wunderlin, and A. Pelster, Physical Review E **59**, 5344 (1999).
W. Wischert, A. Wunderlin, A. Pelster, M. Olivier, and J. Groslambert, Physical Review E, **49**, 203 (1994).
G. Palm and T. Poggio, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics **33**, 195–216 (1977).
0 E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson, *Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations* (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955). J. K. Hale, *Ordinary Differential Equations* (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1969). 0 A. Rabinovitch and M. Friedman, “Fixed points of two-dimensional maps obtained under rapid stimulations”, Physics Letters A **355**, 319–325 (2006).
K. Yoshimura and K. Arai, “Phase Reduction of Stochastic Limit Cycle Oscillators”, Physical Review Letters **101**, 154101 (2008).
H. Ben Amor, N. Glade, C. Lobos, and J. Demongeot, “The Isochronal Fibration: Characterization and Implication in Biology”, Acta Biotheoretica **58**, 121–142 (2010).
D. S. Goldobin, J.-N. Teramae, H. Nakao, and G. B. Ermentrout, “Dynamics of Limit-Cycle Oscillators Subject to General Noise”, Physical Review Letters **105**, 154101 (2010).
H. M. Osinga and J. Moehlis, “Continuation-based Computation of Global Isochrons”, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems **9**, 1201-1228 (2010).
G. Huguet and R. de la Llave, “Computation of Limit Cycles and Their Isochrons: Fast Algorithms and Their Convergence”, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems **12**, 1763-1802 (2013).
K. C. Wedgwood, K. K. Lin, R. Thul, and S. Coombes, “Phase-amplitude descriptions of neural oscillator models”, Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience **3**, 2 (2013).
A. Mauroy, B. Rhoads, J. Moehlis, and I. Mezic, “Global Isochrons and Phase Sensitivity of Bursting Neurons”, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems **13**, 306–338 (2014).
J. Hannam, B. Krauskopf and H. M. Osinga, “Global isochrons of a planar system near a phaseless set with saddle equilibria”, The European Physical Journal Special Topics **225**, 2645–2654 (2016).
M. Bonnin, “Amplitude and phase dynamics of noisy oscillators”, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications **45**, 636–659 (2017).
A. Rabinovitch and M. Friedman, Physics Letters A **355**, 319–325 (2006); K. Yoshimura and K. Arai, Physical Review Letters **101**, 154101 (2008); H. Ben Amor, N. Glade, C. Lobos, and J. Demongeot, Acta Biotheoretica **58**, 121–142 (2010); D. S. Goldobin, J.-N. Teramae, H. Nakao, and G. B. Ermentrout, Physical Review Letters **105**, 154101 (2010); H. M. Osinga and J. Moehlis, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems **9**, 1201-1228 (2010); G. Huguet and R. de la Llave, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems **12**, 1763-1802 (2013); A. Mauroy, B. Rhoads, J. Moehlis, and I. Mezic, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems **13**, 306–338 (2014); J. Hannam, B. Krauskopf and H. M. Osinga, The European Physical Journal Special Topics **225**, 2645–2654 (2016); M. Bonnin, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications **45**, 636–659 (2017).
K. C. Wedgwood, K. K. Lin, R. Thul, and S. Coombes, Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience **3**, 2 (2013). G. S. Medvedev, Journal of Nonlinear Science **21**, 441–464 (2011).
O. Diekmann, S. A. van Gils, S. M. V. Lunel, and H.-O. Walther, *Delay Equations: Functional-, Complex-, and Nonlinear Analysis* (Springer, New York, 1995).
The dual space of $C_0$ is usually defined as a vector space consisting of all bounded linear functionals with domain $C_0$. However, it is difficult to work directly with this space, because, in general, the adjoint system on this space is not described by a differential equation, i.e., the adjoint semigroup is not strongly continuous [@Diekmann Ch. 2]. Hale introduced a bilinear form, under which the adjoint semigroup on the associated adjoint space is strongly continuous. In the celebrated work of Hale and Lunel, the convenient system is called not the adjoint system but the transposed system to distinguish between them. The transposed system can be viewed as the “adjoint” system since their eigenfunctions are closely related [@Hale Chs. 7 and 8]. Hence, we call the transposed system as the adjoint system in this paper as in the literature [@Simmendinger].
B. Ermentrout, Y. Park, and D. Wilson, “Recent advances in coupled oscillator theory”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A [**377**]{}, 20190092 (2019).
The frequency of this subtraction procedure may not necessarily be once per time $T$. Generally speaking, the faster the $q_0$ component grows relative to $q_1$, the more frequent subtraction would be required. In this study, at every 10 oscillation periods, whether $Y^{(t)}$ decays exponentially or not is judged by measuring 10 peaks of $Y^{(nT)}$. If this is the case, the Floquet eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$ is evaluated using the peaks (Fig. \[figs\](c)). The waveform of $q_{1}^{(t)}(\sigma)$ is obtained by averaging $q_{1}^{\left(t\right)}\left(\sigma\right)=e^{-\lambda_{1}t}\cdot Y^{(t)}(\sigma)$ over the 10 oscillation periods, where exponential decay is compensated (Fig. \[figs\](d), (e)).
The eigenspace associated with the complex conjugate eigenvalues are numerically obtained by the consecutive subtraction approach proposed in Section II B, but some care is required when evaluating the pair of complex conjugate eigenfunctions. Ding and Cvitanović have developed an algorithm to calculate the complex Floquet eigenvalues and eigenfunctions [@Ding]. By introducing a moving coordinate frame spanned by the complex eigenfunctions as in Section \[sec. pa\], a reduced ODE form may be obtained even in such a situation. Though not generic, Floquet eigenvalues with multiplicities can also arise, whose treatment is beyond the scope of this paper. We here only mention that, in some mathematical literature, spectral projections of the time-$T$ fundamental solution of linear periodic DDEs onto generalized eigenspaces associated with multiple eigenvalues has been discussed on the basis of the Dunford integral using residue calculus [@Diekmann; @Frasson].
X. Ding and P. Cvitanović, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems **15**, 1434–1454 (2016).
M. V. S. Frasson and S. M. V. Lunel, Integral Equations and Operator Theory **47**, 91–121 (2003).
H. Kori and Y. Morita, *Dynamical System Approach to Biological Rhythms* (Kyoritsu Syuppan, Tokyo, 2011). (in Japanese)
A. Stokes, Journal of Differential Equations **24**, 153–172 (1977).
J. K. Hale and M. Weedermann, Journal of Differential Equations **197**, 219–246 (2004). 0 A. Stokes, Journal of Differential Equations **24**, 153–172 (1977); J. K. Hale and M. Weedermann, Journal of Differential Equations **197**, 219–246 (2004).
I. León, and D. Pazó, Physical Review E, **100**, 012211 (2019).
M. Rosenblum and A. Pikovsky, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. [**377**]{}, 20190093 (2019).
For simplicity, we use $Y_{\mathrm{ini}}^{(t=0)}(\sigma)\equiv1$.
It is of note that the phase remains zero regardless of the value of $p$ when we naively evaluate it based on an argument introduced on a plane $(x,\dot{x})$ as $\tan^{-1}(x/\dot{x})$.
B. Ermentrout, *Simulating, Analyzing, and Animating Dynamical Systems: A Guide to XPPAUT for Researchers and Students* (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 2002).
The origin of the phase is set at $t$ that satisfies $x_0(t)=\langle x_0(t)\rangle$ with $dx_0(t)/dt>0$.
See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033106 for a video that shows how the gene-regulatory oscillators subjected to a periodic external force converge to either of the two stable oscillatory states.
Namajūnas, A., Pyragas, K., and Tamaševičius, A. Physics Letters A, 201(1), 42-46 (1995).
[^1]: Electric adress: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use three seminal approaches in the study of fixed point theory, the so called $G$-metrics, multidimensional fixed points and partially ordered spaces. More precisely, we extend known results from the theory of quasi-pseudometric spaces to the $G$-metric space setting. In particular, we show the existence of $n$-tuple fixed points (resp. common $n$-tuple fixed point) for a non-decreasing mapping (resp. a pair of weakly related mappings) in a $\phi$-ordered $G$-metric space.'
address:
- '$^{1}$École Normale Supérieure (ENS) de Natitingou, BP 72 Natitingou, Bénin.'
- '$^{2}$ Department of Mathematical Sciences, North West University, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa.'
author:
- 'Yaé Ulrich Gaba$^{1,2}$'
- 'Collins Amburo Agyingi$^{2}$'
title: ' $n$-tuple fixed point in $\phi$-ordered $G$-metric spaces'
---
Introduction and preliminary results.
=====================================
Metric spaces have been extensively used to solve major problems appearing in quantitative sciences and considering various generalizations of metrics and metric spaces is a natural step in order to broaden the scope of applied sciences. In this regard, $G$-metric spaces ($G_b$-metric spaces), cone metric spaces and quasi-pseudometric spaces are relevant instances. Most of these applications are done via fixed point theory whose relevance is no more to be demonstrated as it has been extensively discussed in many divisions of applied sciences.
Recently, the study of multidimensional fixed point has been at the center of very active research, see [@ref3; @ref4; @ref2; @ref1]. The results obtained appear both in metric spaces and in generalized metric spaces, of which $G$-metrics is our space of focus here (see [@Mustafa]).
In this article, we replace the left $K$-complete quasi-pseudometric spaces $(X, d)$ by $\phi$-ordered complete $G$-metric spaces $(X,G)$ and prove some fixed point theorems in that setting. Our results generalized some fixed point theorems in quasi-pseudometric spaces [@gaba; @gaba1]. Namely, we study the notion of coupled (resp. $n$-tuple) fixed points in the setting of $G$-metric spaces endowed with a partial order. As we mentioned in [@gaba] (and it is the same in the present manuscript), the technique of proof employed differs from the classical one and is more natural in the sense that we do not utilize any contractive conditions. Furthermore, our approach does not differentiate between $G$-metric spaces and $G_b$-metric spaces.
Throughout this manuscript, $X$ will be a non-empty set and $\preceq$ will denote a preorder on $X$ induced by a certain function $\phi$. Given $n \in \mathbb{N}$ with $n\geq 2$, $X^n$ will denote the product space $X \times X \times \ldots X$ of $n$ identical copies of $X$. In the next few lines, we recall some concepts and fix our notations. We shall only recall the necessary notions. The interested reader is referred to [@gaba; @Mustafa] for a more detailed exposé. The results presented are a generalization of a previous work by Gaba[@gaba].
(Compare [@gaba]) Let $(X,\preceq_{{}_X})$ and $(Y,\preceq_{{}_Y})$ be two prosets. A map $T:X\to Y$ is said to be **preorder-preserving** or **isotone** if for any $x,y \in X, $ $$x\preceq_{{}_X} y \Longrightarrow Tx \preceq_{{}_Y} Ty.$$ Similarly, for any family $(X_i,\preceq_{{}_{X_i}}),\ i=1,2,\cdots,n; \ (Y,\preceq_{{}_Y})$ of posets, a mapping $F:X_1\times X_2\times \cdots\times X_n \to Y$ is said to be **preorder-preserving** or **isotone** if for any for any $(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n), (z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n) \in X_1\times X_2\times \cdots\times X_n, $ $$\quad x_i\preceq_{{}_{X_i}} z_i \text{ for all } i=1,2,\cdots,n \Longrightarrow F(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n) \preceq_{{}_{Y}} F(z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n).$$
Next we recall the basic concepts and notations attached to the idea of $G$-metric. This can be read extensively in [@Mustafa].
\[def1\] (See [@Mustafa Definition 3]) Let $X$ be a nonempty set, and let the function $G:X\times X\times X \to [0,\infty)$ satisfy the following properties:
- $G(x,y,z)=0$ if $x=y=z$ whenever $x,y,z\in X$;
- $G(x,x,y)>0$ whenever $x,y\in X$ with $x\neq y$;
- $G(x,x,y)\leq G(x,y,z) $ whenever $x,y,z\in X$ with $z\neq y$;
- $G(x,y,z)= G(x,z,y)=G(y,z,x)=\ldots$, (symmetry in all three variables);
- $$G(x,y,z) \leq [G(x,a,a)+G(a,y,z)]$$ for any points $x,y,z,a\in X$.
Then $(X,G)$ is called a **$G$-metric space**.
(See [@Mustafa]) Let $(X, G)$ be a $G$-metric space, and let $\{x_n \}$ be a sequence of points of $X$, therefore, we say that $(x_n )$ is $G$-convergent to $x \in X$ if $\lim_{n,m\to \infty} G (x, x_n , x_m ) = 0,$ that is, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $G (x, x_n , x_ m ) < \varepsilon$, for all, $n, m \geq N$. We call $x$ the limit of the sequence and write $x_n \to x$ or $\lim_{n\to \infty} x_n = x$.
\[prop1\] (Compare [@Mustafa Proposition 6]) Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-metric space. Define on $X$ the metric $d_G$ by $d_G(x,y)= G(x,y,y)+G(x,x,y)$ whenever $x,y \in X$. Then for a sequence $(x_n) \subseteq X$, the following are equivalent
- $(x_n)$ is $G$-convergent to $x\in X.$
- $\lim_{n,m \to \infty}G(x,x_n,x_m)=0.$
- $\lim_{n \to \infty}d_G(x_n,x)=0$.
- $\lim_{n \to \infty}G(x,x_n,x_n)=0.$
- $\lim_{n \to \infty}G(x_n,x,x)=0.$
(See [@Mustafa]) Let $(X, G)$ be a $G$-metric space. A sequence $\{x_n \}$ is called a $G$-Cauchy sequence if for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there is $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $G (x_n , x_m , x_l ) < \varepsilon$ for all $n, m, l \geq N$, that is $G (x_n , x_m , x_l ) \to 0$ as $n, m,l \to +\infty$. We shall use interchangeably “$G$-Cauchy sequence in a $G$-metric space" or “Cauchy sequence in a $G$-metric space".
(Compare [@Mustafa Proposition 9])
In a $G$-metric space $(X,G)$, the following are equivalent
- The sequence $(x_n) \subseteq X$ is $G$-Cauchy.
- For each $\varepsilon >0$ there exists $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $G(x_n,x_m,x_m)< \varepsilon$ for all $m,n\geq N$.
(Compare [@Mustafa Definition 9]) A $G$-metric space $(X,G)$ is $G$-complete if every $G$-Cauchy sequence of elements of $(X,G)$ is $G$-convergent in $(X,G)$. We shall use interchangeably “$G$-complete $G$-metric space" or “complete $G$-metric space".
\[theorem1\](See [@Mustafa]) A $G$-metric $G$ on a $G$-metric space $(X, G)$ is continuous on its three variables.
Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-metric space. A function $T:X\to X$ is called **sequentially continuous** if for any $G$-convergent sequence $(x_n)$ with $x_n\longrightarrow x $, the sequence $(Tx_n)$ $G$-converges to $Tx$, i.e. $Tx_n \longrightarrow Tx $.
Similarly, a function $T:X_1\times X_2\times \cdots \times X_n \to X$ for $n\geq 2,$ is said to be **sequentially continuous** if for any sequences $(x_l^i)$ such that $x_l^i \longrightarrow x^{*,i} ,$ then $$T(x_l^i,x_l^{i+1},\cdots,x_l^n,x_l^i,\cdots,x_l^{i-1})\longrightarrow T(x^{*,i},x^{*,i+1},\cdots,x^{*,n},x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,i-1}).$$
(Compare [@er]) An element $(x^1,x^2,\cdots,x^n) \in X^n$ is called:
1. a **$n$-tuple fixed point** of the mapping $F:X^n \to X$ if $$F(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n, x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})=x^i, \text{ for all } i, 1\leq i\leq n.$$
2. a **$n$-tuple coincidence point** of the mappings $F:X^n \to X$ and $T:X \to X$ if $F(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n, x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})=Tx^i$ for all $i, 1\leq i\leq n$ and in this case $(Tx^1,Tx^2,\cdots,Tx^n)$ is called the **$n$-tuple point of coincidence**;
3. a **common $n$-tuple fixed point** of the mappings $F:X^n \to X$ and $T:X \to X$ if $F(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n, x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})=Tx^i=x^i$ for all $i, 1\leq i\leq n$.
(Compare [@gaba])
An element $(x^1,x^2,\cdots,x^n) \in X^n$ is called
1. a **$n$-tuple coincidence point** of the mappings $F:X^n \to X$ and $T,R:X \to X$ if $F(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n, x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})=Tx^i=Rx^i$ for all $i, 1\leq i\leq n$;
2. a **common $n$-tuple fixed point** of the mappings $F:X^n \to X$ and $T,R:X \to X$ if $F(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n, x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})=Tx^i=Rx^i=x^i$ for all $i, 1\leq i\leq n$.
$n$-tuple fixed point
=====================
We first prove the following lemma:
(Compare [@gaba Lemma 3.1.]) Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-metric space and $\phi : X \to \mathbb{R}$ a map. Define the binary relation $"\preceq"$ on $X$ as follows: $$x \preceq y \Longleftrightarrow G(x,y,y) \leq \phi(y)-\phi(x).$$ Then $"\preceq"$ is a preorder on $X$. It will be called the preorder induced by $\phi$.
- Reflexivity: For all $x \in X$; $$0=G(x,x,x) \leq \phi(x)-\phi(x)=0,$$ hence $x\preceq x$, i.e., “$\preceq$” is reflexive.
- Transitivity: For $x, y, z \in X$ s.t. $ x\preceq y$ and $y\preceq z$, we have $$G(x,y,y) \leq \phi(y)-\phi(x) \text{ and } G(y,z,z) \leq \phi(z)-\phi(y).$$ By property (G5), we have $$G(x,z,z) \leq G(x,y,y)+G(y,z,z)\leq \phi(y)-\phi(x) + \phi(z)-\phi(y) = \phi(z)-\phi(x),$$ i.e. $x\preceq z.$ Thus, “$\preceq$” is transitive, and so the relation “$\preceq$” is a preorder on $X$.
Let $X = [0, \infty)$ and $G(x, y,z) = \max\{x,y,z\}$, then $(X, G)$ is a $G$-metric space. Let $\phi : X \to \mathbb{R},\ \phi(x) = 2x.$ Then for $x, y \in X$
$$\begin{aligned}
x\preceq_\phi y:= x\preceq y & \Longleftrightarrow G(x,y,y) \leq \phi(y) - \phi(x) \\
& \Longleftrightarrow \max\{x,y\} \leq 2y - 2x.
\end{aligned}$$
It follows that $$2 \preceq 4, \ \ \ \ \frac{1}{4} \preceq \frac{1}{2}, \ \ \ \ 2 \preceq 2,$$ whereas $3$ is not comparable to $2$ and $6$ is not comparable to $5$, etc. Therefore $X$ is a $\phi$-ordered $G$-metric space.
Note that $(X,\preceq_\phi)$ is just a preordered space in general. However, if the $G$-metric $G$ is symmetric, i.e. $G(x,y,y)=G(y,x,x)$, then $(X,\preceq_\phi)$ is an ordered space.
Now we prove the following theorem.
Let $(X, G)$ be a complete $G$-metric space, $\phi : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a bounded from above function and “$\preceq$" the preorder induced by $\phi$. Let $F : X^n \rightarrow X,$ $n\geq 2$ be a preorder preserving and sequentilally continuous mapping on $X^n$ such that there exist $n$ elements $x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^n \in X$ with
$$x_0^i \preceq F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1})\ \text{ for all } i, \ 1\leq i \leq n.$$ Then $F$ has a $n$-tuple fixed point in $X^n$.
Let $x_0^1,\cdots, x_0^n\in X$ with $$x_0^i \preceq F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1})\ \ \text{ for all } i, \ 1\leq i \leq n.$$
We construct the sequences $(x_l^i)_l$ for $1\leq i \leq n$ as follows:
$$\label{eq2}
x_{l+1}^i = F(x_l^i,x_l^{i+1},\cdots,x_l^n,x_l^1,\cdots,x_l^{i-1}), \ \ \text{ for all } i, \ 1\leq i \leq n.$$
We shall show that $$\label{eq3}
x_l^i \preceq x_{l+1}^i \ \ \ \text{ for all } l\geq 0.$$
We use mathematical induction. Since $x_0^i \preceq F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1})$, we have $x_0^i \preceq x_1^i$. Thus holds for $l=0$. Suppose that holds for some $k>0$. Then since $x^i_k \preceq x^i_{k+1}$ and $F$ is preorder preserving, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
x^i_{k+1}& = F(x_k^i,x_k^{i+1},\cdots,x_k^n,x_k^1,\cdots,x_k^{i-1}) \\
& \preceq F(x_{k+1}^i,x_{k+1}^{i+1},\cdots,x_{k+1}^n,x_{k+1}^1,\cdots,x_{k+1}^{i-1}) \\
&= x^i_{k+2}
\end{aligned}$$
Thus by mathematical induction we conclude that holds for all $l \geq 0$. Therefore $$x_0^i \preceq x_1^i \preceq x_2^i \preceq x_3^i \preceq \cdots \preceq x_l^i \preceq \cdots .$$
By definition of the preorder, we have
$$\phi(x_0^i) \leq \phi(x_1^i) \leq \phi(x_2^i) \leq \phi(x_3^i) \leq \cdots \leq \phi(x_l^i) \leq \cdots .$$
Hence, the sequence $(\phi(x^i_l ))$ is a non-decreasing sequence of real numbers. Since $\phi$ is bounded from above, the sequence $(\phi(x^i_l ))$ converges and is therefore Cauchy. This entails that for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for any $q>p>n_0 $ , we have $\phi(x^i_q ) - \phi(x^i_p ) < \epsilon$. Since whenever $q>p>n_0,$ $x^i_p \preceq x^i_q $ it follows that
$$G(x^i_p,x^i_q,x^i_q) \leq \phi(x^i_q ) - \phi(x^i_p ) < \epsilon.$$
We conclude that $(x^i_l )$ is a $G$-Cauchy in the complete space $(X,G)$, hence there exists $x^{*,i} \in X$ such that $ x^i_l \longrightarrow x^{*,i}$. Since $F$ is sequentially continuous, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
x^i_{l+1} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} & \Longleftrightarrow x^i_{l+1}=F(x_l^i,x_l^{i+1},\cdots,x_l^n,x_l^1,\cdots,x_l^{i-1})\longrightarrow x^{*,i} \\
& \Longleftrightarrow F(x^{*,i},x^{*,i+1},\cdots,x^{*,n},x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,i-1})= x^{*,i}.
\end{aligned}$$
Thus we have proved that $(x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,n})$ is a $n$-tuple fixed point of $F$.
We take $n=3.$ Let $X = [0, \infty)$ and $G(x, y,z) = \max\{|x - y|,|x-z|,|y-z|\}$, then $(X, G)$ is a complete $G$-metric space and “$\leq$” is the ordering induced by $\phi(x)=2x$. Let $F : X \times X \to X$ be defined as follows: $$F (x, y,z) = x(1 + y)(2+z)$$ and $F$ is obviously a non-decreasing function on $X$.
If we let $x_0 = 1$ and $y_0 =z_0 =0$ then $$F (x_0 , y_0,z_0 ) = 1 · (1 + 0)(2+0) = 2, \
F (y_0 ,z_0, x_0 ) = 0 · (1 + 0)(2+1) = 0$$ and $$F (z_0 ,x_0, y_0 ) = 0 · (1 + 1)(2+0)=0.$$
So we see that $$x_0 \leq F (x_0 , y_0,z_0 ), \ y_0 \leq F (y_0 ,z_0, x_0 ) \ \text{ and }\ z_0\leq F (z_0 ,x_0, y_0 ).$$
Also $$F (0, y,z) =
0 · (1 + y)(2+z) = 0, \ F (0,z,x) = 0 · (1 + z)(2+x) = 0,$$ and $$F(0,x,y)=0 .(1+x)(2+y)=0.$$ Hence $(0, 0,0)$ is a $3$-tuple fixed point of F.
Common $n$-tuple fixed point
============================
Now we define the concept of *weakly related* mappings on preordered spaces as follows:
(See [@gaba]) Let $(X,\preceq)$ be a preordered space, and $F:X^n\to X$ and $g:X\to X$ be two mappings. Then the pair $\{F,g\}$ is said to be **weakly related** if the following condition is satisfied:
1. $$F(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n,x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})\preceq gF(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n,x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})$$ and $$gx^i \preceq F(gx^i,gx^{i+1},\cdots,gx^n,gx^1,\cdots,gx^{i-1})$$ for all $1\leq i \leq n$.
Now we state and prove the first common $n$-tuple fixed point existence theorem for the weakly related mappings.
\[theorem2\] Let $(X, G)$ be a complete $G$-metric space, $\phi : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a bounded from above function and “$\preceq$" the preorder induced by $\phi$. Let $F : X^n \rightarrow X, n\geq 2$ and $g:X\to X$ be two sequentilally continuous mapping on $X$ such that the pair $\{F,g\}$ is weakly related. If there exist $n$ elements $x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^n \in X$ with
$$x_0^i \preceq F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1})\ \text{ for all } i, \ 1\leq i \leq n.$$ Then $F$ and $g$ have a common $n$-tuple fixed point in $X^n$.
Let $x_0^1,\cdots, x_0^n\in X$ $$\label{eq7}
x_0^i \preceq F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1})\ \ \text{ for all } i, \ 1\leq i \leq n.$$
We construct the sequences $(x_l^i)_l$ for $1\leq i \leq n$ as follows:
$$x_{2l+1}^i = F(x_{2l}^i,x_{2l}^{i+1},\cdots,x_{2l}^n,x_{2l}^1,\cdots,x_{2l}^{i-1})$$
and $$x_{2l+2}^i = gx_{2l+1}^i ,$$ for all $l\geq 0.$ We shall show that $$\label{eq9}
x_l^i \preceq x_{l+1}^i \ \ \ \text{ for all } l\geq 0.$$
Since $x_0^i \preceq F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1}) $, using , we have $x_0^i \preceq x_1^i.$ Again since the pair $\{F,g\}$ is weakly related, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
x_1^i = F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1}) &\preceq gF(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1})\\
&= gx^i_1 =x^i_2,
\end{aligned}$$
i.e $$x_1^i \preceq x^i_2 .$$
Also, since $gx_1^i\preceq F(gx_1^i,gx_1^{i+1},\cdots,gx_1^n,gx_1^1,\cdots,gx_1^{i-1}),$ we have
$$\begin{aligned}
x^i_2 = gx^i_1 &\preceq F(gx_1^i,gx_1^{i+1},\cdots,gx_1^n,Gx_1^1,\cdots,gx_1^{i-1}) \\
&= F(x_2^i,x_2^{i+1},\cdots,x_2^n,x_2^1,\cdots,x_2^{i-1}) = x_3^i,
\end{aligned}$$
i.e $$x_2^i \preceq x^i_3 .$$
Thus by mathematical induction we conclude that holds for all $l \geq 0$. Therefore $$x_0^i \preceq x_1^i \preceq x_2^i \preceq x_3^i \preceq \cdots \preceq x_l^i \preceq \cdots .$$
By definition of the preorder, we have
$$\phi(x_0^i) \leq \phi(x_1^i) \leq \phi(x_2^i) \leq \phi(x_3^i) \leq \cdots \leq \phi(x_l^i) \leq \cdots .$$
Hence, the sequence $(\phi(x^i_l ))$ is a non-decreasing sequence of real numbers. Since $\phi$ is bounded from above, the sequence $(\phi(x^i_l ))$ converges and is therefore Cauchy. This entails that for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for any $q>p>n_0 $ , we have $\phi(x^i_q ) - \phi(x^i_p ) < \epsilon$. Since whenever $q>p>n_0,$ $x^i_p \preceq x^i_q $ it follows that
$$G(x^i_p,x^i_q,x^i_q) \leq \phi(x^i_q ) - \phi(x^i_p ) < \epsilon.$$
We conclude that $(x^i_l )$ is a $G$-Cauchy sequence in $X$ and since $X$ is $G$-complete space, there exists $x^{*,i} \in X$ such that $ x^i_l \longrightarrow x^{*,i}$.
Since $F$ and $g$ are sequentially continuous, it is easy to see that
$$\begin{aligned}
x^i_{2l+1} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} & \Longleftrightarrow x^i_{2l+1}=F(x_{2l}^i,x_{2l}^{i+1},\cdots,x_{2l}^n,x_{2l}^1,\cdots,x_{2l}^{i-1})\longrightarrow x^{*,i} \\
& \Longleftrightarrow F(x^{*,i},x^{*,i+1},\cdots,x^{*,n},x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,i-1})= x^{*,i},
\end{aligned}$$
and
$$x^i_{2l+2} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} \Longleftrightarrow x^i_{2l+2} = gx^i_{2l+1} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} \Longleftrightarrow gx^{*,i}= x^{*,i}.$$
and hence $$gx^{*,i}= x^{*,i}=F(x^{*,i},x^{*,i+1},\cdots,x^{*,n},x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,i-1}).$$ Hence $(x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,n})$ is a common $n$-tuple fixed point of $F$ and $g$.
Let $X = [0, \infty)$ and $G(x, y,z) = \max\{|x - y|,|x-z|,|y-z|\}$, then $(X, G)$ is a complete $G$-metric space. For any positive real number $a$, let $\phi_a : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be defined by $\phi_a (x) = ax$, and $\preceq$ be the preorder induced by $\phi_a $. We define $F : X^n \rightarrow X$ and $g: X \rightarrow X$ as follows
$$F(x^1,x^2,\cdots,x^n) = x^1 + |\sin(x^1x^2\cdots, x^n)| \text{ and } gx= 5x$$
If we let $x_0^1=1$ and $x_0^i=0$ for $i=2,\cdots,n$ then $F(x_0^1,x_0^2,x_0^n)=1+0=1$ and $F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1})=0$ for $i=2,\cdots,n.$
So $$x_0^i \preceq F(x_0^i,x_0^{i+1},\cdots,x_0^n,x_0^1,\cdots,x_0^{i-1})\ \ \text{ for all } i, \ 1\leq i \leq n.$$
We have on one hand $$gF(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n,x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1}) =5(x^i+|\sin(x^1x^2\cdots, x^n)|),$$ i.e.
$$F(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n,x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1}) \preceq gF(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n,x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1}),$$
and on the other hand,
$$\begin{aligned}
F(gx^i,gx^{i+1},\cdots,gx^n,gx^1,\cdots,gx^{i-1}) &= F(5x^i,5x^{i+1},\cdots,5x^n,5x^1,\cdots,5x^{i-1})\\
&= 5x^i + |\sin(5^n x^1x^2\cdots, x^n)|,\end{aligned}$$
i.e.
$$gx^i \preceq F(gx^i,gx^{i+1},\cdots,gx^n,gx^1,\cdots,gx^{i-1}).$$ And so the pair $\{F, g\}$ is weakly related. Again, it is not hard to see that $F$ and $g$ are sequentially continuous mappings. Hence we see that all the conditions of Theorem \[theorem2\] are satisfied. Also we have
$$F(0,x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n,x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})=0$$ for $i=1,\cdots n$ and $g(0)=0$. Thus $\underset{n}{\underbrace{(0,\cdots,0)}}$ is a common $n$-tuple fixed point for $F$ and $g$.
Now, we present a result on $n$-tuple fixed point for a family of three maps.
\[theorem3\] Let $(X, d)$ be a complete $G$-metric space, $\phi : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a bounded from above function and “$\preceq$" the preorder induced by $\phi$. Let $F : X^n \rightarrow X,$ $n\geq 2$ and $G,H:X\to X$ be three sequentilally continuous mapping on $X$ such that the pairs $\{F,G\}$ and $\{F,H\}$ are weakly related. Then $F,H$ and $G$ have a $n$-tuple fixed point.
Let $x_0^1,\cdots, x_0^n\in X$. We construct the sequences $(x_l^i)_l$ in $X$ as follows:
$$Hx_{3l-3}^i = x_{3l-2}^i , \qquad x_{3l}^i = G x_{3l-1}^i$$
and $$x_{3l-1}^i = F(x^i_{3l-2},x^{i+1}_{3l-2}\cdots,x^n_{3l-2},x^1_{3l-2},\cdots,x^{i-1}_{3l-2})$$
for all $l\geq 1.$ We shall show that $$\label{eq10}
x_l^i \preceq x_{l+1}^i \ \ \ \text{ for all } l\geq 0.$$
We have $x_1^i= Hx_0^i $. Since the pair $\{F,H\}$ is weakly related, we have $$x_1^i= Hx_0^i \preceq F(Hx_0^i,Hx_0^{i+1},\cdots,Hx_0^n,Hx_0^1,\cdots,Hx_0^{i-1})=x_2^i.$$
Again since the pair $\{F,G\}$ is weakly related, we have $$\begin{aligned}
x_2^i &= F(Hx_0^i,Hx_0^{i+1},\cdots,Hx_0^n,Hx_0^1,\cdots,Hx_0^{i-1})\\ &\preceq GF(Hx_0^i,Hx_0^{i+1},\cdots,Hx_0^n,Hx_0^1,\cdots,Hx_0^{i-1})=Gx_2^i = x_3^i.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, using repeatedly the fact that the pairs $\{F, G\}$ and $\{F, H\}$ are weakly related, we get
$$x_0^i \preceq x_1^i \preceq x_2^i \preceq x_3^i \preceq \cdots \preceq x_l^i \preceq \cdots .$$
By definition of the preorder, we have
$$\phi(x_0^i) \preceq \phi(x_1^i) \preceq \phi(x_2^i) \preceq \phi(x_3^i) \preceq \cdots \preceq \phi(x_l^i) \preceq \cdots .$$
Hence, the sequence $(\phi(x^i_l ))$ is a non-decreasing sequence of real numbers. Since $\phi$ is bounded from above, the sequence $(\phi(x^i_l ))$ converges and is therefore Cauchy. This entails that for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for any $q>p>n_0 $ , we have $\phi(x^i_q ) - \phi(x^i_p ) < \epsilon$. Since whenever $q>p>n_0,$ $x^i_q \preceq x^i_p $ it follows that
$$d(x^i_p,x^i_x,x_q) \leq \phi(x^i_q ) - \phi(x^i_p ) < \epsilon.$$
We conclude that $(x^i_l )$ is a $G$-Cauchy sequence in $X$ and since $X$ is $G$-complete, there exists $x^{*,i} \in X$ such that $ x^i_l \longrightarrow x^{*,i}$. Since $F,G$ and $H$ are sequentially continuous, it is easy to see that
$$\begin{aligned}
x^i_{3l-1} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} & \Longleftrightarrow F(x_{3l-2}^i,x_{3l-2}^{i+1},\cdots,x_{3l-2}^n,x_{3l-2}^1,\cdots,x_{3l-2}^{i-1})\longrightarrow x^{*,i} \\
& \Longleftrightarrow F(x^{*,i},x^{*,i+1},\cdots,x^{*,n},x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,i-1})= x^{*,i},\end{aligned}$$
and
$$x^i_{3l} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} \Longleftrightarrow x^i_{3l} = Gx^i_{3l-1} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} \Longleftrightarrow Gx^{*,i}= x^{*,i},$$
and
$$x^i_{3l-2} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} \Longleftrightarrow x^i_{3l-2} = Hx^i_{3l-3} \longrightarrow x^{*,i} \Longleftrightarrow Hx^{*,i}= x^{*,i}.$$
Therefore $$Hx^{*,i}=Gx^{*,i}= x^{*,i}=F(x^{*,i},x^{*,i+1},\cdots,x^{*,n},x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,i-1}).$$
Hence $(x^{*,1},\cdots,x^{*,n})$ is a common $n$-tuple fixed point of $F,G$ and $H$.
Let $X = [0, \infty)$ and $d(x, y,z) =\max\{ |x - y|,|x-z|,|y-z|\}$, then $(X, d)$ is a complete $G$-metric space. For any positive real number $a$, let $\phi_a : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be defined by $\phi_a (x) = ax$, and $\preceq$ be the preorder induced by $\phi_a $. We define $F : X^n \rightarrow X$, $G: X \rightarrow X$ and $H: X \rightarrow X$ as follows
$$F(x^1,x^2,\cdots,x^n) = x^1 + |\sin(x^1x^2\cdots, x^n)|,\ Gx=5x \text{ , and } Hx= 6x.$$
The pairs $\{F, G\}$ and $\{F,H\}$ are weakly related. Again, it is not hard to see that $F,G$ and $G$ are $d$-sequentially continuous mappings on $X$. Hence we see that all the conditions of our theorem are satisfied. Also we have
$$F(0,x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n,x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})=0$$ for $i=1,\cdots n$ and $G(0)=0=H(0)$. Thus $\underset{n}{\underbrace{(0,\cdots,0)}}$ is a common $n$-tuple fixed point for $F, G$ and $H$.
Before we state our last result, we give the following definition:
(Compare [@gabao Definition 2.4]) Let $(X,\preceq)$ be a preordered set and $g,f : X \to X$. We say that the pair $\{g,f\}$ (in this order) is an **embedded pair** if $$g(x) \preceq f(g(x)), \text{ whenever } \ x\in X.$$
We shall say that the family $\{G_1, G_2, \cdots,G_n \}$ (in this order) is a **$n$-embedded chain** if for all $i=1,\cdots, n-1$, the pair $\{G_i,G_{i+1}\}$ is an embedded pair. Observe that an embedded pair is a $2$-embedded chain.
We shall say that the family $\{G_1, G_2, \cdots,G_n \}$ is a **dual $n$-embedded chain** if $\{G_1, G_2, \cdots,G_n \}$ and $\{G_n, G_{n-1}, \cdots,G_1 \}$ are $n$-embedded chains.
(Compare [@gabao Example 2.5]) Let $X=[2,\pi)$ with the usual order and consider the pairs $\mathcal{F}= \{ F_1(x)=3x, F_2(x)=5x\}$ and $\mathcal{G}=\{ G_1(x)=\sin x +1, G_2(x)=x^2\}$.
For any $x\in X,$ $$F_1(x)=3x \leq 5(3x)= F_2(F_1(x))\text { and } F_2(x)=5x \leq 3(5x)= F_1(F_2(x)),$$ showing that $\mathcal{F}$ is a dual $2$-embedded chain.
On the other way around $$x\in X, G_1(x)= \sin x +1 \leq (\sin x +1 )^2= G_2(G_1(x)),$$ showing that $\mathcal{G}$ is an embedded pair, while $$G_2(x)=x^2 > \sin (x^2) + 1= G_1(G_2(x)),$$ showing that $\mathcal{G}$ is not a dual $2$-embedded chain.
Using the same approach as suggested in the proof of Theorem \[theorem3\], one can easily establish that:
\[theorem4\] Let $(Y, d)$ be a complete $G$-metric space, $\phi : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a bounded from above function and “$\preceq$" the preorder induced by $\phi$. Let $F: Y^n \to Y$ and $G_i : Y \to Y; i= 2, \cdots ,r$ for $r> 2$ be $(r-1)+1$ sequentially continuous mapping on $Y$ such that the pairs $\{F, G_r\}; r= 2, 3 $ are weakly related. Moreover, we assume that $\{G_r, G_{r-1}, \cdots,G_3\}$ is an $r-2$-embedded chain. Then $F,G_2,\cdots, G_r $ have a common n-tuple fixed point in $Y$.
We give here a sketch of the proof.
Let $X_0^1,\cdots, X_0^n\in X$. Observe that the sequences $(X_l^i)_l$ in $Y$ constructed as follows:
$$G_rX^i_{rl-r} = X^i_{rl-r+1}, \cdots , G_3X^i_{rl-3}=X^i_{rl-2}, \ G_2X^i_{rl-1}=X^i_{rl}$$ and $$X^i_{rl-1} = F(X^i_{rl-2},X^{i+1}_{rl-2},\cdots,X^n_{rl-2},X^1_{rl-2},\cdots,X^{i-1}_{rl-2}),$$ for all $l\geq 1.$ are Cauchy and and since $Y$ is complete, there exist $X^{*,i}\in Y$ such that $X_l^i \longrightarrow X^{*,i} $.
Since $F$ and $G_2, \cdots, G_r$ are sequentially continuous, it is easy to see that
$$\begin{aligned}
X_{rl-1}^i \longrightarrow X^{*,i} & \Longleftrightarrow F(X_{rl-2}^i,X_{rl-2}^{i+1},\cdots,X_{rl-2}^n,X_{rl-2}^1,\cdots,X_{rl-2}^{i-1}) \longrightarrow X^{*,i} \\
& \Longleftrightarrow F(X^{*,i},X^{*,i+1},\cdots,X^{*,n}, X^{*,1}\cdots,X^{*,i-1})=X^{*,i}\end{aligned}$$
and $$X_{rl-r}^i \longrightarrow X^{*,i} \Longleftrightarrow X_{rl-k+1}^i=G_kX_{rl-k}^i \longrightarrow X^{*,i} \Longleftrightarrow G_kX^{*,i}=X^{*,i},$$ and hence $$G_k X^{*,i}= X^{*,i} = F(X^{*,i},X^{*,i+1},\cdots,X^{*,n}, X^{*,1}\cdots,X^{*,i-1}).$$
Hence $(X^{*,1},X^{*,2},\cdots,X^{*,n})$ is a common n-tuple fixed point of $F$ and $G_2,\cdots, G_r$.
(Compare [@gabao Example 2.7])
Let $X = [0, \infty)$ and $d(x, y,z) =\max\{ |x - y|,|x-z|,|y-z|\}$, then $(X, d)$ is a complete $G$-metric space. For any positive real number $a$, let $\phi_a: X\to \mathbb{R}$ be defined by $\phi_a(x)=ax$, and $\preceq$ the preorder induced by $\phi_a$. We define $F:X^n\to X$ and $G:X\to X$ as follows $$F (x^1,x^2,\cdots,x^n) = x^1 + |\sin(x^1x^2\cdots x^n)| \text{ and } G_k(x) = kx , k=2,\cdots, r, \ r>2.$$
For $k=1,2$ , we have on one hand,
$$G_kF(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n, x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1})=k(x^i + |\sin(x^1x^2\cdots x^n)|),$$ i.e. $$F(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n, x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1}) \preceq G_kF(x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots,x^n, x^1,\cdots,x^{i-1}),$$
and on the other hand,
$$\begin{aligned}
F(G_kx^i,G_kx^{i+1},\cdots,G_kx^n, G_kx^1,\cdots,G_kx^{i-1})&=
F(kx^i,kx^{i+1},\cdots,kx^n, kx^1,\cdots,kx^{i-1})\\
& =kx^i+|\sin(k^nx^1x^2\cdots x^n)|,
\end{aligned}$$
i.e. $$G_kx^i\preceq F(G_kx^i,G_kx^{i+1},\cdots,G_kx^n, G_kx^1,\cdots,G_kx^{i-1}).$$
And so the pair $\{F,G_k\}$ are weakly-related for $k=2,3$. Again, it is not hard to see that $F$ and $G_k, k=2,\cdots, r,$ are sequentially continuous mappings on $X$.
Moreover, for any $x\in[0,\infty), \ kx \leq k(k-1) x, k=2,\cdots, r,$ implying that $\{G_r, G_{r-1}, \cdots,G_3\}$ is an an $r-2$-embedded chain. Hence we see that all the conditions of our theorem are satisfied.
Also we have $$F (0, x^i,x^{i+1},\cdots, x^n,x^1,\cdots,x^{i-2}) = 0= G_k(0)$$ for $k=2,\cdots,r$ and for $i=1,2,\cdots,n$.
Thus $\underbrace{(0,\cdots,0)}_\text{n}$ is a common n-tuple fixed point of $F,G_2,\cdots, G_r $.
[99]{}
M. Ertürk, V. Karakaya; *$n$-tuple fixed point theorems for contractive type mappings in partially ordered metric spaces*, J. Inequal. Appl. 2013, 196 (2013).
Y. U. Gaba; *Order theoretic common n-tuple Fixed Point*, Advances in Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2017.
Y. U. Gaba; *An order theoretic approach in fixed point theory*, Math. Sci. (2014) 8:87-93.
Y. U. Gaba and E. F. Kazeem; *n-tuple fixed point via left-weakly related mappings* Indian Journal of Mathematics Volume 58, No. 2, 2016, 147-164.
Z. Mustafa and B. Sims; *A new approach to generalized metric spaces*, Journal of Nonlinear Convex Analysis, 7 (2006), 289–297.
H. Rahimi, S. Radenović, G. Soleimani Rad, *Cone metric type space and new coupled fixed point theorems*, Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Optimization (JNAO). 6 (1) (2015) 1-9.
H. Rahimi, P. Vetro, G. Soleimani Rad, *Coupled fixed-point results for $T$-contractions on cone metric spaces with applications*, Mathematical Notes. 98 (1) (2015), 158-167.
A. Roldan, J. Martinez-Moreno, C. Roldan, E. Karapinar, *Some remarks on multidimensional fixed point theorems*, Fixed Point Theory, 15 (2)(2014) 545-558.
B. Samet, E. Karapinar, H. Aydi, C. Rajic, *Discussion on some coupled fixed point theorems*, Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013, 2013:50.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Societies’ norms of operation relies on the proper and secure functioning of several critical infrastructures, particularly modern power grid which is also known as smart grid. Smart grid is interwoven with the information and communication technology infrastructure, and thus it is exposed to cyber security threats. Intrusion tolerance proves a promising security approach against malicious attacks and contributes to enhance the resilience and security of the key components of smart grid, mainly SCADA and control centers. Hence, an intrusion tolerant system architecture for smart grid control centers is proposed in this paper. The proposed architecture consists of several modules namely, replication & diversity, compromised/faulty replica detector, reconfiguration, auditing and proxy. Some of distinctive features of the proposed ITS are diversity as well as the combined and fine-grained rejuvenation approach. The security of the proposed architecture is evaluated with regard to availability and mean time to security failure as performance measures. The analysis is conducted using a Discrete Time Semi Markov Model and the acquired results show improvements compared to two established intrusion tolerant architectures. The viability of SLA as another performance metric is also investigated.'
address:
- 'Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia'
- 'Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia'
author:
- Maryam Tanha
- Fazirulhisyam Hashim
- 'S.Shamala'
- Khairulmizam Samsudin
title: Highly Available Smart Grid Control Centers through Intrusion Tolerance
---
Smart grid security,Control center,Availability,SCADA,Intrusion tolerance.
Introduction
============
In recent decade, the growing dependence of critical infrastructures on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and open standards has raised serious concerns about security issues. Future power grid also known as smart grid exemplifies one of these critical infrastructures. In addition to environmental benefits by using renewable energy resources to reduce the carbon footprint as well as the economic merits for both utilities and consumers (through dynamic pricing and active end-user participation), an outstanding feature of smart grid is the integration of fast, dependable and secure data communication networks to control and monitor the intricate power systems in an effective and intelligent way[@Wang20113604]. The cyber-physical dependencies (i.e., the combination of the legacy power grid and the communication networks and their interdependencies)[@Chen2012], large-scale operation, heterogeneity and complexity[@Mo2012; @Amin2005; @Liu2012a] along with sophisticated and novel attacks pose grave and new threats to the mission critical applications in particular the smart grid. Moreover, the security objectives of the smart grid differ from the ICT security goals in their order of significance. Availability and continuity of service is the main security priority[@Liu2012]. Even the Quality of Service (QoS) requirements are different from ICT pre-requisites. Message delay is of great importance in smart grid whereas the data throughput receives special attention in the Internet[@Yan2012]. On top of all the mentioned issues, the widespread and socioeconomic impacts of malfunction or failure of the smart grid resulting from accidental or malicious events mandate more automatic and robust security solutions[@Verissimo2006; @Bessani2008c].
The prime goal of any cyber-physical system such as smart grid is to offer smooth control over some physical process [@Sridhar2012] which will result in considering availability and integrity as the overriding security attributes. Thus, attacks on the control systems of cyber-physical systems can adversely affect their security and reliability. Some of the recent high-profile attacks have been mainly targeted at critical infrastructure control systems and crucial organizations. The Stuxnet worm, emerged in July 2010, aimed to control critical infrastructures. It exploited a vulnerability in MS Windows and attempted to modify the code running in Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs)[@Karnouskos2011; @Seo2011]. Duqu, nearly a similar malware to Stuxnet, came into the spotlight in 2011. It acted as a Remote Access Trojan (RAT) with the purpose of information gathering but not specifically targeted at control systems. Nevertheless, among the compromised organizations were “manufacturing of industrial control systems”[@tagkey20113; @tagkey20123]. The most recent and novel threat (made public in May 2012), called FLAME[@SKyWIperAnalysisTeam2012], was a sophisticated and state-of-the-art malware with a modular structure able to perform information theft and took advantage of many attack and propagation methods. This espionage malware’s end was some governmental organizations in Iran[@Xxa].
All the aforementioned security concerns and incidents serve as contributing factors to change our mind set about the level of security that can be achieved through present security mechanisms especially for critical infrastructures. Conventional security approaches (i.e., prevention and detection) proved insufficient to tackle the security problems[@Bessani2008c], thus underscoring the need for a more resilient and robust security approach. To satisfy the mentioned security requirements, a promising mechanism called intrusion tolerance has come to existence. Thus, this approach to security has received considerable attention in recent years[@Verissimo2006; @Bessani2008c; @Nguyen201124; @Raj2011; @Uemura2010; @Bessani2011a; @Sousa2010; @Deswarte2006432; @Nagarajan2010a; @Bangalore2009a; @Saidane2009a]. However, as stated in[@springerlink:10.1007/3-540-45177-3_1], the first usage of the term “intrusion tolerance” dates back to 1985 in[@Fraga1985203] by Fraga and Powell. Intrusion tolerance is concerned with the fact that there is always probable for a system to be vulnerable to security compromise as well as for some attacks to be launched successfully on a system[@Verissimo2006]. In spite of these assumptions, intrusion tolerance mechanisms ensure that the system prolongs its normal activities (or acts in a degraded mode providing only essential services) even when it is under attack or partially compromised. Thus, rather than preventing intrusions from happening in the system, they are permitted but tolerated by adopting and triggering appropriate mechanisms such as redundancy, diversity, rejuvenation, and so on. These techniques result in masking, removing or recovering from intrusions and preclude them from turning into security failures[@springerlink:10.1007/3-540-45177-3_1]. Consequently, the system remains highly survivable to malicious attacks and intrusions. Therefore, intrusion tolerance can be considered as a last resort security solution when other security measures fail to accomplish their intended purpose.
To the best of our knowledge the significance of intrusion tolerance as a prospective security mechanism for smart grid has only been pointed out in the research carried out in[@Sridhar2012] and[@Overman2011c]. This paper highlights the importance of intrusion tolerance approach which raises the possibilities for enhancing the security of critical components in the smart grid, particularly control centers and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. Hence, an Intrusion Tolerant System (ITS) architecture is proposed to strengthen and enhance the level of security in such systems. In addition, the security attributes of the proposed architecture are evaluated using a semi Markov model.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec: smart grid cyber security\] highlights the security of the smart grid communication infrastructure especially in control centers. This section places an emphasis on the need for a robust defense-in-depth security approach to be adopted in smart grid control centers taking into account the limitations of the fundamental security mechanisms. Therefore, intrusion tolerance is introduced as a promising security solution for smart grid. Section \[sec: intrusion tolerance for smart grid\] provides a detailed analysis of intrusion tolerance. The difference between intrusion tolerance and fault tolerance along with classical security mechanisms (i.e., prevention and detection) are deliberated. The most commonly used intrusion intrusion tolerance techniques are presented as well as a comparison is made between some of existing ITS architectures. In Section \[sec: proposed architecture\], a detailed discussion on the proposed intrusion tolerant architecture for smart grid control centers is presented. The performance of the proposed architecture is evaluated analytically and compared with established ITSs in Section \[sec: performance analysis\]. Finally, Section \[sec: conclusion\] draws the conclusion.
Smart Grid Cyber Security as a Cyber Physical System {#sec: smart grid cyber security}
====================================================
As we mentioned in the earlier section, smart grid is the modernized power grid that is inextricably interwoven with information and communication technology. Advanced features of such a complex system of systems include, but not limited to, two-way communications between customers and utilities, Demand Response (DR), Distributed Energy Resources (DER), sophisticated sensing technologies and real-time control and monitoring[@Fan2012] along with self-healing capabilities. Enabling these functionalities requires an effective, reliable, secure and resilient communication infrastructure[@Li2012]. Figure \[fig:SmartGridInfra\] demonstrates a general view of smart grid communication infrastructure. Home Area Networks (HANs) and Business Area Networks (BANs) comprise the level of communication infrastructure which is in close proximity to the electricity consumers. This section of the smart grid communication infrastructure enables DR and active participation of end users through the use of smart meters. Geographically close HANs or BANs make up another level of the smart grid infrastructure hierarchy called neighborhood area network (NAN). It contributes to the exchange and sharing of information between electricity distribution facilities and consumers’ premises. Finally, Wide Area Network (WAN) furnishes the smart grid infrastructure with the backbone to transmit control commands and monitoring signals from control centers, SCADA systems in particular, to electric devices located in substations as well as the real-time measurements from electric devices to the control centers. It encompasses several NANs each formed under one substation[@Wang20113604].
![Smart grid communication infrastructure.[]{data-label="fig:SmartGridInfra"}](SmartGridInfra){width="3.4in"}
Smart grid is regarded as a cyber-physical system, i.e., it is a system in which cyber security attacks can give rise to disruptions that go beyond the cyber domain and impact the physical world[@Mo2012]. In other words, security attacks may occur in both the physical space (i.e., the traditional power grid) and cyber space (i.e., the communication networks). Security in both physical and cyber domains is one of the principal objectives of the smart grid[@Li2012]. The U.S Department of Energy (DoE) has recognized attack resistance as one of the salient features needed for the operation of the smart grid[@Chen2012]. Using open standard software and protocols have opened avenues for attackers to pose dire threats to different sections of smart grid communication infrastructure particularly, SCADA systems. Furthermore, the escalating number of electrical outages and brown-outs worldwide during the last decade proved the power grid to be a potential target for malicious attacks. The cascaded power outages have arisen in Europe[@Pearson20115211] as well as the ones come up in the United States and other countries[@Amin2005; @Amin2012] are the consequences of such intrusive measures.
Control centers are considered as the brain of the smart grid[@Zeng2012]. They are in charge of data analysis and decision making[@Chen2012]. Based on the assembled data, they make appropriate adjustments to power supply to satisfy demand as well as spot and respond to the defects or failures by sending control commands to field devices[@Li2012]. SCADA and Energy Management System (EMS) as the key components in control centers play a pivotal role in the proper operation of smart grid, any malfunction or failure of these systems may result in widespread and devastating effects (e.g., power outage, cascading blackouts) on industry, economy and people’s daily life. Other possible consequence of the control centers disruption is loss of consumer and public trust[@Zeng2012]. Therefore, the correct functioning of these systems in exigent security circumstances are of paramount importance. Several attacks on SCADA systems have been investigated in[@Nicholson2012418] according to their perpetrators as well as the industry sectors influenced by such attacks. Energy sector had been noticeably impacted by the SCADA incidents and attacks compared to the other industry sectors. The risks associated with the SCADA system that a government or company may faced with can be considered as financial loss or even injury or loss of life. Defects such as unpatched software, software bugs, buffer overflows and poor administration contributes to launching attacks against the SCADA systems. Two of the dire threats to SCADA/EMS are considered as Denial of Service (DoS) and unauthorized access/integrity breach[@Nicholson2012418]. These threats will result in the unreliability of the control signals from the monitoring system in addition to the measurement data gathered in the smart grid that are used for pricing or state estimation purposes. The possible ramifications would be massive brownouts or blackouts. For instance, SQLSlammer worm is a serious DoS attack against the control systems in the smart grid and any critical infrastructure. Thanks to the time-criticality of the communication and control in smart grid, a delay of a few seconds (following from an availability attack) may lead to irreparable harm to the national economy and security[@Li2012]. Figure \[fig:ControlCenter\] shows a control center which supervises multiple substations in smart grid[@Wei2011c]. The key components of the control center (i.e., SCADA/EMS) and the substations, including PLC, Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) and Intelligent Electronic Device (IED) are shown as well.
![Control center and substations in smart grid.[]{data-label="fig:ControlCenter"}](ControlCenter){width="3.4in"}
The significance of a defense-in-depth security approach for smart grid has been highlighted in several published papers[@Seo2011; @Overman2011c; @Amin2012; @Ericsson2010] since it requires the adversaries to spend a great deal of time and effort to evade different layers of defense. This layered approach would involve the adoption of best cyber security practices such as firewalls, Role-Based Access Control (RBAC), cryptography, Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDPS), and so on. However, these security mechanisms are subject to certain restrictions concerning their scope of operation and effectiveness. In addition to the limitations associated with the classical security approaches, there are other factors that impose restrictions on using some of these mechanisms in SCADA systems. Since the SCADA systems hinge on timely presentation of data, firewalls and anti-viruses may reduce the speed of data flow and subsequently lead to decreasing the accuracy of SCADA systems. In such circumstances, the SCADA operators tend to deactivate or bypass these security mechanisms. Furthermore, patching SCADA systems is a tricky task due to introducing unknown impacts into the system that probably violate their correct operation and availability as well as the lack of comprehensive test environments. Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDSs) may compensate for such a limitation[@Nicholson2012418].
Cohesive Intrusion Tolerance for Smart Grid {#sec: intrusion tolerance for smart grid}
===========================================
As stated in the previous section, intrusion tolerance shows enormous potential to be adopted and deployed in smart grid control centers. Intrusion tolerance and its paradigms enable secure and normal operation of the smart grid control centers, even when the system is being attacked or partially compromised. The primary goal is to tolerate malicious events and sustained attacks as well as masking, removing or recovering from intrusions. Thus, intrusion tolerance measures avert security failures and aid to maintain the availability of the system. Moreover, intrusion tolerance places emphasis on the impact of the attack rather than the cause of it.
A General Misconception about Intrusion Tolerance
-------------------------------------------------
Some people may have a preconception about intrusion tolerance that leads to considering fault tolerance and intrusion tolerance as the same concepts. But in fact, fault tolerance can be considered as a predecessor of intrusion tolerance. Although these mechanisms have similarities especially in the techniques that they are using, some differences exist. The distinction between these two approaches lies in the nature of possible faults in a system. Fault is an imperfection or defect in the system that can give rise to an error which may result in a subsequent failure. Based on the definition of fault in[@Deswarte2006432; @Sterbenz20101245], it is viable to categorize faults into non-malicious and malicious. Non-malicious faults include accidental design flaws (e.g., software bug), deliberate design defects following from constraints such as cost, environmental or natural perturbations or even a mistakenly action carried out by a distracted operator. It is apparent that these types of faults are infrequent and occur at random. Fault tolerance deals with this class of faults. In contrast, a malicious fault, also called an intrusion, is an intentional operational fault that stems from a successful attack on a system vulnerability. Intrusion tolerance should handle malicious faults, i.e., intrusions that are prevalent in information and communication systems and also critical infrastructures such as smart grid.
Intrusion Tolerance versus Classical Security Mechanisms
--------------------------------------------------------
Intrusion tolerance is commonly referred to as the third generation of security technologies[@springerlink:10.1007/978-3-642-23971-7_36] which provides complementary features to conventional security mechanisms, i.e., prevention and detection. Some of the driving forces behind the increasing tendency for employing intrusion tolerance techniques are as follows:
- The growing number of novel and zero-day attacks and, thus the infeasibility to prevent or detect all intrusions in an effective manner[@Verissimo2006]
- The sheer complexity of the systems that makes it impossible to pinpoint all of their vulnerabilities prior to coming into operation [@Saidane2009a]
- Preventive security measures such as firewall, access control, authentication and authorization mechanisms are mainly proactive [@Uemura2010] and do not guarantee perfect protection[@Verissimo2006]
- Intrusion detection techniques including misuse detection and anomaly detection are based on property checks (i.e., comparing observed activity with known patterns of attacks or normal behavior of the system) [@Deswarte2006432] and may result in high false positive or false negative rates
- Detection methods are predominantly reactive with limited automated defense capabilities and require human intervention to conduct a post-mortem and deal with the identified security threats[@Wang2003b]. This may lead to a slow reaction in the face of attacks that require to be dealt with immediately (especially in critical systems such as smart grid control centers)
In regard to the aforementioned issues and the fact that downtime, failure or malfunction of the smart grid control centers is not acceptable and must be kept at minimum, there is an urgent need for more automatic and resilient security approaches. Therefore, intrusion tolerance through appropriate means (e.g., redundancy, dynamic and adaptive rejuvenation and reconfiguration) is vital to fulfill the security and survivability requirements of the smart grid.
Paradigms of Intrusion Tolerance
--------------------------------
Figure \[fig:IntrusionToleranceParadigms\] illustrates several common paradigms of intrusion. These techniques assist in achieving the goal of intrusion tolerance which is provisioning correct service despite the presence of active attacks and intrusions. Although utilizing these methods incurs substantial costs such as performance costs, administration and maintenance costs, no expense is spared employing them in mission critical systems such as smart grid control centers in which adverse effects of intrusions may lead to higher expenses or even irrecoverable losses. The description of the most widely used paradigms of intrusion tolerance are as follows:
![Paradigms of intrusion tolerance.[]{data-label="fig:IntrusionToleranceParadigms"}](IntrusionToleranceParadigms){width="3.4in"}
### Redundancy
Redundancy is defined as allotting additional resources to a system that are more than its usual needs in normal functioning situations. There exists different types of redundancy including space redundancy, time redundancy and information redundancy among which space redundancy (i.e., physical resource redundancy or replication) has received considerable attention. In fact, replication is an indispensable part of intrusion tolerant systems. Replicated systems usually operate based on Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) protocols, i.e., a system contains $n$ replicas is able to work properly even if $f<n$ replicas undergo arbitrary faults ($f$ is the number of tolerable faulty replicas)[@Bessani2011a]. However, redundancy suffers from the underlying problem of fate sharing for replicas[@Sterbenz20101245; @Wang2003b]. If an adversary locates and exploits a vulnerability in one replica, it is highly likely that all replicas are susceptible to the same threat.
### Diversity
To alleviate the problem of fate sharing associated with redundancy, it is common to employ diversity as a complementary technique to redundancy. Diversity equips the replicas with security failure independence. Diversity also has some variants such as space diversity, time diversity and implementation diversity. Operating System diversity (OS diversity) has gained momentum to be adopted in intrusion tolerant systems. The reason is twofold. First, the availability, less complexity and cost-effectiveness of using various operating systems to provide diversity makes them an appropriate choice for applying diversity to ITSs. Second, many intrusions are concerned with vulnerabilities of different operating systems due their pivotal role in any system[@Garcia2011a]. Operating system can be considered as one of the vulnerable parts of a system regardless of the robustness of the software running on top of it[@Obelheiro2006].
### Dynamic recovery and reconfiguration
One of the contributing factors to intrusion tolerance is to dynamically reconfigure the replicas. This reconfiguration may involve measures such as rejuvenation (i.e., recovery), modifying the system’s posture, rollover and load sharing among which rejuvenation is widely employed in ITSs. Rejuvenation involves the restoration of a replica to a pristine state to eliminate the likely effects of intrusions or faults[@Wang2003b]. This may include the modification of the cryptographic keys or loading a clean copy of the operating system and applications[@Sousa2010].
Although the BFT protocols are effective in holding up the failure of the overall replicated system by a specific amount of time, they are highly dependent on the value of $f$ and the degree of diversity in the replicated system[@Bessani2011a]. Increasing the $f$ incurs more cost on the system as well as it necessitates the rise of diversity degree which has a limited scope (e.g., in case of OS diversity, the number of existing operating systems are limited). Rejuvenation is considered as an acceptable solution to the mentioned problems by decreasing the value of $f$ and the duration of time the attacker has at his disposal to corrupt more than $f$ replicas. Moreover, the constant availability requirement along with the unknown execution time of critical infrastructures such as smart grid underline the need for a kind of recovery mechanism to make sure that the allowed maximum number of compromised components is not violated. However, for the rejuvenation to be effective, the rejuvenation rate should be kept more than the intrusion rate[@Sousa2006]. Another point is that the allowed number of faulty or compromised replicas (i.e., $f$) is an upper bound on the number of concurrent rejuvenations. The availability is violated when the total number of compromised replicas and the rejuvenations in progress exceeds $f$. Therefore, the total number of replicas should be more than $n$ (as in BFT systems) to satisfy the availability requirements[@Sousa2008].
Rejuvenation would have a superior impact on enhancing the security of the system if it is combined with diversity (e.g., restoring the replica with a clean version of a different OS). This is due to the fact that the recovery process may eliminate the impacts of fault or intrusion but there is no guarantee that the rejuvenated replica compromised again exploiting the same vulnerability. The situation would get aggravated if the adversary has gained critical information (e.g., passwords, OS version) prior to the rejuvenation that may result in a more sophisticated form of attack following the recovery. Rejuvenation can possess two different forms as follows:
1. Proactive rejuvenation: Proactive recovery is the process of periodically rejuvenating the replicas. It assists in the identification of dormant faults (these faults may not even detected through detection mechanisms) or masking intrusions and should be conducted frequently sufficient to restrain the adversary from infecting more than $f$ replicas during a proactive recovery period (assuming that no reactive recovery performed in this period). The downside of this method is that it may not be effective in an asynchronous system since the attacker can postpone the recovery of a compromised replica by manipulating the system’s clock. As a result, he/she will have adequate time to compromise more replicas than the system is able to tolerate[@Sousa2010]. Another possibility is that the attacker may be able to intrude the components at a rate faster than rejuvenation[@Sousa2006].
2. Reactive rejuvenation: This kind of rejuvenation complements the proactive recovery by speeding up the process of handling compromised replicas. It is usually triggered by intrusion detection mechanisms to rejuvenate the suspected and faulty replicas. If a compromised replica cannot be identified by the adopted detection mechanisms in the system, there is no way to signal the reactive recovery to be performed. Hence, the intrusion will go undetected without raising any suspicion [@springerlink:10.1007/978-3-642-23971-7_36].
### Voting
Voting algorithms are employed to reach a consensus on the valid and final output of non-faulty redundant components in an ITS. Using some criteria such as edit distance (e.g., hamming distance) and hash codes make the comparison feasible. Voting contributes to masking and tolerating intrusions. Formalized majority voting and formalized plurality voting are some of these algorithms[@Wang2003b].
### Secret sharing scheme
Secret sharing or threshold scheme is based on the idea of concealing a piece of information by splitting it into several shares and distributing among participants in a manner that specific subsets of the shares are required to rebuild the initial data[@AlEbri2011]. In regard to application in ITSs, the secret data can be the main information or the associated cryptographic key. The former entails storing the data shares in separate physical locations in a way that the confidentiality is maintained and the original information can be rebuilt even if a certain number of shares infected or compromised by attackers. In the second case, the key used to encrypt the data is broken down into shares so that a particular number of shares are needed to reconstruct the original key and access the data[@Wang2003b].
### Acceptance testing
Having different forms, including requirement test, reasonableness test, timing test, accounting test and coding test, acceptance testing is a programmer or developer-provided error detection function in a software module to inspect the reasonableness of the generated results. This technique similar to redundancy and diversity has its root in the fault tolerance. However, being application dependent is regarded as one of the drawbacks of this technique. Therefore, creating appropriate and effective tests necessitates understanding the system painstakingly. More details on the acceptance testing measures can be found in[@Wang20031399].
### Indirection
Proxies, wrappers and virtualization are some of the indirection techniques that serve as additional layers of defense between servers and clients. In spite of their benefits, they incur the cost of overhead and latency so these factors should be taken into account when designing the system[@Wang2003b].
Intrusion Tolerant Architectures
--------------------------------
During the last decade, various research have been conducted on intrusion tolerance and multiple intrusion tolerant architectures with specific features and applications have been proposed. The Willow architecture[@Knight2003a], COCA[@Zhou2002], DIT[@Valdes2003], MAFTIA[@Stroud2004a] , SITAR[@Wang2003a], SCIT[@Bangalore2009a], Crutial[@Bessani2008c], FOREVER [@Sousa2008] and Generic intrusion tolerant architecture for web servers[@Saidane2009a] exemplify a number of the proposed ITS architectures. Some of these architectures are application-specific. For instance, the goal of COCA is to provide a secure and fault-tolerant certification authority (CA) while Crutial is a distributed firewall-like intrusion tolerant system for critical infrastructures protection such as power grid. But primarily, enhancing the security and availability of distributed services, Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) servers and critical information systems have called for designing such architectures. The intrusion tolerance paradigms introduced in the previous section are commonly used in intrusion tolerant systems. Hence, they can be utilized to analyze and compare different intrusion tolerant architectures. Some representatives of existing ITS architectures have been compared by conducting qualitative analyses in[@Nguyen201124; @Raj2011]. Table \[table\_ITS architecture comparison\] depicts such analysis but with emphasis on the paradigms of intrusion tolerance employed in several ITSs. The spectrum of architectures have distinct features. We have developed a comparative analysis to enable a clear reflection of their respective attributes. Moreover, our provided comparison encompasses a higher volume of ITSs. As it can be seen, replication and diversity are the techniques adopted by almost all the ITSs. Although design diversity (e.g., using different versions of OS) is the dominant type of diversity used by the ITSs, FOREVER and Crutial can employ time diversity (i.e., rejuvenation introduces diversity). Some ITSs such as FOREVER, Willow and Crutial apply a combined recovery method, that is, both proactive and reactive recovery whereas others like Self Cleansing Intrusion Tolerance (SCIT) only use proactive recovery. To the best of our knowledge, none of the existing ITS utilizes the fine-grained recovery strategy introduced in[@springerlink:10.1007/978-3-642-23971-7_36]. One of the indirection techniques that is widely preferred is the use of proxies as the mediator between the COTS servers and the outside network. Intrusion detection whether anomaly-based or signature-based are very common among the ITSs. Byzantine agreement algorithms and secret sharing are the other intrusion tolerant mechanisms that have been implemented in some of the architectures. Among the ITSs shown in Table 1, SCIT and Scalable Intrusion Tolerant Architecture for Distributed Services (SITAR) have drawn more attention in published intrusion tolerance research and investigated with regard to their performance[@Garcia2011a; @Obelheiro2006; @Sousa2006; @Sousa2008].
One of the formidable challenges that the ITSs must handle is their self-security against malicious manipulations and attacks. Therefore, several methods/modules in the ITSs are employed to meet this challenge some of them are as follows:
- Sensor subsystem, runtime verification and private subnet between the proxy and other components in DIT architecture
- Audit control in SITAR
- One-way signal from controller to the servers in SCIT
- Distributed trust throughout the system in MAFTIA
- Wormhole in Crutial and FOREVER
- Runtime verification in the Generic ITS for web servers
Other important issues that should be addressed include the complexity, performance and cost. For instance, the relative complexity of SITAR is high whereas the associated complexity of SCIT is low[@Nguyen201124]. Desired performance metrics are chosen with regard to the application. In case of the smart grid, increased complexity of the ITS may be an advantage for the system since it makes it difficult for the attackers to break into the system. However, the complexity of a proposed ITS architecture for smart grid should not considerably degrade the desired performance of it. For instance, delay is of paramount importance for the communications from control centers to substations[@Wei2011c]. In addition, the degree of redundancy and diversity are policy-dependent and should be set at the deployment time.
Proposed ITS Architecture for Smart Grid Control Centers {#sec: proposed architecture}
========================================================
Typical ITSs have single primary focus such as SITAR, which is detection triggered, and SCIT, which is recovery based. Moreover, as it has been shown in Table 1, none of the existing ITS architectures employs the fine-grained rejuvenation approach. These issues along with the specific requirements of the smart grid control centers (e.g., delay sensitivity) underscore the need for a new ITS architecture that suits the smart grid control centers. The proposed ITS for SCADA systems in smart grid encompasses a rich blend of a wide spectrum of different intrusion tolerance techniques. As illustrated in Figure \[fig:proposedITS\], the proposed system comprises five modules, namely replication & diversity module, auditing module, compromised/faulty replica detector module, reconfiguration module and proxy module. The role and working principles of the aforementioned modules are elucidated in the following sections. It should be noted that to avoid the proposed ITS from being compromised by the intruders, it is assumed that all the components’ tasks and their communications are performed in a trusted platform. Proxy module also helps to enhance the security of the ITS.
![The proposed ITS Architecture.[]{data-label="fig:proposedITS"}](proposedITS){width="3.4in"}
Replication and Diversity Module
--------------------------------
The replication module consists of a number of replicas for a critical entity in the SCADA systems of the smart grid such as Master Terminal Unit (MTU). The number of replicas should be at least $2f + 1$ to tolerate $f$ intrusions. In this module, the number of replicas is assumed to be $2f + 1 + K$ and the value of $f$ ($f\geqslant1$) and $k$ are indicated in the deployment time. The same approach also used to design a distributed firewall-like protection device named Crutial Information Switch (CIS) in[@Bessani2008c]. The reason why the value of $k$ is added to the number of replicas will be given in the reconfiguration module section. It should be noted that all replicas have OS diversity to decrease the probability of sharing the same vulnerabilities. OS is considered a vital element of each replica on account of hosting the SCADA system. Thus, any misconfiguration or vulnerability in OS may bring down the SCADA system and causes the adversaries achieve breakthroughs[@Nicholson2012418].
Compromised/Faulty Replica Detector
-----------------------------------
This module aims at examining the responses/outputs of the replicas to identify possible infected/compromised ones. It is composed of the following two sub modules:
1. Inspector: Acceptance testing as an intrusion tolerance technique is entailed in the inspector module. It involves application-specific checks with regard to the security policy to ensure the sanity of outgoing data from the replicas. Any symptom of security compromise detected by it will trigger the reactive recovery sub module in the reconfiguration module.
2. Voting: This sub module is intended for masking the impacts of intrusions as well as ensuring the integrity of replicas’ outputs. Based on a voting algorithm, it seeks for the correct output by comparing the redundant outputs from the active replicas that passed the inspector successfully. In this way, it will arrive at a consensus on the final desired output to be passed to the proxy module. This output can be a command or information from the SCADA critical components destined for a particular field device in smart grid. The invalid outputs will trigger the reactive recovery sub module of the reconfiguration module for their corresponding replicas.
Reconfiguration Module
----------------------
Reconfiguration module consists of two sub modules namely, automatic rejuvenation and manual restoration. When the proposed ITS is able to mask an intrusion, it leverages the automatic rejuvenation sub module, otherwise it takes advantage of manual restoration which involves human intervention. Manual restoration happens when for instance the system is targeted by DoS attacks and only capable of provisioning the essential services (graceful degradation). The sub modules descriptions are as follows:
1. Automatic rejuvenation: In this module, a combined rejuvenation approach (i.e., proactive-reactive recovery) has been used to compensate for the shortcomings of the two aforementioned rejuvenation approaches, i.e, reactive and proactive recovery. Thus, it will enhance the performance of the system through decreasing the possible duration of time a compromised replica may disrupt the normal operation of the system[@Sousa2010]. Automatic rejuvenation module enables the concurrent rejuvenation of at most $k$ replicas out of $2f+1+k$ (total number of replicas). The assumption for the total number of replicas eliminates the impact of compromised replicas (at most $f$) and recovery on the availability of the system. Proactive recovery (at the system level) is performed periodically through choosing an active replica based on smallest rejuvenation time stamp. Note that at most one replica is allowed to undergo this type of recovery at a time. Figure \[fig:proactiveRecovery\] shows the proactive rejuvenation mechanism. Reactive rejuvenation complements the proactive recovery. For reactive recovery, we have been inspired by a hierarchical recovery method that has been proposed recently in[@springerlink:10.1007/978-3-642-23971-7_36]. It encompasses three levels of recovery granularity, namely system level, object level and process level recovery. This model eliminates the need for complete recovery when the system is partly compromised. The merits of this model can be considered as reduced total recovery time, improved flexibility and dependability. In our system, reactive recovery can be triggered externally and at the system level by the compromised/faulty replica detector module (and may introduce diversity) or internally (within a replica) in a hierarchical and fine-grained fashion (including process level recovery and system level recovery) almost similar to the strategy proposed in[@springerlink:10.1007/978-3-642-23971-7_36]. The maximum potential number of replicas that can be under system level reactive recovery is $k$. Figure \[fig:processLevelrecovery\] depicts process level recovery. Process manager (can act as a type of Host-based IDS which features self-healing capabilities) is a module executed in each active replica to handle the process level recovery. There are two sets of processes, namely active set (includes running processes) and standby set. Based on a timeout period, the process manager examines the pool of active processes. In the event of finding any suspected process, it will obtain the relevant checkpoint, kills the process and activates its peer from the standby set (if there is any) otherwise the system level recovery will be performed. The process level recovery is time-saving compared to system level recovery as well as it is more secure since it involves internal information and communication exchange in a machine. Moreover, it does not require the replica to go offline for performing the recovery.
2. Manual restoration: This sub module is triggered when the intrusion (whether detected or not) is non-maskable (e.g., more than $f$ replicas have been compromised). This may cause the system to be in graceful degradation mode, stopped functioning mode or complete failure mode all of which require human intervention and corrective measures to return the to the normal working state.
$Wait(RejuvenationPeriod);$ $Wait(RejuvenationPeriod);$ $ i\gets Find(ReplicaWithSmallestTimestamp);$ $Replica[i].status\gets recovery;$ $NoConcurrentRejuvenations++;$ $Replica[i].SystemLevelRecovery();$ $Replica[i].SetTimestamp();$ $Replica[i].status\gets active;$ $NoConcurrentRejuvenations--;$
$Wait ();$ $Polling();$ $Process[j].ObtainCheckpoint(Suspect);$ $Process[j].Kill(Suspect);$ $Process[j].ActivateStandby();$ $Replica[i].status\gets recovery;$ $NoConcurrentRejuvenations++;$ $Replica[i].SystemLevelRecovery();$ $Replica[i].SetTimestamp();$ $Replica[i].status\gets active;$ $NoConcurrentRejuvenations--;$ $Exit\, the\, for\, loop$ $timeout = False;$
Auditing Module
---------------
This module maintains audit logs for all modules. The logs would be useful for security administrator to monitor and analyze the operation of the system.
Proxy Module
------------
The proxy module is placed on the boundary of the ITS architecture where the data comes in or goes out of the intrusion tolerant architecture. The proxy module shields the internal structure of the ITS from attackers as well as acting as a load balancer. When the state information of field devices or power usage data collected by smart meters (incoming data in Figure \[fig:proposedITS\]) gathered in field devices passed to the respective critical components in the control center, they go through the proxy module as the first layer of defense. This incoming data is then forwarded to the replication and diversity module to be dealt with. Moreover, the control commands from the SCADA system (outgoing data in Figure \[fig:proposedITS\]) pass the proxy to reach the field devices in substations. Proxy module is composed of several proxies located in different virtual machines that have diversity in their operating systems and are managed by a controller. Proxies can have three modes, namely online, offline, and cleansing. The number of online proxies can be one or more based on the decision of the controller. Depending on a defined exposure time for proxies and a round-robin algorithm, the controller deals with the rotation and changing turn between proxies[@Bangalore2009a]. When the exposure time requirement for a proxy is met, it will go through the rejuvenation process (or cleansing process) and will be in cleansing mode. Then, its mode will be altered to offline mode and it will be ready to be chosen by the controller to go online.
An Attack Scenario
------------------
We can describe the working principle of the proposed ITS architecture by an attack scenario. Suppose a possible intrusion scenario in which an attacker (an outsider or a malicious insider that has gained access to the SCADA system in smart grid and tries to infect one or more replicas of a critical component (the number of compromised replicas are less than or equal to $f$). Thus he/she would be able to issue control commands. It is also possible that the adversary makes the replica work not properly (e.g., by running a Trojan or changing some system files) which may result in sending inappropriate commands (in case of automatic operation). However, the command must first pass the compromised/faulty replica detector. It is highly probable that the compromised replica(s) being recognized by the inspector (using detection capabilities) or voting (due to the fact that the replicas have different operating systems, all of them may not be infected by the same attack targeted at a special type of vulnerability, and thus the generated responses would be different), so the command will not go further and the infected replicas will undergo reactive recovery. In addition, process manager running in each replica may detect the infection and trigger the process level rejuvenation. Even if the intrusion tolerance mechanisms fail to detect the intrusion, it is possible that the attack’s impact is masked through proactive recovery.
Performance Analysis of the Proposed ITS Architecture {#sec: performance analysis}
=====================================================
Security quantification of the proposed ITS architecture is needed for assessing the outcome of the desired performance measures as well as performance comparison with other architectures. To achieve this goal, a state-space model is developed that incorporates an attacker’s behavior along with the system’s response to an attack or intrusion[@Uemura2010; @Madan2004167; @Nguyen2009; @Griffin2005c]. State transition diagrams assist in the evaluation of the transitions impacted by the inter-domain dependencies in the cyber-physical systems. They describe how the attacker’s actions cause transitions to failure states[@Sridhar2012]. The main advantage of state transition models is the ability to provide a fine-granular system description which includes the dynamic behavior of system[@Helvik2008209]. Moreover, these models are tailored to model immense and complex systems such as the smart grid. Markov chain is the basis for diverse state-space techniques in dependability analysis[@Zeng2012]. Markov models have often been adopted for software and hardware performance and dependability evaluation following from their capability to capture a variety of dependencies and the simplicity to compute steady-state, transient, and cumulative transient measures. Semi-Markov Process (SMP) is a generalization of both continuous and discrete time Markov chains which allows arbitrary state holding time distribution functions, probably relying on both the current state and on the state to be visited afterwards[@Distefano2012].
Availability and reliability analysis of the smart grid control center networks using Stochastic Petri Nets (a kind of state-space models) has been provided in[@Zeng2012]. In this paper, we place focus on the security analysis of our proposed ITS for smart grid control centers with regard to availability and Mean Time To Security Failure (MTTSF) as performance measures using a semi Markov model. The analytical evaluation has been carried out using MATLAB simulator.
System Model
------------
The state transition diagram derived is shown in Figure \[fig:STD\] and serves as a generic model for analyzing the behavior of various ITS architectures, including the proposed architecture. It incorporates different security related states of the ITS and their respective interrelationships. Table \[table: state descriptions\] presents these security states and their corresponding descriptions.
![State transition diagram for the proposed ITS.[]{data-label="fig:STD"}](STD){width="3.4in"}
The system changes from one state to the other during its functional lifespan following from normal usage, abuse, maintenance and corrective measures, failures, and so on. Therefore, the behavior of the system is portrayed as the transitions between the states and each transition corresponds to a specific event. Since the interval between the transition from one state to the other (i.e., state holding time or inter event time) is inclined to be random, its underlying process is defined as a stochastic process [@Helvik2008209]. In our system, this process is associated with arbitrary probability distributions, thus, it can be modeled using an SMP.
------------------------------------------ --
**State & **Description\
G & Good\
V & Vulnerable\
I & Intruded\
DMC & Detected Masked Compromised\
UMC &Undetected Masked Compromised\
UNC & Undetected Not masked Compromised\
DNC &Detected Not masked Compromised\
GD& Graceful Degradation\
FS& Fail-secure\
F& Failed\
****
------------------------------------------ --
: Different states of the system and their respective descriptions.[]{data-label="table: state descriptions"}
We can classify the possible transitions in Figure \[fig:STD\] according to their starting states as follows:
1. Transition from the state G: A system free of vulnerabilities is envisioned as being in good state G. During the probing and scanning the system, the identification of vulnerabilities, makes it possible for an adversary to evade or overcome prevention and detection mechanisms and violate the system’s security policy. As a result, the system state changes from good state G to the vulnerable state V. Even if the system possesses potential vulnerabilities that may be abused by the malicious intent, it can be regarded as being in the vulnerable state.
2. Transitions from the state V: Discovering a vulnerability (i.e., before an intrusion) and subsequently fixing it brings the system from the state V into the state G. The other possible transition occurs following from the successful exploitation of a vulnerability and will lead to the intruded state I.
3. Transitions from the state I: There are four feasible transitions to other states from the state I. First, if the intrusion tolerance techniques employed in the ITS fail to detect the intrusion and mitigate the impacts of an attack (i.e., mask the attack’s impacts), the system goes to the state UNC with no service guarantee. Second, if the intrusion is detected and the intrusion tolerance techniques succeed in masking the attack’ s impact, the state of the system will change from I to DMC. In this state, the intrusion is handled by faulty/compromised replica detector and rejuvenation modules. Third, if the intrusion goes undetected but masked through proactive recovery, a transition to state UMC is made. Subsequently, restoration without any service degradation enables reaching the state G from states UMC or DMC. This is where our state diagram differs from[@Madan2004167] in which the ITS architecture (i.e., SITAR) did not possess proactive recovery (corresponding to state UMC in our system). More specifically, the audit module in SITAR carries out periodic diagnosis tests to verify the correct operation of other components and forwards the results to adaptive reconfiguration module to take appropriate actions[@Wang2003a] which may include some type of reactive recovery. The last possible transition is to the state DNC when an intrusion is identified but the containment of the damage fails.
4. Transitions from the state DNC: It is possible for an attacker to be able to compromise more than $f$ replicas (e.g., in case of a DoS attack). This may result in complete system failure (transition from DNC to F) or entering states GD or FS. In the state GD, the system is only able to provide essential services which might have different definitions in various systems whereas in the state FS, the system would stop functioning.
5. Transitions from F, GD, FS and UNC: The endpoint of all these transitions will be the state G. The aforementioned transitions would involve manual restoration and corrective maintenance.
SMP Analysis
------------
An SMP can be studied by finding the embedded discrete time Markov chain that requires two sets of parameters [@Madan2004167][@Griffin2005c]:
1. mean sojourn time (i.e., state holding time) for each state
2. the transition probabilities between different states
With respect to Figure \[fig:STD\], the Discrete Time Semi Markov Model (DTSMM) possesses a discrete state space $X_s$= {G, V, I, UMC, DMC, DNC, UNC, FS, F} for which $h_i$ indicates the mean sojourn time in state $i \in X_s$ and $p_{ij}$ represents the transition probabilities between states $i$ and $j$ ($i, j \in X_s$).
Availability Formulation and Analysis
-------------------------------------
Availability and service continuity as the most vital security attribute of the smart grid is required to be analyzed and evaluated for the proposed ITS architecture. Using an SMP model and the steady-state probabilities of its states assists in the steady-state availability analysis of the proposed ITS. We analyze the sensitivity of the availability with respect to two parameters, including the probability of intrusion ($p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}$) and the mean time to resist becoming vulnerable to intrusions ($h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}$). In addition, a comparison between the proposed ITS and two of the well-known existing ITSs, namely SITAR and SCIT has been made using these parameters.
The steady-state availability $A$ is defined as the probability that the system is in one of normal functioning states. One approach to determine the availability is to pinpoint what the unavailable states (i.e., states FS, F and UNC) are. Thus, the steady-state availability $A$ can be formulated as, $$\label{eq: availability}
A=1-(\pi_{\scalebox{0.5}{UNC}} + \pi_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}}+ \pi_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}})$$ where $\pi_{i}$, $i \in \{UNC, FS, F\}$ denotes the steady-state probability of being in state $i$ for the SMP, that can be computed as, $$\label{eq: steady state availability in state i}
\pi_{i} = \frac{\nu_{i}h_{i}}{\sum \nu_{j}h_{j}}, \quad i,j \in X_{s}$$ where $h_i$ indicates the mean state holding time in state $i$ and $v_i$ denotes the embedded Discrete Time Markov chain (DTMC) steady-state probability in state $i$. We can derive $v_i$s from the following two equations, $$\label{eq: v.p}
\nu = \nu \cdot P$$ $$\label{eq: sum of vi}
\sum_{i} \nu_{i} = 1, \quad i \in X_{s}$$ where the $P$ is the transition probability matrix of the corresponding DTMC for the proposed ITS,
In this research, the mean state holding times $h_i$ for all the states of DTMC have been assumed to have the same values as[@Madan2004167] except for the state UMC which is a new state (corresponding to proactive recovery) for our proposed ITS.
Finally, by using (1)-(4), the steady-state availability ($A_{\scalebox{0.5}P}$) of our proposed ITS is computed as, $$\label{eq: proposed ITS availability}
A_{\scalebox{0.5}p} =1-\frac{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{UNC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UN}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}} +h_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}}}{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{V}}+p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}(h_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{DMC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{UNC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UN}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{UMC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}}
+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{DNC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{GD}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{GD}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}} p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}}+ h_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}})}
$$ In a similar manner, the steady-state availability for SITAR ($A_{\scalebox{0.5}{SITAR}}$) and SCIT ($A_{\scalebox{0.5}{SCIT}}$) are derived as, $$\label{eq: SITAR availability}
A_{\scalebox{0.5}{SITAR}} = 1-
\frac{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{UNC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UN}+h_{F}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}} +h_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}}}{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{V}}+p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}(h_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{DMC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{UNC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UN}}+
h_{\scalebox{0.5}{DNC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}
+ h_{\scalebox{0.5}{GD}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{GD}}+ h_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}} +h_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}}
p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}})}
$$ $$\label{eq: SCIT availability}
A_{\scalebox{0.5}{SCIT}} = 1-\frac{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}}}{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{V}}+p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}(h_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{UMC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}})}$$
It should be pointed out that some of the transition probabilities may have different values or even may not be applicable for all three ITSs following from the fact that the three ITSs do not possess the same state space (DTSMM’ s state space for SITAR does not include state UMC whereas SCIT does not contain the states DMC, DNC, UNC, GD and FS).
Figure \[fig:AvailbilitypI\] and Figure \[fig:AvailbilityhG\] illustrate the availability performance of the proposed ITS, SITAR and SCIT with regard to $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}$ and $h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}$ respectively. The steady-state availability is a decreasing function of $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}$ for all three ITSs (Figure \[fig:AvailbilitypI\]). The availability for SCIT falls sharply when the probability of intrusion increases compared to the other two ITSs. This is due to the fact that SCIT lacks detection capabilities and only uses periodic rejuvenation. Considering Figure \[fig:AvailbilitypI\], availability performance of the proposed ITS shows 0.6% and 36% improvement compared to SITAR and SCIT respectively (using the same values for parameters). Figure \[fig:AvailbilityhG\] shows the positive impact of increasing the time that the system is in the good state on the availability (i.e., the availability increases as the $h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}$ rises). For larger amount of $h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}$, there is a slight difference in availability performance of the three ITS. In this figure, availability performance of the proposed ITS presents 0.3% and 9% improvement compared to SITAR and SCIT respectively. This is mostly due the use of the hybrid and fine-grained recovery approach in the proposed ITS that contributes to improve the system’s availability.
![Availability vs $p_{I}$.[]{data-label="fig:AvailbilitypI"}](AvailabilityPi){width="3.4in"}
![Availability vs $h_{G}$.[]{data-label="fig:AvailbilityhG"}](AvailabilityHg){width="3.4in"}
### SLA as another possible performance criterion
Service Level Agreement (SLA) can be considered as another performance measure in critical infrastructures such as smart grid. The SLAs (service level agreements) are pre-defined agreements on some of the QoS parameters, including response time, delay, data rate, and so on. Considering SLAs based on response time can be a true assumption since all SLAs are expected to improve the observed response time. As stated in[@VasireddyR.andTrivedi2006], having five nines availability does not suggest the guarantee of the system’ s SLA. This means that even if a system is available most of the time, it may not meet the SLA requirements. This can be applied to the smart grid control centers in which satisfying the delay requirements is of utmost importance. Therefore, similar to the definition of the steady-state availability, the steady-state service level agreeability has been defined in[@VasireddyR.andTrivedi2006]. They divided the sates of the system according to a threshold response time. The viable sets were highly SLA satisfying, SLA satisfying, SLA violating and highly SLA violating. Using the steady-state service level agreeability concept, we can group our state diagram states into the four aforementioned clusters. It is evident that in states G and V the system can satisfy the SLA completely while in the intruded state I and states DMC and UMC in which intrusion tolerance mask measures are taken, SLA satisfaction may not be the same as highly SLA satisfying class. In state DNC, the intrusion has been detected but cannot be masked and also in sate GD in which the system only provides the essential services, we expect degradatrion of service, thus the SLA is violated. Finally, state FS requires the system to stop functioning and states UNC and F that will result in the security failure of the system fall into the highly SLA violating group. To obtain the steady-state service level agreeability, we can compute the steady-state probabilities of the states using the SMP model and get a summation of these probabilities for the states included in each cluster.
MTTSF Formulation and Analysis
------------------------------
Analogous to the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) as a quantitative reliability measure, MTTSF is a measure for quantifying the security of intrusion tolerant systems[@Madan2004167]. MTTSF is defined as the mean elapsed time for the system to reach one of the security-compromised states (also called absorbing states), provided that the system begins in state G. Using a similar approach to availability analysis, we analyze the MTTSF with regard to $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}$ and $h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}$ parameters. We take advantage of an SMP with absorbing and transient states. In the state transition diagram shown in Figure \[fig:STD\], the set of states $X_a$ = {UNC, GD, FS, F} are considered as the absorbing states (i.e., the probability of moving out of these states is zero). These states indicate the security compromised states. The rest of the states are called transient states and denoted by $X_t$ = {G, V, I, UMC, DMC, DNC}. The transition probability Matrix $M$ exhibits the transition probabilities between the transient states (i.e., $Q$) and the states originating from transient states to absorbing states (i.e., $C$) in an organized form.
[$M$]{} =$
\begin{pmatrix}
Q & | & C \cr
- - & | & - - \cr
0 & | & I \cr
\end{pmatrix}
$
Matrixes $Q$ and $C$ are as follows:
[$Q$]{} = $\bordermatrix{
& G & V & I & DMC & UMC & DNC \cr
G & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
V & 1-p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}} & 0 & p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
I & 0 & 0 & 0 & p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}} & p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}} & p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}} \cr
DMC & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
UMC & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
DNC & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
}$
[ $C$]{} = $\bordermatrix{
& UNC & FS & GD & F \cr
G & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
V & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
I & p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UN}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
DMC & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
UMC & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
DNC & 0 & p_{\scalebox{0.5}{FS}} & p_{\scalebox{0.5}{GD}} & p_{\scalebox{0.5}{F}} \cr
}$
As stated in[@Madan2004167], we can find the MTTSF by the following formula, $$\label{eq: 8}
MTTSF= \sum_{i \in X_t} V_{i}h_{i}$$ where $V_{i}$ indicates the average number of times the transient state $i$ has been visited before the DTMC arrives at one of the absorbing states and $h_{i}$ indicates the mean state holding time in state $i$.
Let $q_i$ be the probability of start in state $i$ (here, it is assumed that the DTMC starts in state G) and $q_{ji}$ be the transition probability from the transient state $j$ to the transient state $i$. So, the $V_i$s can be computed through solving the system of equations, $$\label{eq: system of equations}
V_i = q_i + \sum_{j} V_j q_{ji}, \quad i, j \in X_t$$ Finally, we use (8) to calculate the MTTSF for the proposed ITS as, $$\label{eq: proposed ITS MTTSF}
M_{\scalebox{0.5}{P}}=
\frac{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}^{-1}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{V}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}^{-1}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{DMC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{UMC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{DNC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}}{1-p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}}-p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}}}$$\
Using the same approach, we can find the formula for SITAR[@Madan2004167] and SCIT, $$\label{eq: SITAR MTTSF}
M_{\scalebox{0.5}{SITAR}}=\frac{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}^{-1}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{V}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}^{-1}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}+
h_{\scalebox{0.5}{DMC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{DNC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}}{1-p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}}}$$ $$\label{eq: SCIT MTTSF}
M_{\scalebox{0.5}{SCIT}} =\frac{h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}^{-1}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{V}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}^{-1}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}+h_{\scalebox{0.5}{UMC}}p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}}}{1-p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}}}$$
As Figure. \[fig:MTTSFpI\] illustrates, MTTSF has a reciprocal relationship with the probability of intrusion, i.e., it decreases as the probability of intrusion rises. The proposed ITS architecture shows improved MTTSF with regard to $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{I}}$ since it has more possible security features (e.g., proactive and reactive recovery) and thus more system states (corresponding to tolerance measures) when dealing with intrusions. It demonstrates advance in MTTSF performance compared to other two ITSs (17% compared to SITAR and 2% compared to SCIT). Figure \[fig:MTTSFhG\] depicts the impact of increasing $h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}$ on MTTSF. It is obvious that MTTSF ascends when the system spends more time in state G. In this graph with assigned values to transition probabilities and state holding times, the proactive rejuvenation in SCIT seems to have more effects on the MTTSF when increasing the $h_{\scalebox{0.5}{G}}$ in comparison with the reactive rejuvenation in SITAR. The acquired results show that the stability of our proposed ITS is better than the others. The improvement in MTTSF performance is 16% and 0.8% compared to SITAR and SCIT respectively. The acquired results for MTTSF also prove the security enhancement of the proposed architecture (mostly thanks to the combined rejuvenation approach) compared with the other two systems.
![MTTSF vs $p_{I}$.[]{data-label="fig:MTTSFpI"}](MTTSFPi){width="3.4in"}
![MTTSF vs $h_{G}$.[]{data-label="fig:MTTSFhG"}](MTTSFHg){width="3.4in"}
Discussion and analysis
-----------------------
As we know, self-healing capability is one of the distinctive features of the smart grid. From the acquired results in the previous sections, we can infer that the mask measures (reflected in the states DMC and UMC in the provided state transition diagram) and in particular, the self-healing capabilities (automatic rejuvenation) of the proposed ITS influences its performance to a considerable extent. From the Figure \[fig:STD\], we have, $$\label{eq: sum of probabilities}
p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}}+p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}}+p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UN}}+p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}=1$$ By considering $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{M}}$ (i.e., probability of masking an intrusion) as the sum of $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DM}}$ and $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UM}}$ as well as $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{N}}$ (i.e., probability of the inability to mask an intrusion) as the sum of $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{DN}}$ and $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{UN}}$, we will have the following equation, $$\label{eq: sum of mask and non-mask probs}
p_{\scalebox{0.5}{M}}+p_{\scalebox{0.5}{N}}=1$$ A perfect and ideal ITS is expected to have the $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{M}}$ equal to one. Therefore, we should attempt to enhance the ITS masking capabilities in order to have a more robust and secure ITS architecture. In the proposed ITS architecture, we made an effort to increase the $p_{\scalebox{0.5}{M}}$ compared with the other two ITSs (i.e., SITAR and SCIT).
Conclusion and future work {#sec: conclusion}
==========================
This paper has provided an in-depth research on the significance of using intrusion tolerance as a promising security approach to improve the security of smart grid control centers. An ITS architecture was proposed to be adopted in control centers’ critical components, particularly SCADA/EMS. Using different intrusion tolerance techniques such as replication, diversity, proactive and fine-grained reactive recovery made the proposed ITS outperform two of well-known architectures, namely SITAR and SCIT. SITAR only possesses reactive recovery and SCIT leverages the periodic rejuvenation. In addition, in our proposed ITS, acceptance testing is only carried on the outgoing data in contrast with SITAR which applies acceptance testing to both incoming and outgoing data. So, the response time of the proposed ITS architecture is expected to decrease. Thus enhancing the security of the proposed ITS. The availability and MTTSF performance measures were analyzed via a Discrete Time Semi Markov Model (that can be used as a general model for assessing the security attributes of any ITS) and compared with other ITSs. In future, we will make an attempt to simulate the proposed architecture and evaluate its performance with respect to other performance metrics such as delay which is a critical feature for smart gird control centers.
[56]{} , , , , () . , , , , () . , , , , , , , , () . , , () . , , , , , () . , , , , , , () . , , , , , () . , , , , , , , , , () . , , , , , , () . , , , , () . , , in: , pp. . , , , () . , () . , () . , , , Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security (CrySyS Lab), . , , , , . , , , () . , , , in: , pp. . , , , , () . , , in: , pp. . , , , , , , () . , , , () . , , , in: , pp. . , , , in: , pp. . , , , , () . , , , , in: , , (Eds.), , volume of **, , , pp. . , , , in: , pp. , . , , , , , () . , , , , , , , , , , () . , , , , , , , () . , , () . , , , () . , , , , , () . , , , , , , () . , , , , , , () . , , () . , , , , , , , , () . , , , in: , , , , (Eds.), , volume of **, , , pp. . , , , , in: , volume , pp. . , , , , , , in: , pp. . , , , , , , Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon, . , , , , , in: , pp. . , , , , in: , , , , pp. . , , , , in: , pp. . , , , , () . , , , , , , , in: , volume , pp. . , , , , () . , , , , , , , , , , in: , volume , pp. . , , , , , in: , , pp. . , , , , , , , in: , pp. . , , , , , () . , , , in: , pp. . , , , , in: , volume , pp. . , , , , in: , , , , pp. . , , , , (), . , , in: , pp. .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The inner region of the accretion disk around a magnetized star is subjected to magnetic torques that induce warping and precession of the disk. These torques arise from interactions between the stellar field and the induced electric currents in the disk. These novel magnetic effects give rise to some “exotic” stellar variabilities, and may play an important role in explaining a number of puzzling behaviors related to disk accretion onto magnetic stars, such as mHz QPOs in X-ray pulsars, long-term periodicities of X-ray binaries (including precession of jets), low-Frequency (10-50 Hz) QPO’s in low-mass X-ray binaries, and photometric variabilities of T Tauri stars.'
author:
- Dong Lai
title: 'Magnetically Driven Warping and Precession of Accretion Disks: Implications for “Exotic” Stellar Variabilities'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
Disk accretion onto a magnetic star occurs in a variety of astrophysical contexts, including accreting neutron stars, white dwarfs and pre-main-sequence stars (e.g., Frank et al. 1992). The basic picture of disk–magnetosphere interaction is well-known: at large radii the disk is unaffected by the stellar magnetic field; a somewhat sudden transition occurs when the stellar field disrupts the disk at the magnetospheric boundary, and channels the plasma onto the polar caps of the star. The magnetosphere boundary is located where the magnetic and plasma stresses balance, $$r_m=\eta\,\mu^{4/7}(GM\dot M^2)^{-1/7},$$ where $M$ and $\mu$ are the mass and magnetic moment of the central star, $\dot M$ is the mass accretion rate, $\eta$ is a dimensionless constant of order unity.
Because of its intrinsic importance for a wide range of astrophysical systems, a large number of theoretical papers have been written on the subject of the interaction between accretion disks and magnetized stars (see references in Lai 1999 and in Shirakawa & Lai 2002a,b), and numerical study of this problem is still in its infancy. Outstanding issues remain, including the efficiency of field dissipation in/outside the disk, whether the disk excludes the stellar field by diamagnetic currents or the field can penetrate a large fraction of the disk, whether the threaded field remains closed (connecting the star and the disk) or becomes open by differential shearing, and whether/how magnetically driven wind is launched from the disk or the magnetosphere/corotation boundary.
Many previous theoretical papers have, for simplicity, adopted the idealied geometry in which the magnetic axis, the spin axis and the disk angular momentum are aligned. However, in Lai (1999), it was shown that under quite general conditions, the stellar magnetic field can induce warping in the inner disk and make the disk precess around the spin axis (see §2). Such magnetically driven warping and precession open up new possibilities for the dynamical behaviors of disk accretion onto magnetic stars, and may explain some of the observed variabilities in different stars (including compact objects).
Magnetically Driven Warping/Precession
======================================
Lai (1999) shows that the inner region of the accretion disk onto a rotating magnetized central star is subjected to magnetic torques which induce warping and precession of the disk. The origin of these torques lies in These magnetic torques result from the interactions between the accretion disk and the stellar magnetic field. Depending on how the disk responds to the stellar field, two different kinds of torque arise: (i) If the vertical stellar magnetic field $B_z$ penetrates the disk, it gets twisted by the disk rotation to produce an azimuthal field $\Delta B_\phi=\mp\zeta B_z$ that has different signs above and below the disk ($\zeta$ is the azimuthal pitch of the field line and depends on the dissipation in the disk), and a radial surface current $K_r$ results. The interaction between $K_r$ and the stellar $B_\phi$ gives rise to a vertical force. While the mean force (averaging over the azimuthal direction) is zero, the uneven distribution of the force induces a net [*warping torque*]{} which tends to misalign the angular momentum of the disk with the stellar spin axis. (ii) If the disk does not allow the vertical stellar field (e.g., the rapidly varying component of $B_z$ due to stellar rotation) to penetrate, an azimuthal screening current $K_\phi$ will be induced on the disk. This $K_\phi$ interacts with the radial magnetic field $B_r$ and produces a vertical force. The resulting [*precessional torque*]{} tends to drive the disk into retrograde precession around the stellar spin axis.
In general, both the magnetic warping torque and the precessional torque are present. For small disk tilt angle $\beta$ (the angle between the disk normal and the spin axis), the precession angular frequency and warping rate at radius $r$ are given by &&\_p (r)=F(), \[eqn:Omega\_p\]\
&&\_w (r)=\^2, \[eqn:Gamma\_w\] where $\mu$ is the stellar magnetic dipole moment, $\theta$ is the angle between the magnetic dipole axis and the spin axis, $\Omega(r)$ is the orbital angular frequency, and $\Sigma(r)$ is the surface density of the disk. \[Note that the stellar spin frequency $\Omega_s$ does not appear in eqs. (2) & (3) since the variation of the field geometry due to the spin has been averaged out; this is justified because $\Omega_s\gg |\Omega_p|,~|\Gamma_w|$.\] The dimensionless function $D(r)$ is given by D(r)=[max]{} (, ) \[eqn:D(r)\], where $H(r)$ is the half-thickness and $r_{\rm in}$ is the inner radius of the disk. The function $F(\theta)$ depends on the dielectric property of the disk. We can write F()=2f\^2-\^2, so that $F(\theta)=-\sin^2\theta$ if only the spin-variable vertical field is screened out by the disk ($f=0$), and $F(\theta)=3\cos^2\theta-1$ if all vertical field is screened out ($f=1$). In reality, $f$ lies between 0 and 1. For concreteness, we shall set $F(\theta)=-\sin^2\theta$ in the following.
We also note the effect of [*magnetically driven resonances*]{}. For a general magnetic field–disk geometry, the vertical magnetic force on a disk element varies with the stellar rotation period. This gives rise to a number of [*vertical resonances*]{} in the disk. Similarly. there exist [*epicyclic resonances*]{} due to the time-dependent radial magnetic force. Although the force expressions are model-dependent, the existence of the resonances appears to be inevitable. These magnetically driven resonances are somewhat similar to the corotation resonance and Lindblad resonances in gravitational systems. The resonances may act as an extra source (in addition to the non-resonant precessional and warping torques discussed above) for generating bending waves and spiral waves in the disk. Near the resonances, fluid elements undergo large out-of-plane and radial excursions, which may lead to thickening of the disk. This may be analogous to the Lorentz resonances (which occur when charged particles move around a rotating magnetic field) in the jovian ring (e.g., Schaffer & Burns 1992). However, because of the fluid nature of the disk, the resonances may not lead to sharp edges in the disk.
Dynamics of Warped Disks, Effects of Viscosity, Global Warping Modes and Nonlinear Evolution
============================================================================================
Effects of Viscosity
--------------------
Since the magnetic torque drives the disk tilt, while the viscosity reduces the tilt, one can derive the criterion for the warping instability. Roughly speaking, the disk warp can grow if the timescale associated with the warping torque is shorter than the viscous time $r^2/\nu_2$ \[where $\nu_2$ is the viscosity (measuring the $r$-$z$ stress) associated with reducing disk tilt\]. Since the warping torque is a steep function of $r$, the warping instability occurs only inside a critical radius $r_w$. Our analysis (Lai 1999) shows that local warping torque can overcome viscous damping when \_w >[2\^2]{}[\_2r\^2]{}. \[criterion\]Assuming that $\nu_2/\nu_1$ is independent of $r$, the above equation reduces to r<r\_w=([3\^28\^2]{}[\_1\_2]{} )\^[2/7]{}([\^4GMM\^2]{})\^[1/7]{}, where we have used $\Sigma=({\dot M/3\pi\nu_1}){\cal J}$, and ${\cal J}$ is a dimensionless function of $r$ which approaches unity in the region far from the inner edge of the disk. Thus $r_w$ is typically a few times the canonical Alfven radius (the magnetosphere boundary). Therefore, as the disk approaches the magnetosphere, its normal vector $\hat l$ will tend to be tilted with respect to the stellar spin even if at large radii it is aligned with the spin axis.
Another aspect of the viscous effect is what we call “[*Magnetic Bardeen-Petterson Effect*]{}”. Because of the magnetic precessional torque, the tilted disk will be driven into differential precession (with the precession rate dependent on $r$). By analogy with the well-known Bardeen-Petterson effect (i.e., the inner region of an accretion disk undergoing Lense-Thirring precession around a rotating black hole tends to align itself with the equatorial plane of the black hole; see Bardeen & Petterson 1975), we expect that the magnetically driven precession also tends to damp the tilt of the inner disk through the action of viscosity. Setting $\Omega_p$ equal to $\nu_2/r^2$, we obtain the magnetic Bardeen-Petterson radius: r\_[MBP]{}=([3\^2D]{}[\_1\_2]{})\^[2/7]{} ([\^4GMM\^2]{})\^[1/7]{}. Inside $r_{\rm MBP}$, the combined effect of viscosity and precession tends to align the disk normal with the spin axis. We see that typically $r_{\rm MBP}$ is of the same order as $r_w$ (the warping radius) and $r_m$ (the magnetosphere radius). Thus the precessional torque has an opposite effect on the disk tilt as the warping torque. However, because of the broad warp-alignment transition expected for the magnetic Bardeen-Petterson effect and the long timescale involved, we expect that the precession-induced alignment will be overwhelmed by the warping instability.
Global Warping Modes and Nonlinear Evolution
--------------------------------------------
Since the precession rate $\Omega_p(r)$ depends strongly on $r$, coupling between different rings is needed to produce a global coherent precession. The coupling can be achieved either by viscous stress or through bending waves (e.g., Papaloizou& Pringle 1983; Papaloizou & Terquem 1995). In the viscosity dominated regime (i.e., the dimensionless viscosity parameter $\alpha$ greater than $H/r$), the dynamics of the warps can be studied using the formalism of Papaloizou & Pringle (1983) (see also Ogilvie 1999; Ogilvie & Dubus 2001). We model the disk as a collection of rings which interact with each other via viscous stresses. Each ring at radius $r$ has the unit normal vector ${\bf\hat l}(r,t)$. In the Cartesian coordinates, with the $z$-axis along the neutron star spin, we write ${\hat{\bf l}}=(\sin\beta\cos\gamma,\sin\beta\sin\gamma,\cos\beta)$, with $\beta(r,t)$ the tilt angle and $\gamma(r,t)$ the twist angle. For $\beta\ll 1$, the dynamical warp equation for ${\hat{\bf l}}$ (Lai 1999; see Papaloizou & Pringle 1983; Pringle 1992) reduces to an equation for $W(r,t)\equiv \beta(r,t)e^{i\gamma(r,t)}$: &&-\
&&=\_[2]{} +i\_pW+\_wW,\[eqn:evolution\] where $\cJ'=d\cJ/dr$ (we assume that the ratio of $\nu_2$ to $\nu_1$ is constant). In deriving the above equation, we have used the relations for the radial velocity and surface density: $v_r=-3\nu_1\cJ^{-1}/2r$ and $\Sigma={\dot M}\cJ/3\pi\nu_1$. The values and functional forms of $\nu_1$, $\nu_2$, $\Omega_p$, $\Gamma_w$ and the dimensionless function $\cJ(r)$ depend on disk models (see Shirakawa & Lai 2002a,b for details).
Shirakawa & Lai (2002) carried out a global analysis of warping/precession modes in a viscous accretion disk, and show that under a wide range of conditions, the magnetic warping torque can overcome viscous damping and make the mode grow. The warping/precession modes are concentrated near the inner edge of the disk (at the magnetosphere-disk boundary), and can give rise to variabilities or quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the X-ray/UV/optical fluxes from X-ray pulsars (see §4). Pfeiffer & Lai (2003) studied the nonlinear evolution of the warping-precession modes, and found that the mode tends to saturate at a large amplitude (its value depends on the parameters of the system). The implications of such nonlinear behavior remain to be understood.
Applications
============
The magnetically driven warping instability and precession help explaining a number of observational puzzles related to stellar variabilities (for more details, see Lai 1999; Shirakawa & Lai 2002ab; Pfeiffer & Lai 2003).
: Quasi-Periodic Oscillations (QPO’s) with frequencies $1-100$ mHz have been detected in at least 11 accreting X-ray pulsars. These mHz QPOs are often interpreted in terms of the beat frequency model (BFM), in which the observed QPO frequency represents the beat between the Keplerian frequency $\nu_K$ at the inner disk radius and the NS spin frequency $\nu_s$, or in terms of the Keplerian frequency model (KFM), in which the QPOs arise from the modulation of the X-rays by some inhomogeneities in the inner disk at the Keplerian frequency. However for several sources, more than one QPOs have been detected and the difference in the QPO frequencies is not equal to the spin frequency. Thus KFM and/or the BFM cannot be the whole story. Also note that in both the KFM and the BFM, it is always postulated that the inner disk contain some blobs or inhomogeneities, whose physical origin is unclear. In Shirakawa & Lai (2002) we suggest a “Magnetic Disk Precession Model” for the mHz variabilities and QPOs of accreting X-ray pulsars. The magnetically driven precession of the warped inner disk (outside but close to the magnetosphere boundary) can modulate X-ray/UV/optical flux in several ways. We identify $\nu_{\rm QPO}$ with the global precession frequency driven by the magnetic torques. Our calculations show that under a wide range of conditions, the warping/precession mode is concentrated near the disk inner edge, and the global mode frequency is equal to $A=0.3-0.85$ (depending on details of the disk structure) times the magnetically driven precession frequency at $r_{\rm in}=r_m$. An examination of the observed properties of mHz QPOs in several systems (such as 4U 1626-67) suggests that some hitherto unexplained QPOs are likely to be results of magnetically driven disk warping/precession (see Chakrabarty et al. 2001).
: Recent long-term, continuous monitoring of X-ray pulsars with the BATSE instrument on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) has revealed a number of puzzling behaviors of the spins of these objects (see Bildsten et al. 1997 and references therein). Several well-measured disk-fed systems (e.g., Cen X-3, GX 1+4 and 4U 1626-67) display sudden transitions between episodes of steady spin-up and spin-down, with the absolute values of spin torques approximately equal (to within a factor of a few). The transition timescale ranges from days to years. It is likely that the magnetically driven disk warping may be a crucial ingredient in determining the spin behaviors of accreting X-ray pulsars. With the magnetic warping torque, the perpendicular state is an “attractor”. The observed sign switching of $\dot\omega_s$ (spin derivative) in several X-ray pulsars may be associated with the “wandering” of the inner disk around this “attractor”. Rough estimate based on the magnetic torque indicates that the switching timescale (which depends on the stellar field strength, the disk parameters and geometry) ranges from days to years, in agreement with observations.
: Rapid variability in low-mass X-ray binaries, containing weakly magnetized ($B\sim 10^8$ G) neutron stars, has been studied since the discovery of the so-called horizontal-branch oscillations (HBOs) (see van der Klis 1998). The HBOs are quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) (with $Q$-value $\nu/\Delta\nu$ of order a few) which manifest as broad Lorentzian peaks in the X-ray power spectra with centroid frequencies in the range of 15–60 Hz which are positively correlated with the inferred mass accretion rate. Stella and Vietri (1998) suggested that HBOs (and other low-frequency QPOs) are associated with Lense-Thirring precession of the inner accretion disk around the rotating NS. For this interpretation to be viable, the inner disk must be tilted with respect to the stellar spin axis. Since the Bardeen-Petterson effect tends to keep the inner region of the disk (typically within 100–1000 Schwarzschild radii) co-planar with the star and radiation-driven warping is only effective at large disk radii (Pringle 1996), another mechanism to drive warping in the inner disk is needed. The magnetic warping torque provides a natural source for inducing disk tilt. Moreover, the magnetically driven (retrograde) precession rate is not negligible compared to the Lense-Thirring precession rate, and will contribute to the total precession (Shirakawa & Lai 2002a).
Other possible applications include:
[**(iv) Long-term (super-orbital) variabilities in X-ray binaries (including precession of jets):**]{} The well-known examples include Her X-1 (35 days), LMC X-4 (30.4 days) and SS433 (164 days). It has always been thought that these super-orbital periods are caused by precession of accretion disks, perhaps driven by the binary companion. However, the tidal torque from the companion is relevant only if the disk is warped. Without any extra driver for the disk warp, the disk would be flat. Magnetic field may play a role here.
[**(v) Photometric period variations of T Tauri stars:**]{} T Tauri stars have magnetic fields of order 1 kG. Being magnetic, they are variable. Most of the variabilities can be explained by rotating cold spots or hot spots on the stellar surface. However, some of the variabilities in classical T Tauri stars are not easy to understand in this picture. For example, AA Tauri shows photometric variability (by 1 mag) in different bands on timescales of 8.5 days, but there is no clear color variation (see Bouvier et al. 1999). This and some other features can be naturally explained by a warped inner disk which causes occultation of the photosphere (see Carpenter et al. 2001 for possibly other examples).
I thank Akiko Shirakawa and Harald Pfeiffer for their important contributions. This work has been supported in part by NSF AST 9986740 and NASA NAG 5-8484, and by the Alfred P. Sloan foundation.
Bardeen, J. M., & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJ, 195, L65
-0.2cm Bildsten, L., et al. 1997, ApJS, 113, 367
-0.2cm Bouvier, J. et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 619 -0.2cm Chakrabarty, D. et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 985
-0.2cm Carpenter, J.M. et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 3160
-0.2cm Frank, J., et al. 1992, Accretion Power in Astrophysics (Cambridge Univ. Press)
-0.2cm Lai, D. 1999, ApJ, 524, 1030
-0.2cm Ogilvie, G. I. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 557
-0.2cm Ogilvie, G. I., & Dubus, G. 2001, MNRAS, 320, 485
-0.2cm Papaloizou, J. C., & Pringle, J. E. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1181 -0.2cm Papaloizou, J. C., & Terquem, C. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 987
-0.2cm Pfeiffer, H., & Lai, D. 2002, ApJ, in preparation
-0.2cm Pringle, J. E. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 857
-0.2cm Schaffer, L., & Burns, J. A. 1992, ICARUS, 96, 65
-0.2cm Shirakawa, A., & Lai, D. 2002a, ApJ, 564, 361
-0.2cm Shirakawa, A., & Lai, D. 2002b, ApJ, 565, 1134
-0.2cm Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1998, ApJ, 492, L59
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present an extended version of an invited talk given on the International Conference “Turbulent Mixing and Beyond". The dynamical and statistical description of stably stratified turbulent boundary layers with the important example of the stable atmospheric boundary layer in mind is addressed. Traditional approaches to this problem, based on the profiles of mean quantities, velocity second-order correlations, and dimensional estimates of the turbulent thermal flux run into a well known difficulty, predicting the suppression of turbulence at a small critical value of the Richardson number, in contradiction with observations. Phenomenological attempts to overcome this problem suffer from various theoretical inconsistencies. Here we present an approach taking into full account all the second-order statistics, which allows us to respect the conservation of total mechanical energy. The analysis culminates in an analytic solution of the profiles of all mean quantities and all second-order correlations removing the unphysical predictions of previous theories. We propose that the approach taken here is sufficient to describe the lower parts of the atmospheric boundary layer, as long as the Richardson number does not exceed an order of unity. For much higher Richardson numbers the physics may change qualitatively, requiring careful consideration of the potential Kelvin-Helmoholtz waves and their interaction with the vortical turbulence.'
author:
- 'Victor S. L’vov'
- Itamar Procaccia
- Oleksii Rudenko
title: Turbulent Fluxes in Stably Stratified Boundary Layers
---
**Nomenclature** \
\
--------------------------------------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ --------------------------------------------------- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\bm{\mathcal{A}}}$ Thermal flux production vector, (\[defOfA\]) $\beta$ Buoyancy parameter, ${{\bm{g}}} \widetilde \beta$
${\bm{\mathcal{B}}}$ Pressure-temperature-gradient-vector, (\[defs1f\]) $\widetilde \beta$ Thermal expansion coefficient
${{\mathcal{C}}}_{ij}$ Energy conversion tensor, (\[defs1B\]) $\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$ Relaxation frequency of $\tau_{ij}$, $i = j$
${{\mathcal{D}}} / {{\mathcal{D}}} t$ Substantial derivative, $\partial / \partial t + {\bm{\mathcal{U}}} \!\cdot\! {{\bm{\nabla}}}$ $\widetilde \gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$ Relaxation frequency of $\tau_{ij}$, $i \neq j$
$D / D t$ Mean substantial derivative, $\partial / \partial t + {{\bm{U}}} \!\cdot\! {{\bm{\nabla}}}$ $\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}$ Relaxation frequency of ${{\bm{F}}}$
$E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}$ Turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass, $|{{\bm{u}}}|^2\!/2$ $\gamma_{uu}$ Relaxation frequency of $E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}$
$E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}$ “Temperature energy” per unit mass, $\theta^2\!/2$ $\gamma_{\theta\theta}$ Relaxation frequency of $E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}$
${{\bm{F}}}$ Turbulent thermal flux per unit mass, $ \left\langle {{\bm{u}}} \theta \right\rangle $ $\varepsilon_{ij}$ Dissipation tensor of $\tau_{ij}$, ($\ref{diss}$)
$ F_*$ Thermal flux at zero elevation $z = 0$ ${{\bm{\epsilon}}}$ Dissipation vector of ${{\bm{F}}}$, ($\ref{diss}$)
${{\bm{g}}}$ Gravity acceleration, ${{\bm{g}}} = -g\, \widehat{\bf{z}} $ $\varepsilon$ Dissipation of $E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}$, ($\ref{diss}$)
$L$ Monin-Obukhov length, $u_*^3/\beta F_*$ $\Theta_d$ Deviation of potential temperature from BRS
$\ell$ Outer scale of turbulence, external parameter ${\Theta}$ Mean potential temperature, $ \left\langle \Theta_d \right\rangle $
${{\mathcal{P}}}_{ij}$ Rate of Reynolds stress production, ($\ref{defs1A}$) $\theta$ Fluctuating potential temperature, $\Theta_d -\!\left\langle \Theta_d \right\rangle$
$p$, $\widetilde p$, $p_*$ Total, fluctuating and zero level pressures $\theta_*$ Potential temperature
Pr${_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ Turbulent Prandtl number, $\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} / \chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ at zero elevation, $F_* / u_*$
Ri${_{\rm{flux}}}$ Flux Richardson number, $\beta F_z / \tau_{xz} S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}$ $\lambda_*$ Viscous lengthscale, $\nu / u_*$
Ri${_{\rm{grad}}}$ Gradient Richardson number, $\beta S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} / S^2{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}$ $\nu$ Kinematic viscosity
${{\mathcal{R}}}_{ij}$ Pressure-rate-of-strain-tensor, ($\ref{defs1C}$) $\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ Turbulent viscosity
$S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}$ Mean velocity gradient, $dU/dz$ $\rho$ density of the fluid
$S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}$ Mean potential temperature gradient, $d{\Theta}/dz$ $\tau_{ij}$ Reynolds stress tensor, $ \left\langle u_i u_j \right\rangle $
$T$ Molecular temperature $\tau_*$ Mechanical momentum flux
${\bm{\mathcal{U}}}$ Velocity field at zero elevation (at the ground)
${{\bm{U}}}$ Mean velocity, $ \left\langle {\bm{\mathcal{U}}} \right\rangle $ $\chi$ Kinematic thermal conductivity
${{\bm{u}}}$ Fluctuating velocity, ${\bm{\mathcal{U}}} - {{\bm{U}}}$ $\chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ Turbulent thermal conductivity
$u_*$ (Wall) friction velocity, $\sqrt{\tau_*}$ BRS Basic Reference State
$\widehat{\bf{x}} $ horizontal (streamwise) unit vector $\widehat{\bf{z}} $ vertical (wall-normal) unit vector
--------------------------------------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ --------------------------------------------------- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
\
\[s:intro\]Introduction {#sintrointroduction .unnumbered}
=======================
The lower levels of the atmosphere are usually strongly influenced by the Earth’s surface. Known as the atmospheric boundary layer, this is the part of the atmosphere where the surface influences the temperature, moisture, and velocity of the air above through the turbulent transfer of mass.
The stability of the atmospheric boundary layer depends on the profiles of the density and the temperature as a function of the height above the ground. During normal summer days the land mass warms up and the temperature is higher at lower elevations. If it were not for the decrease in density of the air as a function of the height, such a situation of heating from below would have been always highly unstable. In fact, the boundary layer is considered stable as long as the temperature decreases at the dry adiabatic lapse rate ($T'\approx - 9.8^\circ C$ per kilometer) throughout most of the boundary layer. With such a rate of cooling one balances out the decrease in density. With a higher degree of cooling one refers to the atmospheric boundary layer as unstably stratified, whereas with a lower degree of cooling the situation is stably stratified. Stably stratified boundary layer occurs typically during clear, calm nights. In extreme cases turbulence tends to cease, and radiational cooling from the surface results in a temperature that increases with height above the surface.
The tendency of the atmosphere to be turbulent does not depend only on the rate of cooling but also on the mean shear in the vertical direction. The commonly used parameter to describe the tendency of the atmosphere to be turbulent is the “gradient" Richardson number (Richardson, 1920), defined as $$\label{Rig}
{\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\equiv \frac{ \beta \, d\Theta (z)\big / d z}{ [d U_x/dz]^2} \,,$$ where $x$ is the stream-wise direction, $z$ is the height above the ground, ${\Theta}(z)$ is the mean potential temperature profile, (which differs from the mean temperature profile $T(z)$ by accounting for the adiabatic cooling of the air during its expansion: $ d{\Theta} (z)\big / d z= d T (z)\big / d z + |T'|$), $
\beta=\widetilde \beta g$ is the buoyancy parameter in which $\tilde \beta $ is the adiabatic thermal expansion coefficient (for an ideal gas $\widetilde \beta= 1/ T$), and $g$ is the gravitational acceleration. The mean shear $d U_x /d z$ is defined in terms of the mean velocity ${{\bm{U}}} $, which in the simplest case of flat geometry depends only on the vertical coordinate $z$. The parameter ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$ represents the ratio of the generation or suppression of turbulence by buoyant production of energy to the mechanical generation of energy by wind shear.
This paper is an extended presentation of an invited talk given on International Conference “Turbulent Mixing and Beyond" devoted, in particular, to the problems of fluid dynamics, turbulence, geophysics and statistics, that are long-standing challenging tasks. Here we consider the description of stably stratified turbulent boundary layers (TBL), taking as an example the case of stable thermal stratification. Since the 50’s of twentieth century, traditional models of stratified TBL generalize models of unstratified TBL, based on the budget equations for the kinetic energy and mechanical momentum; see reviews of Umlauf and Burchard (2005), Weng and Taylor (2003). The main difficulty is that the budget equations are not closed; they involve turbulent fluxes of mechanical moments $\tau_{ij}$ (known as the “Reynolds stress" tensor) and a thermal flux ${{\bm{F}}}$ (for the case of thermal stratification): $$\label{def3}\tau_{ij} \equiv \langle u_i u_j \rangle\,,\quad {{\bm{F}}} \equiv \left\langle {{\bm{u}}}
\, \theta \right\rangle \,,$$ where ${{\bm{u}}}$ and $\theta$ stand for the turbulent fluctuating velocity and the potential temperature with zero mean. The nature of the averaging procedure behind the symbol $\langle\cdots\rangle$ will be specified below.
Earlier estimates of the fluxes [(\[def3\])]{} are based on the concept of the down-gradient turbulent transport, in which, similarly to the case of molecular transport, a flux is taken proportional to the gradient of transported property times a corresponding (turbulent) transport coefficient:
\[dt\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dtM}
\tau_{xz}&=& -\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} {d U_x}\big /{dz}\,, \quad
\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} \approx C_\nu \, \ell _z \sqrt {\tau_{zz}}\,, \\
\label{dtH} F_z&=&- \chi {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}
{d\Theta}\big /{dz}\,,\quad ~ \chi {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} \approx C_\chi \, \ell _z
\sqrt {\tau_{zz}}\,, \quad \mbox{etc.}~~~~\end{aligned}$$
Here the turbulent-eddy viscosity $\nu {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ and turbulent thermal conductivity $\chi {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ are estimated by dimensional reasoning via the vertical turbulent velocity $\sqrt{\tau_{zz}}$ and a scale $\ell_z$ (which in the simplest case is determined by the elevation $z$). The dimensionless coefficients $C_\nu$ and $C_\chi$ are assumed to be of the order of unity.
This approach meets serious difficulties (Zeman, 1981), in particular, it predicts full suppression of turbulence when the stratification exceeds a critical level, for which ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\approx 0.25$. On the other hand, in observations of the atmospheric turbulent boundary layer turbulence exists for much larger values than ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}=0.25$: experimentally above ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}=10$ and even more (see Galperin et al. (2007) and references therein). In models for weather predictions this problem is “fixed" by introducing fit functions $C_\nu ({\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}})$ and $C_\chi({\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}})$ instead of the constant $C_\nu $ and $C_\chi$ in the model parametrization [(\[dt\])]{}. This technical “solution" is not based on any physical derivation and just masks the shortcomings of the model. To really solve the problem one has to understand its physical origin, even though from a purely formal viewpoint it is indeed possible that a dimensionless coefficient like $C_\chi$ can be any function of ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$.
To expose the physical reason for the failure of the down-gradient approach, recall that in a stratified flow, in the presence of gravity, the turbulent kinetic energy is [*not*]{} an integral of motion. Only the total mechanical energy, the sum of the kinetic and the potential energy, is conserved in the inviscid limit. As it was shown already by Richardson, the difficult point is that an important contribution to the potential energy comes not just from the mean density profile, but from the density fluctuations. Clearly, any reasonable model of the turbulent boundary layer must obey the conservation laws.
The physical requirement of conserving the total mechanical energy calls for an explicit consideration not only of the mean profiles, but also of [*all*]{} the relevant second-order, one-point, simultaneous correlation functions of [*all*]{} the fluctuating fields together with some closure procedure for the appearing third order moments. First of all, in order to account for the important effect of stratification on the anisotropy, we must write explicit equations for the entire Reynolds stress tensor, $\tau _{ij}= \left\langle u_iu_j \right\rangle $ . Next, in the case of the temperature stratified turbulent boundary layers we follow tradition \[see, e.g. Zeeman (1981), Hunt et al. (1988), Schumann and Gerz (1995), Hanazaki and Hunt (2004), Keller and van Atta (2000), Stretch et al. (2001), Elperin et al. (2002), Cheng et al. (2002) Luyten et al. (2002), and Rehmann and Hwang (2005)\] and account for the turbulent potential energy which is proportional to the variance of the potential temperature deviation, $\langle \theta^2\rangle$. And last but not least, we have to consider explicitly equations for the vertical fluxes, $\tau_{xz}$ and $F_z$, which include the down gradient terms proportional to the velocity and temperature gradients, and counter-gradient terms, proportional to $F_x$ (in the equation for $\tau_{xz}$) and to $ \left\langle \theta^2 \right\rangle $ (in the equation for $F_z$) .
Unfortunately, the resulting second order closure seems to be inconsistent with the variety of boundary-layer data, and many authors took the liberty to introduce additional fitting parameters and sometimes fitting functions to achieve a better agreement with the data (see reviews of Umlauf and Burchard (2005), Weng and Taylor (2003), Zeeman, (1981), Melor and Yamada (1974), and references therein). Moreover, in the second order closures the problem of critical Richardson number seems to persists (Cheng et al., 2002; Canuto, 2002).
Notice that in spite of obvious inconsistency of the first-order schemes, most of the practically used turbulent models are based on the concept of the down-gradient transport. One of the reasons is that in the second-order schemes instead of two down-gradient equations [(\[dt\])]{} one needs to take into account eight nonlinear coupled additional equations i.e. four equations for the Reynolds stresses, three equations for the heat fluxes and equation for the temperature variance. As the result, the second-order schemes have seemed to be rather cumbersome for comprehensive analytical treatment and have allowed to find only some relationships between correlation functions (see, e.g., Cheng et al., 2002). Unfortunately, the numerical solutions to the complete set of the second-order schemes equations which involve too many fitting parameters are much less informative in clarification of physical picture of the phenomenon than desired analytical ones.
In this paper we suggest a relatively simple second-order closure model of turbulent boundary layer with stable temperature stratification that, from one hand, accounts for main relevant physics in the stratified TBL and, from the other hand, is simple enough to allow complete analytical treatment including the problem of critical Ri${_{\rm{grad}}}$. To reach this goal we approximate the third order correlations via the first- and second-order ones, accounting only for the most physically important terms. We will try to expose the approximations in a clear and logical way, providing the physical justification as we go along. Resulting second-order model consist of nine coupled equations for the mean velocity and temperature gradients, four components of the Reynolds stresses, two components of the temperature fluxes and the temperature variance. Thanks to the achieved simplicity of the model we found an approximate analytical solution of these equations, expressing all nine correlations as functions of only one governing parameter, $\ell(z)/L$, where $\ell(z)$ is the outer scale of turbulence (depending on the elevation $z$ and also known as the “dissipation scale") and $L$ – is the Obukhov length.
We would like also to stress, that in our approach $\ell(z)/L$ is an external parameter of the problem. For small elevations $z \ll L$, it is well accepted that $\ell(z)$ is proportional to $z$, while the $\ell(z)$ dependence is still under debate for $z$ comparable or exceeding $L$. For $z \gtrsim L$ the assignment and discussion of the actual dependence of the outer scale of turbulence, $\ell(z)$, which is manifested in the nature is out of the scope of this paper, and is remained for future work. At time being, we can analyze consequences of our approach for the following versions of $\ell(z)$ dependence at $z\gg L$:\
function $\ell(z)$ is saturated at some level of the order of $L$. For concreteness we can take $$\label{sless}
1/\ell(z) = \sqrt{(d_1z)^{-2}+(d_2 L)^{-2}}\,,
\quad d_1\sim d_2\sim 1\ .$$ $\ell(z)$ is again proportional to $z$ for elevations much larger than $L$: $\ell(z)=d_3 z$ but with the proportionality constant $d_3< d_1$. If so, we can also study the case $\ell(z) \gg L$ even though such a condition may not be realizable in Nature. In that case our analysis of the limit $\ell(z) \gg L$ has only a methodological character: it allows to derive an approximate analytic solution for all the objects of interest as functions of $\ell(z)/L$ that is also valid for the outer scale of turbulence not exceeding a value of the order of $L$.
It should be noticed that traditional turbulent closures (including ours) cannot be applied for strongly stratified flows with ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\gtrsim 1$ (may be even at ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\sim 1$). The main reason is that these closures are roughly justified for developed *vortical* turbulence, in which the eddy-turnover time is of the order of its life time; in other words, there are no well defined “quasi-particles" or waves. This is not the case for stable stratification with ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\gtrsim 1$, in which the Brunt-Väisälä frequency $$\label{BVf} N\equiv \sqrt{\beta d \Theta(z)/d\,z }\,,$$ is larger then the eddy-turnover frequency $\gamma$. It means that for ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\gtrsim 1$ there are weakly decaying Kelvin-Helmoholtz internal gravity waves (with characteristic frequency $N$ and decay time above $1/\gamma $), propagating on large distances, essentially effecting on TBL, as pointed out by Zilitinkevich, (2002). We concentrate in our paper on self-consistent description of the lower part of the atmospheric TBL, in which turbulence has vortical character and consequently, large values of ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$ do not appear. We relate large values of ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$ in the upper part of TBL with contributions of the internal gravity waves to the energy and the energy flux in TBL, to the momentum flux, and to the production of (vortical) turbulent energy. Due to their instability in a shear flow, the waves can break and create turbulent kinetic energy. All these effects are beyond the framework of our paper. Their description in the upper “potential-wave" TBL and intermediate region with the combined “vortical-potential" turbulent velocity field is in our nearest agenda.
To make the paper more transparent for wide audience, not necessarily experts in atmospheric TBL, we attempt to present the material in a self-contained manner, and organized it as follows.
In Sect. \[s:balance\]A we use the Oberbeck-Boussinesq approximation and apply the standard Reynolds decomposition (into mean values and turbulent zero-mean fluctuations of the velocity and temperature fields) to derive equations for the mean values and balance equations for all relevant second-order correlation functions. In Sect. \[s:balance\]B we demonstrate that the resulting balance equations exactly preserve (in the non-dissipative limit) the total mechanical energy of the system, that consists of the kinetic energy of the mean flow, kinetic energy and potential energy of the turbulent subsystem.
In Sect. \[s:closure\] we describe the proposed closure procedure that results in a model of stably stratified TBL, that accounts explicitly for all relevant second-order correlations. The third order correlations which appear in the theory are modeled in terms of second-order correlations in Sects. \[s:closure\]A and B. Further simplifications are presented in Sects. \[s:closure\]C and D for stationary turbulent flows in a plane geometry outside the viscous and buffer layers. In Sect. \[s:closure\]E we suggest a generalization of the standard “wall-normalization" to obtain the model equations in a dimensionless form with only one governing parameter, $\ell(z)/L$.
Section \[ss:strat41\] contains approximate analytical solution of the model. It is shown that the analytical solution deviates from the numerical counterpart in less than a few percent in the entire interval $0\le (\ell/L)<\infty$.
The last Sect. \[s:res\] is devoted to a detailed description of our results: profiles of the mean velocity and potential temperature (Sect. \[s:res\]A), profiles of the turbulent kinetic and “temperature" energies, profiles of the anisotropy of partial kinetic energies (Sect. \[s:res\]B), profiles of the turbulent transport parameters $\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ and $\chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$, profiles of the gradient- and flux-Richardson numbers ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$ and ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{flux}}}}$, and the dependence of the turbulent Prandtl number Pr${_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ vs. $\ell/L$ and ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$, Sect. \[s:res\]C. In conclusion Sect. \[s:res\]D, we consider the validity of the down-gradient transport concept [(\[dt\])]{} and explain why it is violated in the upper part of TBL. The problem of critical ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$ is also discussed.
\[s:balance\] Simplified dynamics in a stably temperature-stratified TBL and their conservation laws
====================================================================================================
The aim of this section is to consider the simplified dynamics of a stably temperature-stratified turbulent boundary layer, aiming finally at an explicit description of the height dependence of important quantities like the mean velocity, mean temperature, turbulent kinetic and potential energies, etc. In general one expects very different profiles from those known in standard (unstratified) wall-bounded turbulence. We want to focus on these differences and propose that they occur already relatively close to the ground allowing us to neglect (to the leading order) the dependence of the density on height and the Coriolis force. We thus begin by simplifying the hydrodynamic equations which are used in this section.
\[ss:wall-units\]Simplified hydrodynamic equations and Reynolds decomposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First we briefly overview the derivation of the governing equations in the Boussinesq approximation. The system of hydrodynamic equations describing a fluid in which the temperature is not uniform consists of the Navier-Stokes equations for the fluid velocity, ${\bm{\mathcal{U}}}({{\bm{r}}},t)$, a continuity equation for the space and time dependent (total) density of the fluid, $\rho ({{\bm{r}}},t)$, and of the heat balance equation for the (total) entropy per unit mass, ${{\mathcal{S}}}({{\bm{r}}},t)$, Landau and Lifshitz, 1987.
These equations are considered with boundary conditions that maintain the solution far from the equilibrium state, where ${\bm{\mathcal{U}}}={{\mathcal{S}}}=0$. These boundary conditions are ${\bm{\mathcal{U}}}=0$ at zero elevation, ${\bm{\mathcal{U}}}=const$ at a high elevation of a few kilometers. This reflects the existence of a wind at high elevation, but we do not attempt to model the physical origin of this wind in any detail. The only important condition with regards to this wind is that it maintains a momentum flux towards the ground that is prescribed as a function of the elevation. Similarly, we assume that a stable temperature stratification is maintained such that the heat flux towards the ground is prescribed as well.
We neglect the viscous entropy production term assuming that the temperature gradients are large enough such that the thermal entropy production term dominates. For simplicity of the presentation we restrict ourselves by relatively small elevations and disregard the Coriolis force (for more details, see Wyngaard, 1992). On the other hand we assume that the temperature and density gradients in the entire turbulent boundary layer are sufficiently small to allow employment of local thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, we assume the validity of the equation of state.
As a “basic reference state" (BRS) denoted hereafter by a subscript “${_{\rm{b}}}$" we use the isentropic model of the atmosphere, where the entropy is considered space homogeneous. Now assuming smallness of deviations of the density and pressure from their BRS values and exploiting the equation of state, one obtains a simplified equation, which is already very close to the standard Navier-Stokes equation in the Boussinesq approximation. Introducing (generalized) potential temperature, one results in the well-known system of hydrodynamic equations in the Boussinesq approximation. Close to the ground, where one can neglect the dependence of the density on height, the system reads: $$ \label{GovEq} \frac{{{\mathcal{D}}}\, {\bm{\mathcal{U}}} }{{{\mathcal{D}}} t} =
-\frac{{{\bm{\nabla}}} p}{ \rho{_{\rm{b}}}} - {{\bm{\beta}}}\, \Theta{_{\rm{\, d}}}
+ \nu\, \Delta\, {\bm{\mathcal{U}}} \,, \ \frac{{{\mathcal{D}}}\,
\Theta{_{\rm{\, d}}}}{{{\mathcal{D}}} t} = \chi\,
\Delta\, \Theta{_{\rm{\, d}}} \ .$$Here $ {{{\mathcal{D}}}}/{{{\mathcal{D}}} t}\equiv {\partial}/{\partial{t}}+ {\bm{\mathcal{U}}} \cdot {{\bm{\nabla}}}$ is the convection time derivative, $p$ – deviation of pressure from BRS, $\rho{_{\rm{b}}}$ is the density in BRS, ${\bm \beta} = {\bm g} \widetilde \beta$ is the buoyancy parameter (${\bm \beta} = -\widehat{\bm{z}} \beta$, $\beta = g \widetilde \beta$, $g$ is the gravity acceleration and $\widetilde \beta$ is the thermal expansion coefficient, which is equal to $1/T$, reciprocal molecular temperature, for an ideal gas), $\Theta{_{\rm{\, d}}}$ is the deviation of the potential temperature from BRS value, $\nu$ – kinematic viscosity and $\chi$ is the kinematic thermal conductivity.
To develop equations for the mean quantities and correlation functions one applies the Reynolds decomposition: $ {\bm{\mathcal{U}}} = {{\bm{U}}} + {{\bm{u}}}\,, \ \langle {\bm{\mathcal{U}}}\rangle = {{\bm{U}}}\,, \ \left\langle {{\bm{u}}} \right\rangle =0\,,
\Theta{_{\rm{\,d}}} = \Theta + \theta\,, \
\langle\Theta{_{\rm{\,d}}}\rangle=\Theta\,, \ \langle \theta
\rangle= 0\,, \ p = \langle p\rangle+\widetilde p\,, \quad \langle \widetilde p \rangle
= 0$. Here the average $\langle \cdots \rangle$ stands for an averaging over a horizontal plane at a constant elevation. This leaves the average quantities with a $z,t$ dependence only. Substituting in Eqs. [(\[GovEq\])]{} one gets equations of motion for the mean velocity and mean temperature profiles $$\label{mean}
\frac{D\, U_i}{Dt} + \nabla\!_j\, \widetilde \tau_{ij}=
- \frac{ \nabla\!_i \langle p\rangle}{\rho_b} -
\beta_i \,\Theta\,,\
\frac{D\, \Theta }{Dt}+ {{\bm{\nabla}}}\cdot \widetilde {{{\bm{F}}}}=0\ .$$ Here $ {D}/{Dt}\equiv {\partial}/{\partial{t}}+ {{\bm{U}}} \cdot {{\bm{\nabla}}}$ is the mean convection derivative. The total (molecular and turbulent) momentum and thermal fluxes are $$\label{def-tau}\widetilde \tau_{ij}
\equiv - \nu \nabla\!_j\, U_i+\tau_{ij}\,,\quad
\widetilde {{{\bm{F}}}} \equiv -\chi \,{{\bm{\nabla}}} {\Theta} +{{\bm{F}}}\,,$$ where $\tau_{ij} = \langle u_i u_j \rangle$ is the Reynolds stress tensor describing the turbulent momentum flux, and ${{\bm{F}}} = \langle
{{\bm{u}}} \theta \rangle$ is the turbulent thermal flux. In order to derive equations for these correlation functions, one considers the equations of motion for the fluctuating velocity and temperature:
\[fluct\]$$\begin{aligned}
\label{NSEFluct} {D\,{{\bm{u}}}}/{D\,t}
&\!=\!& -{{\bm{u}}} \cdot{{\bm{\nabla}}} {{\bm{U}}} -{{\bm{u}}} \cdot{{\bm{\nabla}}} {{\bm{u}}}
+\left\langle {{\bm{u}}} \cdot{{\bm{\nabla}}} {{\bm{u}}}\right\rangle \\ \nonumber&& -({{{\bm{\nabla}}} \widetilde p}/{\rho_b}) + \nu\, \Delta {{\bm{u}}} - {{\bm{\beta}}}\,\theta\,,\\ \label{fluctb}
{D\,\theta}/{D\,t} &\!=\!& -{{\bm{u}}} \cdot {{\bm{\nabla}}} {\Theta} -{{\bm{u}}} \cdot {{\bm{\nabla}}} \theta +\chi\,\Delta
\theta +\left\langle {{\bm{u}}} \cdot {{\bm{\nabla}}} \theta \right\rangle
.~~~~~~~~\end{aligned}$$
The whole set of the second order correlation functions includes the Reynolds stress, $\tau_{ij}$, the turbulent thermal flux, ${{\bm{F}}}$, and the “temperature energy" $
E_{\theta} \equiv
\left\langle \theta^2 \right\rangle /2$, which is denoted and named by analogy with the turbulent kinetic energy density (per unit mass and unit volume), $
E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} = \langle |{{\bm{u}}}|^2\rangle/2= \mbox{Tr}
\{\tau_{ij}\}/2$. Using [(\[fluct\])]{} one gets the following “balance equations":
\[corr\]$$\begin{aligned}
\label{corra} \frac{D\,\tau_{ij}}{D\,t} +\varepsilon_{ij}
+ \frac{\partial}{\partial{x_k}}T _{ijk}
&=&
{{\mathcal{P}}}_{ij}- {{\mathcal{C}}}_{ij} +{{\mathcal{\mathcal}}}{R}_{ij}
\,,~~~~~~~~~~~\\
\label{corrb}
\frac{D\,F_i}{D\,t} + \epsilon _i+
\frac{\partial}{\partial{x_j}}T_{ij} &=& {{\mathcal{A}}}_i+{{\mathcal{B}}}_i
\,, ~~~~\\
\label{corrc} \frac{D\, E_{\theta}}{D\,t}+ \varepsilon+{{\bm{\nabla}}}
\cdot {{\bm{T}}}&=& -{{\bm{F}}} \cdot
{{\bm{\nabla}}} {\Theta} \ . $$
Here we denoted the dissipations of the Reynolds-stress, heat-flux and the temperature energy by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \varepsilon_{ij}&\!\!\equiv \!\!& 2\,\nu\left\langle
\frac{\partial{u_i}}{\partial{x_k}}\,
\frac{\partial{u_j}}{\partial{x_k}} \right\rangle, \
\epsilon_{i} \equiv \left( \nu +\chi \right) \left\langle
\frac{\partial{\theta}}{\partial{x_k}}\,
\frac{\partial{u_i}}{\partial{x_k}} \right\rangle, \\
\label{diss}
\varepsilon & \equiv & \chi\, \left\langle |{{\bm{\nabla}}}\theta|^2 \right\rangle , $$ The last term on the LHS of each of Eqs. [(\[corr\])]{} describes [*spatial*]{} flux of the corresponding quantity. In models of wall bounded unstratified turbulence it is known that these terms are very small almost everywhere. We do not have sufficient experience with the stratified counterpart to be able to assert that the same is true here. Nevertheless, for simplicity we are going to neglect these terms. It is possible to show that the accounting for these terms does not influence much the results. Note that keeping these terms turns the model into a set of differential equations which are very cumbersome to analyze. This is a serious uncontrolled step in our development, so we cross our fingers and proceed with caution. Since these terms are neglected we do not provide here the explicit expressions for $T_{ijk}$, $T_{ij}$, and ${{\bm{T}}}$.
The first term on the RHS of the balance Eq. [(\[corra\])]{} for the Reynolds stresses is the “Energy Production tensor" ${{\mathcal{P}}}_{ij}$, describing the production of the turbulent kinetic energy from the kinetic energy of the mean flow, proportional to the gradient of the mean velocity:
\[defs1\] $$\label{defs1A}{{\mathcal{P}}}_{ij} \equiv - \tau_{ik}\, {\partial{U_j}}/{\partial{x_k}}
-\tau_{jk}\, {\partial{U_i}}/{\partial{x_k}} \ .$$ The second term on the RHS of Eq. [(\[corra\])]{}, ${{\mathcal{C}}}_{ij} $, will be referred hereafter to as the “Energy Conversion tensor". It describes the conversion of the turbulent kinetic energy into potential energy. This term is proportional to the buoyancy parameter $ \beta $ and the turbulent thermal flux ${{\bm{F}}}$: $$\label{defs1B} {{\mathcal{C}}}_{ij} \equiv
- \beta\big (F_i\,\delta_{j\,z}+
F_j\,\delta_{i\,z}\big)\ .$$The next term in the RHS of Eq. [(\[corra\])]{} is known as the “Pressure-rate-of-strain tensor": $$\label{defs1C} {{\mathcal{R}}}_{ij} \equiv \left\langle {\widetilde p}
\,s_{ij}/{\rho{_{\rm{b}}}}\right\rangle, \quad s_{ij}\equiv
{\partial{u_i}}/{\partial{x_j}} + {\partial{
u_j}}/{\partial{x_i}} \ .$$In incompressible turbulence its trace vanishes, therefore $ {{\mathcal{R}}}_{ij}$ does not contribute to the balance of the kinetic energy. As we will show in Sec. \[sss:PRS\], this tensor can be presented as the sum of three contributions (Zeman, 1981), $$\label{rof}{{\mathcal{R}}}_{ij}= {R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\, RI}}}} +{R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\,IP}}}} +{R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\,IC}}}}
\,,$$ in which ${R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\, RI}}}}$ is responsible for the nonlinear process of isotropization of turbulence and is traditionally called the “Return-to-Isotropy", ${R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\,IP}}}}$ is similar to the energy production tensor [(\[defs1A\])]{} and is called “Isotropization of Production". A new term, appearing in the stratified flow, ${R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\,IC}}}}$, is similar to the energy conversion tensor [(\[defs1B\])]{} and will be refereed to as the “Isotropization of Conversion".
Consider the balance of the turbulent thermal flux ${{\bm{F}}}$, [Eq. (\[corrb\])]{}. The first term in the RHS, ${\bm{\mathcal{A}}}$, describes the source of ${{\bm{F}}}$ and, by analogy with the energy-production tensor, ${{\mathcal{P}}}
_{ij}$, is called “Thermal-flux production vector". Like ${{\mathcal{P}}}
_{ij}$, [Eq. (\[defs1B\])]{}, it has the contribution, $A_i^{^{SU}} $, proportional to the mean velocity gradient: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defOfA}\nonumber
{{{\mathcal{A}}}}_i& \equiv \ & { A_i^{^{SU}}}
+ { A_i^{^{S\Theta}}} + { A_i^{^{E\theta}}} \,,\quad
{ A_i^{^{SU}}} \equiv -{{\bm{F}}} \cdot {{\bm{\nabla}}}\, U_i \,,
\\
{ A_i^{^{S\Theta}}} & \equiv & -\tau_{ij}\,
{\partial \Theta}/{\partial x_j}\,,
\quad { A_i^{^{E\theta}}} \equiv 2\,\beta\,E_{\theta}\,\delta_{i\,z}\,,
$$ and two additional contributions, related to the temperature gradient and to the “temperature energy", $E_\theta$, and the buoyancy parameter. One sees, that in contrary to the oversimplified assumption [(\[dtH\])]{}, the thermal flux in such a turbulent media cannot be considered as proportional to the temperature gradient. It has also a contribution proportional to the velocity gradient and even to the square of the temperature fluctuations. Moreover, the RHS of the flux-balance [Eq. (\[corrb\])]{} has an additional term, the “Pressure-temperature-gradient vector" which, similarly to the pressure-rate-of-strain tensor [(\[rof\])]{}, can be divided into three parts (Zeman, 1981): $$\label{defs1f} {\bm{\mathcal{B}}} \equiv \left\langle {\widetilde p }\, {{\bm{\nabla}}} \theta /\rho_b
\right\rangle = {{\bm{B}}} {^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}} + {{\bm{B}}} {^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{SU}}} + {{\bm{B}}} {^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{E\theta}}}\
.$$As we will show in Sec. \[sss:PRS\] the first contribution, $
B_i{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}\propto \left\langle u\, u\, \nabla\!_i\, \theta \right\rangle $ is responsible for the nonlinear flux of ${{\bm{F}}}$ in the space of scales toward smaller scales, similarly to the correlation $ \left\langle u\, u\, u \right\rangle $, which is responsible for the flux of kinetic energy $ \left\langle u^2 \right\rangle\!/2 $ toward smaller scales. The correlation $ B_i{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}
\propto \left\langle u\, u\, \nabla\!_i\, \theta \right\rangle $ may be understood as the nonlinear contribution to the dissipation of the thermal flux. Correspondingly we will call it “Renormalization of the Thermal-Flux Dissipation" and will supply it with a superscript “ ${^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}$ ". The next two terms in the decomposition [(\[defs1f\])]{} are ${B_i^{^{SU}}}\propto S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}$ and ${B_i^{^{E\theta}}}\propto E_\theta$. They describe the renormalization of the thermal-flux production terms ${A_i^{^{SU}}}\propto S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}$ and ${A_i^{^{E\theta}}}\propto
E_\theta$, accordingly.
\[ss:cons\]Conservation of total mechanical energy in the exact balance equations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total mechanical energy of temperature stratified turbulent flows consists of three parts with densities (per unit mass): $E=
E_{{{\mathcal{K}}}}+ E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}+E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{P}}}$, where $E_{{{\mathcal{K}}}}=|{{\bm{U}}}|^2/2$ is the density of kinetic energy of the mean flow, $E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}=\tau_{ii}/2$ is the density of turbulent kinetic energy and $E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{P}}}={\beta}
E_\theta/{S_\Theta}$ is the density of potential energy, associated with turbulent density fluctuation $ \widetilde \rho= \widetilde \beta\,
\theta \rho_b$, caused by the (potential) temperature fluctuations $\theta$, and $S_\Theta = d\, {\Theta}/d z$. The balance Eq. for $E_{{{\mathcal{K}}}}$ follows from [Eq. (\[mean\])]{}:
\[balE\]$$\begin{aligned}
\label{balETm} {D E_{{{\mathcal{K}}}}}/{D\, t}+ \nu \left( \nabla_{\!\! j} U_i \right) ^2+
\nabla_{\!\! j}\, (U_i \, \widetilde{\tau}_{ij}) = ~~~~~\nonumber \\ \left[\mathrm{source}\ E_{{{\mathcal{K}}}}\right] + \tau_{ij}\nabla_{\!\! j} \, U_i\,,\end{aligned}$$ with the help of identity: $ U_i\nabla_{\!\! j}\, \tau_{ij}\equiv
\nabla_{\!\! j}\, (U_i \tau_{ij})-\tau_{ij} \nabla_{\!\! j}\, U_i$ and definition [(\[def-tau\])]{}. The terms on the LHS of this Eq., proportional to $\nu$ and $ \widetilde{\tau}_{ij}$ respectively, describe the dissipation and the spatial flux of $ E_{{{\mathcal{K}}}}$. The term \[source $E_{{{\mathcal{K}}}} $\] on the RHS of [Eq. (\[balETm\])]{} describes the external source of energy, originating from the boundary conditions described above, and $\tau_{ij}\nabla_{\!\! j} \, U_i$ describes the kinetic energy out-flux from the mean flow to turbulent subsystem.
The balance Eq. for the turbulent kinetic energy follows directly from [Eq. (\[corra\])]{}: $$\label{balETt} {D\, E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}/{D\, t}+ \big[ \varepsilon _{ii}+\nabla_{\!\! j}\,
T_{iij}\big]/2=- \tau_{ij} \nabla_{\!\! j} \, U_i +\beta F_z\ . $$On the LHS of [Eq. (\[balETt\])]{} one sees the dissipation and spatial flux terms. The first term on the RHS originates from the energy production, $\frac12 \, {{\mathcal{P}}}_{ii}$, defined by [Eq. (\[defs1A\])]{}. This term has an opposite sign to the last term on the RHS of [Eq. (\[balETm\])]{} and describes the production of the turbulent kinetic energy from the kinetic energy of the mean flow. The last term on the RHS of [Eq. (\[balETt\])]{} originates from the energy conversion tensor $\frac12 \,
{{\mathcal{C}}}_{ii}$, [Eq. (\[defs1B\])]{}, and describes the conversion of the turbulent kinetic energy into potential one.
According to the last of Eqs. [(\[corr\])]{}, one gets the balance equation for the potential energy $E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{P}}}$; multiplying [Eq. (\[corrc\])]{} for $E_\theta$ by $\beta /S_\Theta$:$$\label{balEP}
{D\, E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{P}}}}/{D\, t}+ \beta \Big [ \epsilon +
\nabla_{\!\! j} T_j \Big ]/S_\Theta = -\beta F_z\ .$$
The RHS of this Eq. \[coinciding up to a sign with the last term on the RHS of [Eq. (\[balETt\])]{}\] is the source of potential energy (from the kinetic one).
In the sum of the three balance equations, the conversion terms (of the kinetic energy from the mean to turbulent flows and of the turbulent kinetic energy to the potential one) cancel and one gets the total mechanical energy balance: $$\label{bal-tot}
{D\, E\ }/{D\, t}+ [\mbox{diss }E] + {{\bm{\nabla}}}\,
[\mbox{flux} E]= [\mbox{source } E_{{{\mathcal{K}}}}]\ .$$ This equation exactly respects the conservation of total mechanical energy in the dissipation-less limit, irrespective of the closure approximations. This is because the energy production and conversion terms are exact and do not require any closures, while the pressure-rate-of-strain tensor, that requires some closure, does not contribute to the total energy balance.
\[s:closure\] The Closure Procedure and the resulting model
===========================================================
In this section we describe the proposed closure procedure that results in a model of stably stratified TBL. In developing this model we strongly rely on the analogous well developed modeling of standard (unstratified) TBL. The final justification of this approach can be done only in comparison to data from experiments and simulations. We will do below what we can to use the existing data, but we propose at this point that much more experimental and simulational work is necessary to solidify all the steps taken in this section.
\[sss:PRS\] Pressure-Rate-of-Strain tensor ${{\mathcal{R}}}_{ij}$ and Pressure-Temperature-Gradient vector ${\bm{\mathcal{B}}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The correlation functions ${{\mathcal{R}}}_{ij}$ and ${\bm{\mathcal{B}}}$, defined by Eqs. [(\[defs1C\])]{} and [(\[defs1f\])]{}, include fluctuating part of the pressure $\widetilde p$. The Poisson’s equation for $\widetilde p$ follows from [Eq. (\[fluct\])]{}: $
\Delta \widetilde p = \rho {_{\rm{b}}}\Big[ -\nabla _i \nabla _j \left( u _i u _j - \left\langle u
_i u _j \right\rangle
+U_i u_j +U_j u_i \right) +\beta\nabla_z\theta\Big]
$. The solution of this equation includes a harmonic part, $\Delta \widetilde p =
0$, which is responsible for sound propagation and does not contribute to turbulent dynamics at small Mach numbers. Thus this contribution can be neglected. the inhomogeneous solution includes three parts $\widetilde {p}=\rho {_{\rm{b}}}[p_{uu}+p_{Uu}+p_\theta]$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pr1}
p_{uu}&=&
\Delta^{-1}\nabla _i \nabla _j \left( \left\langle u _i u _j \right\rangle - u _i u _j \right) \,,\\ \nonumber
p_{Uu}&=& \Delta^{-1}\nabla _i \nabla _j \left( U_iu_j+ U_ju_i \right) \,, \
p_\theta= \beta\Delta^{-1}\nabla_z\ \theta \ ,\end{aligned}$$ and the inverse Laplace operator $ \Delta^{-1}$ is defined as usual in terms of an integral over the Green’s function.
Correspondingly the correlations ${{\mathcal{R}}}_{ij}$ and ${\bm{\mathcal{B}}}$ consist of three terms, Eqs. [(\[rof\])]{} and [(\[defs1f\])]{}, in which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{decP} &&R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} = \left\langle
p_{uu} s_{ij} \right\rangle\,, \ R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}}
\equiv \left\langle p_{Uu}\, s_{ij}\right\rangle , \
R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}} \equiv \left\langle p_\theta s_{ij} \right\rangle,~\\
&& {{\bm{B}}}_i{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}} = \left\langle p _{uu} {{\bm{\nabla}}} \theta \right\rangle ,\ {{\bm{B}}} ^{^{SU}}
\equiv \left\langle p _{Uu} {{\bm{\nabla}}} \theta \right\rangle ,\ {{\bm{B}}}_i^{^{E\theta}} \equiv
\left\langle p _\theta {{\bm{\nabla}}} \theta \right\rangle \nonumber \ .
\end{aligned}$$ All of those terms originating from $p_{uu}$ are the most problematic because they introduce coupling to triple correlation functions: ${R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\, RI}}}}\propto \left\langle u_iu_ju_k \right\rangle $ and ${{\bm{B}}}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}\propto \left\langle u^2 {{\bm{\nabla}}} \theta \right\rangle $. Thus they require closure procedures whose justification can be only tested a-posteriori against the data.
Having in mind to simplify the model in most possible manner, we adopt for the diagonal part of the Return-to-Isotropy tensor, the simplest Rota form (Rotta, 1951)
\[ROF\]$$\label{RIa} {R_{ii}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\, RI}}}} \simeq -\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \left( \tau_{ii} - 2\,E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} / 3 \right) \,, $$ in which $\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$ is the relaxation frequency of diagonal components of the Reynolds-stress tensor toward its isotropic form, $2 E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}/3$. The parametrization of $\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$ will be discussed later. The tensor ${R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\, RI}}}}$ is traceless, therefore the frequency $\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$ must be the same for all the diagonal components of ${R_{ii}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\, RI}}}}$. On the other hand there are no reasons to assume that off-diagonal terms have the same relaxation frequency. Therefore, following L’vov et al. (2006a) we assume that $$\label{RIb} {R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\, RI}}}} \simeq - \widetilde \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \tau_{ij} \,, \quad
i\ne j\,,$$with, generally speaking, $\widetilde \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\ne \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$. Moreover, on the intuitive level, we can expect that off-diagonal terms should decay faster then the diagonal ones, i.e. $\widetilde \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}> \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$. Indeed, our analysis of DNS results shows that $\widetilde \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}/\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\simeq 1.46$ (L’vov et al., 2006b).
The term ${{\bm{B}}}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}$ also describes return-to-isotropy due to nonlinear turbulence self interactions (Zeman, 1981), and may be modeled as: $$\label{RD1} {B_i{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}} =-\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}} F_i\ .$$ This equation dictates the vectorial structure of $
{B_i{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}} \propto F_i$, which will be confirmed below. The rest can be understood as the definition of the $\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}$ as the relaxation frequency of the thermal flux. Its parametrization is the subject of further discussion in Sec. \[ss:closure\].
The traceless “Isotropization-of-Production" tensor, ${R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\,IP}}}}$, has a very similar structure to the production tensor, ${{\mathcal{P}}}_{ij}$, [Eq. (\[defs1A\])]{}, and thus is traditionally modeled in terms of ${{\mathcal{P}}}_{ij}$ (Pope, 2001):$$\label{IP}{R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\,IP}}}} \simeq -C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}} \left( {{\mathcal{\mathcal}}}{P}_{ij} - \delta_{ij}\,{{{\mathcal{P}}}}/3
\right) \,, \quad {{\mathcal{P}}}\equiv \mbox{Tr} \,\{ {{\mathcal{\mathcal}}}{P}_{ij}\}\ .$$The accepted value of the numerical constant $ C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}} = \frac35\ $ (Pope, 2001).
The traceless “Isotropization-of-Conversion" tensor, ${R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\,IC}}}}$ does not exist in unstratified TBL. Its structure is very similar to the conversion tensor, ${{\mathcal{C}}}_{ij}$, [Eq. (\[defs1B\])]{}. Therefore it is reasonable to model it in the same way in terms of ${{\mathcal{C}}}_{ij}$ (Zeman, 1981): $$\label{IC}{R_{ij}{^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\,IC}}}} \simeq -C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}} \left(
{{\mathcal{C}}}_{ij} -\delta_{ij}\, {{{\mathcal{C}}}}/3
\right) \,, \quad {{\mathcal{C}}}\equiv \mbox{Tr} \,\{ {{\mathcal{C}}}_{ij}\}\,,$$with some new constant $ C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}}$ . The renormalization of production terms ${B_i^{^{SU}}}$ and ${B_i^{^{E\theta}}}$ are very similar to the corresponding thermal flux production terms, ${A_i^{^{SU}}}$ and ${A_i^{^{E\theta}}}$, defined by Eqs. [(\[defOfA\])]{}. Therefore, in the spirit of Eqs. [(\[IP\])]{} and [(\[IC\])]{}, they are modeled as follows:$$\begin{aligned}
{B_i^{^{SU}}}&=& (C_{_{SU}}-1){A_i^{^{SU}}}= (1-C_{_{SU}})
({{\bm{F}}} \cdot {{\bm{\nabla}}}\,) U_i\,, \\ {B_i^{^{E\theta}}} &=& -(C_{_{E\theta}}+1) {A_i^{^{E\theta}}} =
-2\,\beta\,(C_{_{E\theta}}+1)E_{\theta}\,\delta_{i\,z}\ .~~~~~~~~ $$
Using this and [(\[pr1\])]{} one finds the sign of $C_{_{E\theta}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber&& -\beta \left( C_{_{E\theta}} +1 \right) E_{\theta} = \left\langle \widetilde p_{\theta} \nabla_z
\theta \right\rangle = \beta\langle (\nabla_z\theta) \Delta^{-1}
(\nabla_z\theta)\rangle,~~~\\ && \label{CT}C_{_{E\theta}} = - \left( 1 + {\langle (\nabla_z\theta) \Delta^{-1}
(\nabla_z\theta)\rangle}/{\langle \theta^2\rangle} \right) < 0\ .\end{aligned}$$To estimate $C_{_{E\theta}}$ we assume that on the gradient scales the temperature fluctuations are roughly isotropic, and therefore we can estimate $\Delta= \nabla_x^2+\nabla_y^2+\nabla_z^2 \approx 3\nabla_z^2$. Introducing this estimate and integrating by parts leads to $ C_{_{E\theta}}\approx
-2/3$.
\[sss:dis\]Reynolds-stress-, thermal-flux-, and thermal-dissipation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Far away from the wall and for large Reynolds numbers the dissipation tensors are dominated by the viscous scale motions, at which turbulence can be considered as isotropic. Therefore, the vector ${{\bm{\epsilon}}}$ should vanish, while the tensor $\varepsilon _{ij}$, [Eq. (\[diss\])]{}, should be diagonal:
\[distau1\] $$\label{distau1a} \epsilon_i=0\,, \quad \varepsilon _{ij}=
2\, \gamma _{uu} \,E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} \, \delta _{ij}/3\,, $$where the numerical prefactor $\frac23 $ is chosen such that $\gamma _{uu}$ becomes the relaxation frequency of the turbulent kinetic energy. Under stationary conditions the rate of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation is equal to the energy flux through scales, that can be estimated as $ \left\langle u u u \right\rangle / \ell$, where $\ell$ is the outer scale of turbulence. Therefore, the natural estimate of $\gamma _{uu}$ involves the triple-velocity correlator, $ \gamma _{uu}\sim \left( \left\langle u u u
\right\rangle / \ell \left\langle uu \right\rangle \right) $, exactly in the same manner, as the Return-to-Isotropy frequencies, $\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$ and $ \widetilde {\gamma }{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$ in Eqs. [(\[RIa\])]{} and [(\[RIb\])]{}. Similarly, $$\label{distau1b}
\varepsilon =\gamma _{\theta\theta}\, E_\theta \,, \quad \gamma _
{\theta\theta} \sim \left\langle \theta \theta u \right\rangle \big / \ell \left\langle \theta
\theta \right\rangle \ .$$
\[ss:balance\]Stationary balance equations in plain geometry
------------------------------------------------------------
In the plane geometry, the equations simplify further. The mean velocity is oriented in the (streamwise) $\widehat{\bf{x}} $ direction and all mean values depend on the vertical (wall-normal) coordinate $z$ only: ${{\bm{U}}} = U (z)\,\widehat{\bf{x}} $, $ {\Theta}= {\Theta}(z)$, $
\tau_{ij}=\tau_{ij}(z)$, $ ~{{\bm{F}}}={{\bm{F}}}(z)$, $E_\theta =E_\theta (z)$. Therefore $ \left( {{\bm{U}}}\cdot{{\bm{\nabla}}} \right) \left\langle \dots \right\rangle = 0$, and in the stationary case, when $\partial \ /\partial t= 0$, the mean convective derivative vanishes: $D\ /D\, t=0$. Moreover due to the $y\to -y$ symmetry of the problem the following correlations vanish: $
\widetilde \tau_{xy}=\widetilde \tau_{yz}=\widetilde F_y=0$. The only non-zero components of the mean velocity and temperature gradients are: $$\label{Shears} S_{_U}\equiv {d U}/{d z}\,, \quad
S_{_\Theta}\equiv {d \Theta}/{d z}\ .$$
### Equations for the mean velocity and temperature profiles
Having in mind Eqs. of Sec. \[ss:balance\] and integrating Eqs. [(\[mean\])]{} for $U_x$ and $\Theta$ over $z$, one gets equations for the total (turbulent and molecular) mechanical-momentum flux, $\widetilde \tau (z)$, and thermal flux, $\widetilde F$, toward the wall
\[TBL-Sim\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sim-U-x} \widetilde \tau_{xz}(z)=-\nu\,S_{_U} +\tau_{xz} \Rightarrow
\widetilde \tau_{xz}(0)\equiv - \tau_* \,, \\
\label{Sim-Teta-Avg} \widetilde F_z(z)=-\chi\,S_{_\Theta} + F_z \Rightarrow \widetilde F_z(0)\equiv - F_*\ . $$
The total flux of the $x$-component of the mechanical moment in $z$-direction is $ \rho_b\widetilde \tau_{xz} (z) \equiv \int dz ({\partial \left\langle p \right\rangle /\partial x}) +
\mbox{const}$. Generally speaking, $\widetilde \tau_{xz} (z)$ depends on $z$. For example, for the pressure driven planar channel flow (of the half-wight $\delta$) $\rho_b\widetilde \tau_{xz} (z) =
(\partial \left\langle p \right\rangle /\partial x)(\delta-z)<0$.
Relatively close to the ground, where $z\ll \delta$, the $z$ dependence of $\widetilde \tau_{xz}(z)$ can be neglected. In the absence of the mean horizontal pressure drop and spatial distributed heat sources $\widetilde \tau$ and $\widetilde F$ are $z$-independent, and thus equal to their values at zero elevation, as indicated in Eqs. [(\[TBL-Sim\])]{} after “$\Rightarrow$"-sign. Notice, that in our case of stable stratification both vertical fluxes, the $x$-component of the mechanical momentum, $\widetilde \tau_{xz}$, and the thermal flux, $\widetilde F_z$, are directed toward the ground, i.e. negative. For the sake of convenience, we introduce in Eqs. [(\[TBL-Sim\])]{} notations for their (positive) zero level absolute value: $\tau_*$ and $F_*$.
Recall that in the plain geometry $U_z=0$. Nevertheless one can write an equation for $U_z$: $$\label{Sim-U-z} d \left( \tau_{zz} +{ \left\langle p \right\rangle /\rho_b} \right) /d z = \beta\,\Theta \,,$$ which describes a turbulent correction ($\propto \tau_{zz}$) to the hydrostatic equilibrium. Actually, this equation determines the profile of $ \left\langle p \right\rangle $, that does not appear in the system of balance equations [(\[TBL-Sim\])]{}.
### Equations for the pair (cross)-correlation functions
Consider first the balance Eqs. [(\[corra\])]{} for the diagonal components of the Reynolds-stress tensor in algebraic model (which arises when we neglect the spatial fluxes): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber&& \Gamma E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} +3 \gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \tau_{xx} /2 = - \Big(3-
2\,C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}} \Big)\tau_{xz}S_{_U} - C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}}\,\beta \,F_{z}\,,~~~~ \\
\label{taup} && \Gamma E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} +3\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \tau_{yy}/2 = -
C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}}\tau_{xz}S_{_U} - \,C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}}\,\beta \,F_{z}\,,\\ \nonumber
&& \Gamma E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} + 3\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \tau_{zz} /2 =
-C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}}\tau_{xz}S_{_U} +\Big(3 +2\,C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}} \Big)\beta \,F_{z}\
.$$where $\Gamma\equiv \gamma _{uu}-\gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}$. The LHS of these equations includes the dissipation and Return-to-isotropy terms. On the RHS we have the kinetic energy production and isotropization of production terms (both proportional to $S_{_U}$) together with the conversion and isotropization of conversion terms, that are proportional to the vertical thermal flux $F_z$. The horizontal component of the thermal flux, $F_x$, does not appear in these equations.
System [(\[taup\])]{} allows to find anisotropy of the turbulent-velocity fluctuations and to get the balance Eqs. for the turbulent kinetic energy with the energy production and conversion terms on the RHS:
\[tau1\] $$\begin{aligned}
3\tau_{xx} &=& 2 \big\{ [2(1 -C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}})\Gamma_{uu}/\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} +1
] E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} \\ \nonumber && -(3 -2C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}} +C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}})\, \beta F_z /
\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \big\} \,,
\\ 3\tau_{yy} &=& 2 \big\{ [(C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}}-1)\Gamma_{uu}/\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} +1 ]
E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} \\ \nonumber &&
-(C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}} +C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}}) \beta F_z/\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \big\} \,, \\
3\tau_{zz} &=& 2 \big\{ [ \left( C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}}-1 \right)
\Gamma_{uu}/\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} +1 ]E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} \\ \nonumber && -
(C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}} -2C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}} -3 ) \, \beta F_z/\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\big\} \,, \\ \label{bale} \Gamma_{uu}E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} &=& -\tau_{xz}S_{_U}+ \beta F_z \,,$$ Equation [(\[bale\])]{} includes the only non-vanishing tangential (off-diagonal) Reynolds stress $\tau_{xz}$ and has to be accompanied with an equation for this object: $$\label{txz}\widetilde \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \tau_{xz} = \big(C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}} -1\big)\tau_{zz}\,S_{_U}
+\big(1 +C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}}\big)\beta\,F_x \ .$$
This equation manifests that the tangential Reynolds stress $\tau_{xz}$, that determines the energy production \[according to [Eq. (\[bale\])]{}\], influences, in its turn, on the value of the streamwise thermal flux $F_x$, which therefore effects on the turbulent kinetic energy production. As we mentioned, in the plain geometry $\widetilde F_y=0$. Equations [(\[corrb\])]{} for the $F_x$ and $F_z$ in this case take the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sim-F-x}\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}} F_x &=& - \left( \tau_{xz} S_{_\Theta} +C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{SU}}} F_z
S_{_U} \right) \,, \\ \label{Sim-F-z}\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}} F_z &=& - \left( \tau_{zz} S_{_\Theta} +2\,C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{E\Theta}}}\,
\beta E_{\theta} \right) \,, $$ in which the RHS describes the thermal-flux production, corrected by the isotropization of production terms.
The last [Eq. (\[corrc\])]{} for $E_{\theta}$, represents the balance between the dissipation (LHS) and production (RHS): $$\label{Sim-ET} \gamma_{\theta\theta}\,E_\theta = -F_z\,S_{_\Theta}\ .$$
\[ss:closure\] Simple closure of time-scales and the balance equations in the turbulent region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point we follow a tradition in modeling of all the nonlinear inverse time-scales by dimensional estimates (Kolmogorov, 1941): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{freqs} \gamma _{uu}&=&c_{uu} \sqrt{E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}} \big / \ell\,, \quad \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}= C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \gamma _{uu}\,, \\ \nonumber \widetilde \gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}& = & \widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\,,\quad \gamma_{\theta\theta} = C_{\theta\theta} \gamma _{uu}\,, \quad \gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}= C_{u\theta}\gamma _{uu}\ .$$Remember that $\ell $ is the “outer scale of turbulence". This scale equals to $z$ for $z< L$, where $L$ is the Obukhov length (definition is found below).
Detailed analysis of experimental, DNS and LES data (see L’vov et al., 2006, and references therein) shows that for unstratified flows, $\textrm{g}=0$, the anisotropic boundary layers exhibits values of the Reynolds stress tensor that can be well approximated by the values $\tau_{xx}=E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}$, $\tau_{yy}=\tau_{zz}=E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}/2$. In our approach this dictates the choice $C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} = 4(1-C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}})$. Also we can expect that $\tau_{yy}$ is almost not affected by buoyancy. This gives simply $ C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IC}}} = -C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{IP}}}$. If so, Eqs. [(\[tau1\])]{} with the parametrization [(\[freqs\])]{} can be identically rewritten as follows:
\[simple\] $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber && \tau_{xx} = E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} -\frac{\beta F_z}{2\,\gamma_{uu}}\,,
\quad\tau_{yy} = \frac{E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}2\,,\quad \tau_{zz} = \frac{E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}2 +\frac{\beta F_z}{2\,\gamma_{uu}}\,, \\
\label{simpleA}
&& \gamma_{uu}E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} = \beta F_z -\tau_{xz}S_{_U} \,, \quad
\gamma _{uu}=c_{uu} \sqrt{E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}} \big / \ell \,, \\ \nonumber && ~~~~~~~~~~~
4\,\widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\,\gamma_{uu} \tau_{xz} = \beta\,F_x -\tau_{zz}\,S_{_U}
\ .$$ For completeness we also repeated here the parametrization [(\[freqs\])]{} of $\gamma _{uu}$. Finally we present the version of the balance Eqs. for the thermal flux [(\[Sim-F-x\])]{}, [(\[Sim-F-z\])]{}, and for the “temperature energy", [(\[Sim-ET\])]{}, after all the simplified assumptions: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
C_{\theta\theta}\,\gamma_{uu}E_\theta &=& -F_z\,S_{_\Theta}\,, \\
\label{simpleB} C_{u\theta}\,\gamma_{uu} F_x &=& - \left( \tau_{xz}S_{_\Theta}
+C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{SU}}}F_z\, S_{_U} \right) \,, \\ \nonumberC_{u\theta}\,\gamma_{uu} F_z &=& - \left( \tau_{zz} S_{_\Theta}
+2\,C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{E\Theta}}}\,\beta E_{\theta} \right) \ .$$
\[ss:wall-units\]Generalized wall normalization
-----------------------------------------------
The analysis of the balance Eqs. [(\[simple\])]{} is drastically simplified if they are presented in a dimensionless form. Traditionally, the conventional “wall units" are introduced via the wall friction velocity $u_* \equiv \sqrt{ \tau_*}$, and the viscous length-scale $ \lambda_* \equiv {\nu}/{u_*}$. A wall unit for the temperature $\theta_*\equiv {F_*}/{u_*}$ is defined via the thermal flux at the wall and friction velocity. Subsequently, $ {{\bm{r}}}^+ \equiv { {{\bm{r}}}}/{\lambda_*}$, $t^+ \equiv {t\, \lambda_*}/{
u_*}$, ${\bm{\mathcal{U}}}^+ \equiv {{\bm{\mathcal{U}}}}/{ u_*}$, $p^+ \equiv p/\rho_b\,u_*^2$, $
{\Theta}^+ \equiv { {\Theta}}/{\theta_*}$, $
\theta^+ \equiv {\theta}/{\theta_*}$, etc. Then the governing Eqs. [(\[GovEq\])]{} take the form:$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber {{{\mathcal{D}}}^+ \, {\bm{\mathcal{U}}}^+}/{{{\mathcal{D}}} t ^+ } + {{\bm{\nabla}}}^+ p^+ &=& { \widehat{\bf{z}} }\,\Theta^+{_{\rm{\,d}}}/{L^+} \ +\Delta^+\, {\bm{\mathcal{U}}}^+ \,, \\
\label{NSE-dim}
{{{\mathcal{D}}}^+ \, \Theta^+{_{\rm{\,d}}}}/{{{\mathcal{D}}} t ^+ } &=& \Delta^+\, \Theta^+{_{\rm{\,d}}}/{\textrm{Pr}} \ .$$ These Eqs. include two dimensionless parameters: the conventional Prandtl number Pr$=\nu\big / \kappa$, and $L^+$ – the Obukhov length $L$ measured in wall units: $L\equiv u_*^3\big /
\beta F_*$, $L^+\equiv L\big / \lambda_*$. We used here the modern definition of the Obukhov length, which differs from the old one by the absence of the [von-Kármán ]{}constant $\kappa$ in its denominator (Monin and Obukhov, 1954).
Outside of the viscous sub-layer, where the kinematic viscosity and kinematic thermal conductivity can be ignored, $L^+$ is the only dimensionless parameter in the problem, which separates the region of weak stratification, $z^+< L^+$, and the region of strong stratification, where $z^+>L^+$.
Given the generalized wall normalization we introduce objects with a superscript “ $^+$" in the usual manner: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
S_{_U}^+ &\equiv & t_*\, S_{_U}\,, \
S_{_\Theta}^+\equiv {\lambda_* \, S_{_\Theta}}/{\theta_*}\,, \
\gamma^+\equiv t_* \gamma\,, \ \tau_{ij}^+ \equiv {\tau_{ij}}/{u_*^2}\,,\\
\label{plus-m}{{\bm{F}}}^+ &\equiv &
{{{\bm{F}}}}/{u_* \theta_*}\,,\ E_\theta^+ \equiv
{E_\theta}/{\theta_*^2}\ .\end{aligned}$$ In the turbulent region, governed by $L^+$ only, Eqs. [(\[TBL-Sim\])]{} simplify to $ \tau^+_{xz} = -1$, $F^+_z = -1$.
\[sss:resc\] Rescaling symmetry and $\ddag$-representation
----------------------------------------------------------
Outside of the viscous region, where Eqs. [(\[simple\])]{} were derived, the problem has only one characteristic length, i.e. the Obukhov scale $ L$. Correspondingly, one expects that the only dimensionless parameter that governs the turbulent statistics in this region should be the ratio of the outer scale of turbulence, $\ell$, to the Obukhov length-scale $L$, which we denote as $ {\ell^\ddag}\equiv
{\ell}/{L}= {\ell^+} / L^+ $. Indeed, introducing “$\ddag$-objects": $$\label{ddagb} {\ell^\ddag}\equiv
{\ell}/{L}\,, \quad
S_{_U}^\ddag\equiv S_{_U}^+{\ell^+}\,, \ S_{_\Theta}^\ddag\equiv
S_{_\Theta}^+{\ell^+}\,,$$ and using Eqs. [(\[plus-m\])]{} one rewrites the balance Eqs. [(\[simple\])]{} as follows:
\[MM\]$$\begin{aligned}
\label{9-eqA}&& \hskip -1.3 cm \tau^+_{xx} = E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}} + {{\ell^\ddag} } /2
c_{uu}
\sqrt{E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}\,, \quad \tau^+_{yy} = {E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}/2\,,\\
\label{9-eqB}&& \hskip -1.3 cm 2\, \tau^+_{zz}= {E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}} -{{\ell^\ddag}
} / c_{uu} \sqrt{E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}\,,~~~~ \\ \label{9-eqC}
&& \hskip -1.3 cm c_{uu} { E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}^{3/2} = {\ell^\ddag} F^+_z -\tau^+_{xz}
S^\ddag_{_U} \,, \\ \label{9-eqD}\label{not-used}&& \hskip -1.3 cm 4\,\widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\,c_{uu} \sqrt{E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}
\tau^+_{xz} ={\ell^\ddag} F^+_x -\tau^+_{zz}\,S^\ddag_{_U} \,, \\
\label{9-eqE}&& \hskip -1.3 cm C_{\theta\theta}\,c_{uu} \sqrt{E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}
E^+_\theta = -F^+_z\,S^\ddag_{_\Theta}\,, \\ \label{9-eqF}&& \hskip -1.3 cm C_{u\theta}\,c_{uu} \sqrt{E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}} F^+_x = -
\tau^+_{xz}S^\ddag_{_\Theta} -C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{SU}}}F^+_z\, S^\ddag_{_U} \,,
\\ \label{9-eqG}&& \hskip -1.3 cm C_{u\theta}\,c_{uu} \sqrt{E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}} F^+_z = -
\tau^+_{zz}S^\ddag_{_\Theta} - 2\,C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{E\Theta}}}\,{\ell^\ddag}
E^+_{\theta} \,,$$
These equations are the main result of current Sec. \[s:closure\]. It may be considered as “Minimal Model" for stably stratified TBL, that respects the conservation of energy, describes anisotropy of turbulence and all relevant fluxes explicitly and, nevertheless is still simple enough to allow comprehensive analytical analysis, that results in an approximate analytical solution (with reasonable accuracy) for the mean velocity and temperature gradients $S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}$ and $S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}$, and all second-order (cross)-correlation functions. As expected, the only parameter appearing in the Minimal Model [(\[MM\])]{} is ${\ell^\ddag}$. The outer scale of turbulence, $\ell$, does not appear by itself, only via the definition of ${\ell^\ddag}$ [(\[ddagb\])]{}. Therefore our goal now is to solve Eqs. [(\[MM\])]{} in order to find five functions of only one argument $
{\ell^\ddag} $: $S^\ddag _{_U}$, $S_{_\Theta}^\ddag$, $E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}$, $E_{\theta}^+$ and $ F^+_x$. After that we can specify the dependence ${\ell^+}(z^+)$ and then reconstruct the $z^+$-dependence of these five objects.
\[s:res\] Results and discussion
================================
\[ss:strat41\] Analytical solution of the Minimal-Model balance equations [(\[MM\])]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This subsection is devoted to an analytical and numerical analysis of the Minimal-Model [(\[MM\])]{}. An example of numerical solution of Eqs. [(\[MM\])]{} (with some reasonable choice of the phenomenological parameters) is shown in Fig. \[f:S\]. Nevertheless, it would be much more instructive to have approximate analytical solutions for all correlations that will describe their ${\ell^\ddag}$-dependence with reasonable accuracy. The detailed cumbersome procedure of finding these solutions is skipped here, but a brief overview is as follows.
The Eqs. [(\[MM\])]{} can be reformulated as a polynomial equation of ninth order for the only unknown $\sqrt{E^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}$. An analysis of its structure helps to formulate an effective interpolation formula [(\[inter\])]{}, discussed below. Hence, we found the solutions of Eqs. [(\[MM\])]{} at neutral stratification, ${\ell^\ddag}=0$, corrected up to the linear order in ${\ell^\ddag}$. Its comparison with the existing DNS data resulted in an estimate for the constants $\widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\approx 1.46$, and $c_{uu}\approx 0.36$. Then, we considered the region ${\ell^\ddag} \to \infty$. Even though such a condition may not be realizable in nature, from a methodological point of view, as we will see below, it enables to obtain the desired analytical approximation. The ${\ell^\ddag} \to \infty$ asymptotic solution with corrections, linear in the small parameter ${\ell^\ddag}^{-4/3}$, were found. Now we are armed to suggest an interpolation formula
\[inter\] [$$\label{interA} {E^{+}{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}}({\ell^\ddag})^{3/2}\simeq \frac{11
{\ell^\ddag}}{3 \, c_{uu}} +\frac{8\, \widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}}{\sqrt{
\big(11{\ell^\ddag}/3\, c_{uu}\big)^{2/3}
+\big(8\,\widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\big)^{1/2}}}\,, $$ ]{} that coincides with the exact solutions for ${\ell^\ddag}=0$ and for ${\ell^\ddag}\to \infty$, including the leading corrections to both asymptotics, linear in ${\ell^\ddag}$, and ${{\ell^\ddag}}^{-4/3}$. Moreover, in the region ${\ell^\ddag}\sim 1$, [Eq. (\[interA\])]{} accounts for the structure of the exact polynomial. As a result, the interpolation formula [(\[interA\])]{} is close to the numerical solution with deviations smaller than 3% in the entire region $ 0\le {\ell^\ddag} < \infty$, see upper middle panel on Fig. \[f:S\]. Together with [Eq. (\[9-eqC\])]{} it produces a solution for $S_{_U}^+$, that can be written as $$ \label{interB} S^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}({\ell^+} ) \simeq \left( L_1^+ \right) ^{\!-1}+ \Big({\kappa\,
{\ell^+}\sqrt{1+({\ell^+} /L_2^+)^{2/3}}}\,\Big)^{\!-1}\,, $$ where $ L_1^+ \equiv 3 L^+/14\,, \quad L_2^+\equiv 3L^+/{11\,\kappa} $ and $\kappa$ is the [von-Kármán ]{}constant. This formula gives the same accuracy $ \sim3\%$, see upper left panel in Fig. \[f:S\]. We demonstrate below that the proposed interpolation formulae describe the ${\ell^\ddag}$-dependence of the correlations with a very reasonable accuracy, about $ 10\%$, for any $0\leq{\ell^\ddag}<\infty$, see black dashed lines in Figs. \[f:S\].
Unfortunately, a direct substitution of the interpolation formula [(\[inter\])]{} into the exact relation for $S^\ddag{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}$ obtained from the system (\[MM\]) works well only for small $ {\ell^\ddag}$, in spite of the fact that the interpolation formula is rather accurate in the whole region. We need therefore to derive an independent interpolation formula for $S^\ddag{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}$. Using expansions for small $ {\ell^\ddag} \ll 1$ and large $
{\ell^\ddag} \gg 1$ we suggest [ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inter1a} S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} ^+ ({\ell^+}) \simeq {S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} ^+}^\infty
\!\! + \frac{S^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta,{\scriptstyle 0}}}}\!+\! 6
(c_{uu}\alpha)^{4/3}S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta,1}}}^{+\infty}} { \left( 1 +\alpha\,{\ell^+}/L^+
\right) ^{4/3}}\,,~~~~~~$$]{}in which $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
S^+ {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta,\scriptstyle 0}}} &=& 2^{1/4}c_{uu} C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U\Theta}}}/
\widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}^{1/4 }\ell ^+,\\ \nonumberS^{+\infty}{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta,1}}} &=& -{C_{u\theta}}(2\widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}
-{(11\,C_{u\theta} -3\,C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{SU}}})}/{{3\,S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} ^{+\infty}}L^+}
)/{L^+},\\ \nonumberS{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} ^{ + \infty} &=& -14 (C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{SU}}}- 4 C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U\Theta}}}/3)/3
L^+, \end{aligned}$$ and $\alpha$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumberS^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta,{\scriptstyle 1}}}}{\ell^+} &=& {S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} ^+}^\infty
L^+ + 6S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta,1}}}^{+\infty}L^+ (c_{uu}\alpha)^{4/3} -{4 \alpha S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta,{\scriptstyle 0}}}}}/3 \,,$$with $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber S^+{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta,
{\scriptstyle{1}}}}} {\ell^+} &=& -{C_{u\theta}} \left( 3/{4\widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}} -22
+3 {C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{SU}}}}/{C_{u\theta}} \right) / {24\widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}}\ .\end{aligned}$$
Equation [(\[inter1a\])]{} is constructed such that the leading and sub-leading asymptotics for small and large $ {\ell^\ddag} $ coincide with the first two terms in the exact expansions at “almost” neural stratification and extremely strong stratification. As a result, [Eq. (\[inter1a\])]{} approximates the exact solution with errors smaller then 5% for $ {\ell^\ddag} < 1$ and $ {\ell^\ddag} > 50$ and with errors smaller than 10% for any $ {\ell^\ddag} $, see lower left panel in [Figure \[f:S\]]{}.
Substituting the approximate Eqs. [(\[inter\])]{} into the exact relations [(\[MM\])]{}, one gets approximate solutions $E^+_\theta$ and $F_x^+$ with errors smaller than 10%, see rightmost panels in [Figure \[f:S\]]{}.
\
\[ss:one\] Mean velocity and temperature profiles
-------------------------------------------------
In principle, integrating the mean shear $S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}^+$ and the mean temperature gradient $S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} ^+$, one can find the mean velocity and temperature profiles. Unfortunately, to do so we need to know $S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}^+ $ and $S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} ^+$ as functions of the elevation $z$, while in our approach they are found as functions of $\ell/L$. Remember, that the external parameter $\ell$ is the outer scale of turbulence that depends on the elevation $z$. The importance of an accounting for the proper physically motivated dependance of $\ell$ on $z$ for an example of channels and pipes has been recently shown by L’vov et al. (2008). For the problem at hands, we can safely take $\ell=z$ if $z\ll L$, however when $z>L$ the function $\ell(z)$ is not found theoretically although it was discussed phenomenologically with support of observational, experimental and numerical data. It is traditionally believed that for $z \gtrsim L$ the scale $\ell$ saturates at some level of order $L$ \[see, e.g. Eq. [(\[sless\])]{}\].
The resulting plots of $U^+$ are shown on [Figure \[f:means\]]{}, left panel. Even taking $\ell(z)=z$ one gets a very similar velocity profile, see [Figure \[f:means\]]{}, right panel. With $\ell(z)=z$ we found an analytical expression for the mean-velocity profile using the interpolation [Eq. (\[interB\])]{} for $S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}^+$: $$\label{vel} U^+(z)=\frac{1}{\kappa}\ln\!\Bigg[\frac{z/z_{u0}}{\Big( 1+\sqrt{1+ \left( z /L _2 \right)^{2/3}}\ \Big)^{\!3}} \Bigg]+\frac{z }{L_1 } \ . $$ Here $z_{u0}$ is the roughness length.
The resulting mean velocity profiles have logarithmic asymptotic for $z<L$ and a linear behavior for $z>L$ in agreement with meteorological observations. Usually the observations are parameterized by a so-called log-linear approximation (Monin and Obukhov, 1954):
\[ll-apr\] $$ \label{ll-aprV} U^+ = {\kappa}^{-1} \ln ({z}/{z_{u0}})+ {z}/{L_1}\,,$$ which is plotted in [Figure \[f:means\]]{} by dotted lines. One sees some deviation in the region of intermediate $z$. The reason is that the real profile \[see, e.g. [Eq. (\[vel\])]{}\] has a logarithmic term that saturates for $z\gg L$, while in the approximation [(\[ll-aprV\])]{} this term continues to grow. To fix this one can use [Eq. (\[vel\])]{} (with $L_2=L_1$ for simplicity), or even its simplified version $$\label{ll-aprV2} U^+ = \frac{1}{\kappa} \ln \frac{z}{z_{u0}\sqrt{1+(z/L_1)^2}}+
\frac{z}{L_1}\ .$$
This approximation is plotted as a dashed line on [Figure \[f:means\]]{} for comparison. One sees that the approximation [(\[ll-aprV2\])]{} works much better than the traditional one. Thus we suggest [Eq. (\[ll-aprV2\])]{} for parameterizing meteorological observations.
The temperature profiles in our approach look similar to the velocity ones: they have logarithmic asymptotic for $\ell < L$ and linear behavior for $\ell >L$. Correspondingly, they can be fitted by a log-linear approximation, like [(\[ll-aprV\])]{}, or even better, by an improved version of it, like [Eq. (\[ll-aprV2\])]{}. Clearly, the values of constants will be different: $\kappa \Rightarrow \kappa{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$, $L_1 \Rightarrow
L_{1,\rm T}$, etc.
\[ss:one\] Profiles of second-order correlations
------------------------------------------------
The computed profiles of the turbulent kinetic and temperature energies, horizontal thermal flux profile and the anisotropy profiles are shown on [Figure \[f:S\]]{} in the middle and right panels. The anisotropy profiles, lower middle panel, saturate at $\ell/L\approx 2$, therefore they are not sensitive to the $z$-dependence of $\ell(z)$; even quantitatively one can think of these profiles as if they were plotted as a function of $z/L$.
Another issue is the profiles of $E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}^+$ (upper middle panel) and of $E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}$ and $F_x^+$ (rightmost panels), that are $\propto (\ell/L)^{2/3}$ for $\ell\gg L$ (if realizable). With the interpolation formula [(\[sless\])]{} the profiles of the second order correlations have to saturate at levels corresponding to ${\ell^\ddag} = 1$. This sensitivity to the $z$-dependence of $\ell(z)$ makes a comparison of the prediction with experimental data very desirable.
\[ss:nums\] Turbulent transport, Richardson and Prandtl numbers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In our notations the turbulent viscosity and thermal conductivity, turbulent Prandtl number, the gradient- and flux-Richardson numbers are
\[num\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nu} \nu {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}&\equiv & - \frac{\tau_{xz}}{S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}}}= \frac1 {S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{U}}} ^+}\equiv C_\nu ({\ell^\ddag} )
\frac{\tau_{zz}^+}{\gamma _{uu}^+}\,,\\
\label{chi} \chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} &\equiv & -\frac{F_z}{S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}}= \frac 1 {S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} ^+}
\equiv C_\chi ({\ell^\ddag} )
\frac{\tau_{zz}^+}{\gamma _{uu}^+}\,,
\\ \label{numPr}
\mbox{Pr}{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}& \equiv &\frac{\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} }{\chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} }
=\frac{S_{_\Theta}^+}{S_{_U}^+}
=\frac{S_{_\Theta}^\ddag}{S_{_U}^\ddag}\,, \\
{\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}&\equiv & \frac{\beta S_{_\Theta}}{S_{_U}^2}= \frac{
S_{_\Theta}^+}{L^+\, {S_{_U}^+}^2 }=\frac{{\ell^\ddag}
S_{_\Theta}^\ddag}{{S_{_U}^\ddag}^ 2}\,, \\
{\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{flux}}}}&\equiv & \frac{\beta F_z}{\tau_{xy}S_{_U}}= \frac1{ L^+\, S_{_U}^+
}=\frac{{\ell^\ddag} }{ S_{_U}^\ddag }\,, \label{numRig}\\
\label{rel4} {\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}&=&{\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{flux}}}}\, \mbox{Pr}{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}\ .\end{aligned}$$
With [Eqs. (\[nu\])]{} and [(\[chi\])]{} we introduce also two dimensionless functions $C_\nu ({\ell^\ddag} )$ and $C_\chi ({\ell^\ddag} )$ that are taken as ${\ell^\ddag} $-independent constants in the down-gradient transport approximation [(\[dt\])]{} described in the Introduction. We will show, however, that these functions have a strong dependence on ${\ell^\ddag} $, going to zero in the limit ${\ell^\ddag} \to\infty$ as $1/ {\ell^\ddag} ^{4/3}$. Therefore this approximation is not valid for large ${\ell^\ddag} $ even qualitatively.
### \[sss:dt\] Approximation of down-gradient transport and its violation in stably stratified TBL
\
As we mentioned in the Introduction, the concept of the down-gradient transport assumes that the momentum and thermal fluxes are proportional to the mean velocity and temperature gradients, see [Eqs. (\[dt\])]{}: $$\label{appr}
\tau_{xz}=-\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} S_{_U}\,,\quad
F_z=-\chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}} \,,$$ where $\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ and $\chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ are effective turbulent viscosity and thermal conductivity, that can be estimated by dimensional reasoning. Equations [(\[dt\])]{}, giving this estimates, include additional physical arguments that vertical transport parameters should be estimated via vertical turbulent velocity, $\sqrt{\tau_{zz}}$, and characteristic vertical scale of turbulence, $\ell_z$. The relations between the scales $\ell_j$ in different $j$-directions in anisotropic turbulence can be found in the approximation of time-isotropy, according to which $$\label{ti}
\frac{\sqrt{\tau_{xx}}}{\ell_x}=\frac{
\sqrt{\tau_{yy}}}{\ell_y}= \frac{\sqrt{\tau_{zz}}}{\ell_z}\equiv
\gamma\ \Rightarrow \ \gamma_{uu}\ .$$ Here $\gamma$ is a characteristic isotropic frequency of turbulence, that for concreteness can be taken as the kinetic energy relaxation frequency $\gamma_{uu}$. The approximation [(\[ti\])]{} is supported by experimental data, according to which in anisotropic turbulence the ratios $\ell_i/\ell_j$ ($i\ne
j$) are larger then the ratios $\ell_i\, \sqrt{\tau_{jj}}\,
/\ell_j\, \sqrt{\tau_{ii}}$ that are close to unity. With this approximations $\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ and $\chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ can be estimated as follows:$$\label{est1} \nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}= C_\nu {\tau_{zz}}/{\gamma_{uu}}\,, \quad
\chi {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}} = C_\chi {\tau_{zz}}/{\gamma_{uu}}\,,$$ where, according to the approximation of down-gradient transport, the dimensionless parameters $C_\nu$ and $C_\chi$ are taken as constants, independent of the level of stratification.
In order to check how the approximation [(\[appr\])]{}, [(\[est1\])]{} works in the stratified TBL for both fluxes, one can consider [Eqs. (\[appr\])]{} as *definitions* of $\nu{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ and $\chi{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{T}}}$ and [Eqs. (\[est1\])]{} as *definitions* of $C_\nu$ and $C_\nu$. This gives
\[defC\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defCM} C_\nu&\equiv & -\frac{\tau_{xz}}{\tau_{zz}}\, \frac{\gamma_{uu}}{S_{_U}}=
\frac{\gamma_{uu}^+}{ \tau_{zz}^+ S_{_U}^+} \,, \\ \label{defCH}
C_\chi&\equiv & -\frac{F_x}{\tau_{zz}}\, \frac{\gamma_{uu}}{S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}}=
\frac{\gamma_{uu}^+}{ \tau_{zz}^+ S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}^+} \ . \end{aligned}$$
Recall, that in this paper the down-gradient approximation is not used at all. Instead, we are using exact balance equations for all relevant second order correlations, including $\tau_{xz}$ and $F_x$. Substituting our results in the RHS of the definitions [(\[defC\])]{} we can find, how $C_\nu$ and $C_\chi$ depend on ${\ell^\ddag} =\ell/L$ that determines the level of stratification in our approach.
The resulting plots of the ratios $C_\nu({\ell^\ddag} )/C_\nu(0) $ and $C_\chi({\ell^\ddag} )/C_\chi(0)$ are shown in the leftmost panel in [Figure \[f:res\]]{}. One sees that the $C_\nu({\ell^\ddag} )$ and $C_\chi({\ell^\ddag} )$ can be considered approximately as constants only for $\ell \le 0.2\, L$. For larger $\ell/ L$ both $C_\nu({\ell^\ddag} )$ and $C_\chi({\ell^\ddag} )$ rapidly decrease, more or less in the same manner, diminishing by an order of magnitude already for $\ell \approx 2\, L$. For larger $\ell/L$ one can use the asymptotic solution according to which $$\label{est2} S_{_U}^+\simeq \frac1{L^+}\,,\ \gamma_{uu}\simeq
\frac{\sqrt{E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}^+}}{{\ell^+} }\simeq \frac{{\ell^\ddag} ^{1/3}}{{\ell^+} }\,, \
\tau_{zz}\simeq {\ell^\ddag} ^{2/3}\ . $$ This means that both functions vanish as $1/{\ell^\ddag} ^{4/3}$: $$\label{as}
C_\nu({\ell^\ddag} )\simeq 0.01 \left( \frac{L}{ \ell} \right) ^{4/3}\!\! , \ \
C_\chi({\ell^\ddag} )\simeq 0.003 \left( \frac{L} { \ell} \right) ^{4/3} \!\! ,$$ where numerical prefactors account for the accepted values of the dimensionless fit parameters.
The physical reason for the strong dependence of $ C_\nu$ and $C_\chi$ on stratification is as follows: in the RHS of [Eq. (\[txz\])]{} for the momentum flux and [Eq. (\[Sim-F-z\])]{} for the vertical heat flux there are two terms. The first ones, proportional to $\tau_{zz}$ and velocity (or temperature) gradients correspond to the approximation [(\[appr\])]{}, giving (in our notations) $C_\nu =$const and $C_\chi =$const, in agreement with the down-gradient transport concept. However, there are second contributions to the vertical momentum flux $\propto F_x$ and to the vertical heat flux, that is proportional to $ \beta E_\theta$. In our approach both contributions are negative, giving rise to the *counter-gradient fluxes*. What follows from our approach, is that these counter-gradient fluxes cancel (to the leading order) the down-gradient contributions in the limit ${\ell^\ddag} \to\infty$. As a result, in this limit the effective turbulent diffusion and thermal conductivity vanish, making the down-gradient approximation for them (with constant $C_\nu$ and $C_\chi$) irrelevant even qualitatively for $\ell \gtrsim L$.
In our picture of stable temperature-stratified TBL, the turbulence exists at any elevations, where one can neglect the Coriolis force. Moreover, the turbulent kinetic and temperature energies increase as $(\ell/L)^{2/3}$ for $\ell > L$, see [Figure \[f:S\]]{}. At the same time, the mean velocity and potential temperature change the $(\ell/L)$-dependence from logarithmic lo linear, see [Figure \[f:means\]]{} and (modified) log-linear interpolation formula [(\[ll-aprV2\])]{}. Correspondingly, the shear of the mean velocity and *the mean temperature gradient* saturate at some elevation (and at some $\ell/L$), and ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$ *saturates as well*. This predictions agree with large eddy simulation by Zilitinkevich and Esau (2006), where ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}$ can be considered as saturating around 0.4 for $z/L\approx
100$.
Notice that the turbulent closures of kind used above cannot be applied for strongly stratified flows with ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\gtrsim 1$ (may be even at ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\sim 1$). There are two reasons for that. The first one was mentioned in the Introduction. Namely, for ${\mbox{Ri}{_{\rm{grad}}}}\gtrsim 1$ the Brunt-Väisälä frequency $ N\equiv \sqrt{\beta S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}}$, $ N^+= \sqrt{{S{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{\Theta}}}^+}/{L^+}}$, is larger then the eddy-turnover frequency and therefore there are weakly decaying Kelvin-Helmoholtz internal gravity waves which, generally speaking, have to be accounted for in the momentum and energy balance equations.
The second reason, that makes the results very sensitive to the contribution of internal waves follows from the fact that vortical turbulent fluxes vanish (at fixed velocity and temperature gradients). Therefore even relatively small contributions of different nature to the momentum and thermal fluxes may be important.
The final conclusion is that the TBL modeling at large level of stratification requires an accounting for turbulence of the internal waves together with the vortical turbulence. Definitely, new observations, laboratory and numerical experiments with control of internal wave activity are very likely.
VL kindly acknowledge the possibility to give an invited lecture on the problems, discussed in this paper, at the International Conference “Turbulent Mixing and Beyond”, which was held August 2007 at the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy. VL and OR also acknowledge the support of the Transnational Access Programme at RISC-Linz, funded by the European Commission Framework 6 Programme for Integrated Infrastructures Initiatives under the project SCIEnce (Contract No. 026133).
\[ss:onClosure\] On the closure problem of triple correlations via second order correlations
============================================================================================
Let us look more carefully at the approximation [(\[freqs\])]{}, which is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{App-Appr}\gamma _{uu}&=&c_{uu} \sqrt{E{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}} \big / \ell\,, \quad \gamma {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}= C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \gamma _{uu}\,, \\ \nonumber \widetilde \gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}& = & \widetilde C{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}} \gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RI}}}\,, \gamma_{\theta\theta} = C_{\theta\theta} \gamma _{uu}\,, \quad
\gamma{_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{RD}}}= C_{u\theta}\gamma_{uu}\ .$$The dimensional reasoning that leads to this approximation is questionable for problems having a dimensionless parameter ${\ell^\ddag} $. Generally speaking, all “constants" $c_{...}$ and $C_{...}$ in [Eq. (\[App-Appr\])]{} can be any functions of ${\ell^\ddag} $. Presently we just hope that a possible ${\ell^\ddag} $ dependence of these functions is relatively weak and does not affect the qualitative picture of the phenomenon.
Moreover, even the assumption [(\[distau1a\])]{} that the dissipation of the thermal flux $\epsilon _i$ is proportional to the thermal flux and the assumption [(\[distau1b\])]{} that the dissipation of $E_\theta$, $\varepsilon \propto E_\theta$ are also questionable. Formally speaking, one cannot guarantee that the triple cross-correlator $ \left\langle \theta
uu \right\rangle ^+$ that estimates $\epsilon ^+$, can be (roughly speaking) decomposed like $ \left\langle u\theta \right\rangle \sqrt { \left\langle uu \right\rangle }$, i.e really proportional to $F= \left\langle u\theta \right\rangle $ as it stated in [Eq. (\[distau1a\])]{}. Theoretically, one cannot exclude the decomposition $ \left\langle \theta uu
\right\rangle \sim \left\langle uu \right\rangle \sqrt { \left\langle \theta\theta \right\rangle }$, i.e. a contribution to $\epsilon \propto E {_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm{K}}}$. Similarly, the dissipation $\varepsilon $ in the balance [(\[corrc\])]{} of $E_\theta$, that is determined by the correlator [(\[distau1b\])]{}, is $\propto \left\langle \theta\theta u \right\rangle $, as it follows from the decomposition $ \left\langle \theta\theta u \right\rangle \sim
\left\langle \theta\theta \right\rangle \sqrt { \left\langle uu \right\rangle } $ and is stated in [Eq. (\[distau1b\])]{}. This correlator allows, for example, the decomposition $ \left\langle \theta\theta u \right\rangle \sim \left\langle \theta u \right\rangle \sqrt { \left\langle \theta\theta \right\rangle } $, i.e. contribution to $\varepsilon \propto F$. This discussion demonstrates, that the situation with the dissipation rates is not so simple, as one may think and thus requires careful theoretical analysis that is in our agenda for future work. Our preliminary analysis of this problem shows that all fitting constants are indeed functions of ${\ell^\ddag} $. Fortunately, they vary within finite limits in the entire interval $0\le {\ell^\ddag} < \infty$. Therefore we propose that the approximations used in this paper preserve the qualitative picture of the phenomenon. Once again, the traditional down-gradient approximation does not work even qualitatively because corresponding “constants" $C_\nu$ and $C_\chi$ vanish in the limit ${\ell^\ddag} \to\infty$.
[99]{}
Boussinesq, J.: 1903, The’orique Analytique de la Chaleur, Vol. 2. Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Cheng, Y., Canuto, V. M., and Howard, A. M., 2002: An improved model for the turbulent PBL, *J. Atm. Sci.*, **59**, 1550-1565.
Canuto, V. M., 2002: Critical Richardson numbers and gravity waves, *Astronomy* & *Astrophysics*, **384**, 1119-1123.
Elperin, T., Kleeorin, N., Rogachevskii, I., and Zilitinkevich, S., 2002: Formation of large-scale semi-organized structures in turbulent convection. *Phys. Rev. E*, **66**, 066305.
Galperin, B., Sukoriansky, S., Anderson, P. S., 2007: On the critical Richardson number in stably stratified turbulence. *Atm. Sci. Lett.*, **8** (3), 65-69.
Hanazaki, H., and Hunt, J. C. R., 2004: Structure of unsteady stably stratified turbulence with mean shear. *J. Fluid Mech.*, **507**, 1-42.
Hauf, T., and Höller, H.: 1987, Entropy and Potential Temperature, *J. of Atm. Sci.*, **44**, 2887-2901.
Hunt, J. C. R., Stretch, D. D., and Britter, R. E., 1988: Length scales in stably stratified turbulent flows and their use in turbulence models. In: *Proc. I.M.A. Conference on “Stably Stratified Flow and Dense Gas Dispersion”* (J. S. Puttock, Ed.), Clarendon Press, 285-322.
Keller, K., and Van Atta, C. W., 2000: An experimental investigation of the vertical temperature structure of homogeneous stratified shear turbulence, *J. Fluid Mech.*, **425**, 1-29.
Kolmogorov, A. N., 1941: Energy dissipation in locally isotropic turbulence. Doklady AN SSSR, 32, No.1, 19-21.
Kurbatsky, A. F.: 2000, Lectures on Turbulence, Novosibirsk State University Press, Novosibirsk.
Landau, L.D., and Lifshitz, E.M.: 1987, Course of Theoretical Physics: Fluid Mechanics, Pergamon, New York, 552 pp.
Luyten, P. J., Carniel, S., and Umgiesser, G., 2002: Validation of turbulence closure parameterisations for stably stratified flows using the PROVESS turbulence measurements in the North Sea, *J. Sea Research*, **47**, 239-267.
L’vov, V.S., Pomyalov, A., Procaccia, I., and Zilitinkevich, S.S., 2006a: Phenomenology of wall bounded Newtonian turbulence, *Phys. Rev. E.*, **73**, 016303.
L’vov, V.S., Procaccia, I., and Rudenko O., 2006b: Analytic Model of the Universal Structure of Turbulent Boundary Layers, *JETP Letters*, **84**, 67-73.
L’vov, V.S., Procaccia, I., and Rudenko O., 2008: Universal Model of Finite Reynolds Number Turbulent Flow in Channels and Pipes, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, **100**, 054504.
Mellor, G. L., and Yamada, T., 1974: A hierarchy of turbulence closure models for planetary boundary layer, *J. Atmos. Sci.*, **31**, 1791-1806.
Monin, A. S., and Obukhov, A. M., 1954: Main characteristics of the turbulent mixing in the atmospheric surface layer, *Trudy Geophys. Inst. AN. SSSR*, **24**(151), 153-187.
Oberbeck, A.: 1879, Über die Wärmeleitung der Flüssigkeiten bei Berücksichtigung der Strömung infolge Temperaturdifferenzen, *Ann. Phys. Chem.* (Leipzig) **7**, 271-292.
Pope, S.B.: 2001, Turbulent Flows, Cambridge University Press, 771 pp.
Rehmann, C. R., and Hwang, J. H., 2005: Small-scale structure of strongly stratified turbulence, *J. Phys. Oceanogr.*, **32**, 154-164.
Richardson, L. F., 1920: The supply of energy from and to atmospheric eddies. *Pros. Roy. Soc. London*, **A 97**, 354-373.
Rotta, J. C., 1951: Statistische theorie nichthomogener turbulenz , *Z. Physik*, **129**, 547-572.
Schumann, U., and Gerz, T., 1995: Turbulent mixing in stably stratified sheared flows. *J. Applied Meteorol.*, **34**, 33-48.
Stretch, D. D., Rottman, J. W., Nomura, K. K., and Venayagamoorthy, S. K., 2001: Transient mixing events in stably stratified turbulence, In: *14th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference*, Adelaide, Australia, 10-14 December 2001.
Umlauf, L., and Burchard, H., 2005: Second-order turbulence closure models for geophysical boundary layers. A review of recent work. *Continental Shelf Research*, **25**, 725-827.
Weng, W., and Taylor, P., 2003: On modelling the one-dimensional Atmospheric Boundary Layer, *Boundary-layer Meteorology*, **107**, 371-400.
Wyngaard, J.: 1992, Atmosferic turbulence, *Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.* **24**, 205-233.
Zeman, O.: 1981, Progress in the modeling of planetary boundary layers, *Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech.* **13**, 253-272.
Zilitinkevich S.S., 2002: Third-order transport due to internal waves and non-local turbulence in the stably stratified surface layer, *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society*, **128**, 913-925.
Zilitinkevich, S.S., Elperin, T., Kleeorin, N., and Rogachevskii, I., 2007: Energy- and flux-budget (EFB) turbulence closure model for stably stratified flows. Part I: steady-state, homogeneous regimes, *Boundary-layer Meteorology* **125**, 167-191. Zilitinkevich, S.S., and Essau, I.: Similarity theory and calculation of turbulent fluxes at the surface for the stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer, *Boundary-Layer Meteorology* **125**, 193-205 (2007).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use the exact analytical solution of the radial part of the Klein-Gordon equation describing a charged massive scalar field in the electrically charged Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger dilaton black hole spacetime, given in terms of the confluent Heun functions, to study the physical phenomena related to resonant frequencies associated to this field, and also to examine some aspects related to its Hawking radiation. The special case of a Schwarzschild spacetime is also considered.'
address:
- |
Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Caixa Postal 5008, CEP 58051-970, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil\
[email protected]
- |
Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Caixa Postal 5008, CEP 58051-970, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil\
[email protected]
- |
Grupo de Física Teórica (GFT), Universidade Estadual do Ceará, Faculdade de Educação, Ciências e Letras de Iguatu, Iguatu, Ceará, Brazil\
[email protected]
- |
Grupo de Física Teórica (GFT), Centro de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Estadual do Ceará, CEP 60714-903, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil\
[email protected]
author:
- 'H. S. VIEIRA'
- 'V. B. BEZERRA'
- 'C. R. MUNIZ'
- 'M. S. CUNHA'
title: 'Resonant frequencies of a charged scalar field in the Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger dilaton black hole'
---
Introduction
============
The general theory of relativity predicts the existence of black holes which, initially, were considered as a simple mathematical consequence of Einstein’s equations rather than real objects existing in some region of our Universe. Nowadays, with the recent detection of gravitational waves produced in black holes collisions [@PhysRevLett.116.221101] and the measurements of the properties of a source in M87 compatible with the presence of a central Kerr black hole [@AstrophysJLett.875.L1] confirm that these objects really exist and this fact motivate us to do more investigations in order to understand their physics. On the other hand, from the theoretical point of view, the studies about black holes also will help us to better understand their physics and possibly to use this to formulate a theory reconciling quantum mechanics and gravity.
The spacetime generated by a black hole with large mass as compared to the Planck mass, has small curvature in the region surrounding the horizon and outside it. In these regions, the equations describing gravity in the context of string theory can be approximated by Einstein’s equations. Thus, in this scenario, the Schwarzschild solution of general relativity could be a good approximation to describe static and uncharged black holes in the string theory. But, when we consider the solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations, the predictions of the theory differ from the ones obtained in general relativity due to the presence of a scalar field called dilaton, which couples with Maxwell field and changes completely the properties of the black hole. One example which confirms this fact is the solution of Reissner-Nordström describing a static, charged and spherically-symmetric black hole in general relativity. This spacetime is not a solution of the string theory even approximately, at low energy regime. Thus, the addition of the dilaton field changes the properties of the black holes. The first studies on the solutions of black holes in the context of string theory were performed in the 1980’s [@NuclPhysB.207.337; @AnnPhys.172.304; @NuclPhysB.289.701; @NuclPhysB.309.552; @NuclPhysB.298.741]. In the early 1990’s, Garfinkle, Horowitz and Strominger [@PhysRevD.43.3140] obtained a solution which corresponds to static, charged and spherically-symmetric black hole in the low energy limit of string theory and Sen [@PhysRevLett.69.1006] obtained an asymptotically flat black hole solution in the same limit of the string theory. These black holes solutions in string theory are important due to the fact that this theory is a good candidate to an eventual quantum theory of gravity.
In this paper we will focus on a family of spherically symmetric static and charged black hole solutions obtained in the low energy limit of heterotic string field in (3+1)-dimensions, know as the Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger dilaton black hole (GHS dilaton black hole). In this spacetime we will consider a charged and massive scalar field, whose solution of the radial part of the Klein-Gordon equation is given in terms of the confluent Heun functions [@CanJPhys.87.349; @arXiv:1807.09135v1; @AdvHighEnergyPhys.2019.5769564]. We will use this solution to determine the resonant frequencies and to discuss the Hawking radiation of scalar particles.
Other studies were performed in the GHS dilaton black hole spacetime, as for example, on some aspects of thermodynamics [@ChinPhysB.19.090401; @NuovoCimento.122.904; @CommunTheorPhys.52.184], the quasinormal modes [@PhysRevD.63.064009; @PhysRevD.70.084046; @ClassQuantumGrav.22.1129], and about the resonance spectra [@AdvHighEnergyPhys.2015.739153; @PhysRevD.81.104042].
The resonant frequencies are one of the essential characteristics of a black hole and play an important role with respect to the radiation emitted by black holes. They correspond to damped oscillations and represent a kind of “sound” produced by a black hole. Thus, it is possible to get some information about the physics of black holes through the resonant frequencies. For this reason it is important to compute them. As we are considering the interaction between a GHS dilaton black hole and scalar fields, in order to obtain these resonant frequencies we impose that the Heun functions, which are solutions of the radial part of the Klein-Gordon equation, should have a polynomial form.
It is worth emphasizing that the spectra corresponding to these resonant frequencies are related to the decay of the perturbation field, while the quasinormal modes (QNMs) are solutions of the perturbation equations with appropriate boundary conditions which are imposed on the outgoing waves and on waves crossing the horizon [@Detweiler:1979; @PhysLettB.761.53; @EurPhysJPlus.132.324], and thus, in principle, we can obtain the former ones from the later.
We also use this solution in terms of Heun functions to study the Hawking radiation of scalar particles in the GHS dilaton black hole background spacetime. This radiation [@Nature.248.30; @CommunMathPhys.43.199] is associated with the interaction of quantum fields and the curvature of the spacetime and therefore it is an interesting semi-classical phenomena which can give us some insights about the physics of a black hole and for this reason should be investigated.
These results, concerning the resonant frequencies [@AnnPhys.373.28; @PhysRevD.94.084040], as well as the ones related to the Hawking radiation, are compared with similar results obtained in the Schwarzschild black hole spacetime with the aim to emphasize the role played by the dilaton field.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we reobtain, for the sake of completeness, the solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation for a charged massive scalar field in the GHS dilaton black hole spacetime. In Section 3, we find the resonant frequencies for both massive and massless scalar particles. In Section 4, we investigate some aspects of the Hawking radiation. Finally, in Section 5, the conclusions are given. The units where $G=c=\hbar=1$ were chosen.
Klein-Gordon equation in the GHS dilaton black hole {#Sec.II}
===================================================
The geometry of the GHS dilaton black hole is obtained from a (3+1)-dimensional action which describes a system where a dilaton filed, $\phi$, is coupled to electromagnetic field in such a way that the action is given by $$S=\int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g} [R-2(\nabla\phi)^{2}-\mbox{e}^{-2\phi}F^{2}]\ ,
\label{eq:action_GHS}$$ where $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the electromagnetic field tensor.
In this work we consider the solution obtained from this action, in the low energy effective regime in string theory. In this scenario, the metric corresponding to a static, spherically symmetric and charged dilaton black hole, called GHS dilaton black hole, in spherical coordinates, is given by [@PhysRevD.43.3140] $$ds^{2}=-\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)dt^{2}+\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^{2}+r(r-a)\ d\Omega^{2}\ ,
\label{eq:metrica_GHS}$$ with $$d\Omega^{2}=d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta\ d\varphi^{2}\ .
\label{eq:solid_angle}$$
This kind of black hole with electric or magnetic charge surrounded by a dilaton field was studied in different contexts, specially in string theories in which case it arises as a solution in the low energy regime of an effective four-dimensional theories.
The parameter $a$ is related to the dilaton field, namely, $$a=\frac{Q^{2}\mbox{e}^{-2\phi_{0}}}{M}\ ,
\label{eq:parameter_a_GHS}$$ where $\phi_{0}$ is the asymptotic value of the dilaton field, such that $$\mbox{e}^{-2\phi}=\mbox{e}^{-2\phi_{0}}\biggl(1-\frac{Q^{2}\mbox{e}^{-2\phi_{0}}}{Mr}\biggr)\ ,
\label{eq:phi_GHS}$$ with $M$ and $Q$ being the physical mass (total mass) and the magnetic or electric charge of the GHS dilaton black hole, respectively. The metric given by Eq. (\[eq:metrica\_GHS\]) is similar to the Schwarzschild metric with a difference that the area of the sphere for $t$ and $r$ constants in the GHS dilaton black hole depends on the charge (intensity of the dilaton field). On the other hand, this metric is completely different from the Reissner-Nordström metric. For our purposes, let us focus on $\phi_{0}=0$. Notice that if we consider $Q$ as the electric charge, when it is equal to zero, $Q=0$, which implies $a=0$, we have a limiting case which corresponds to the Schwarzschild spacetime. Thus, the GHS dilaton black hole differs from the Schwarzschild black hole due to the presence of the scalar field called dilaton, which will change the properties of the black hole geometry as compared with the geometry of the Schwarzschild black hole.
Now, let us examine the interaction between a charged scalar fields and the GHS dilaton black hole. In order to do this, we will consider the Klein-Gordon equation, which can be write as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \biggl[\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\sigma}(g^{\sigma\tau}\sqrt{-g}\partial_{\tau})-ie(\partial_{\sigma}A^{\sigma})-2ieA^{\sigma}\partial_{\sigma}-\frac{ie}{\sqrt{-g}}A^{\sigma}(\partial_{\sigma}\sqrt{-g})\nonumber\\
&& -e^{2}A^{\sigma}A_{\sigma}-\mu_{0}^{2}\biggr]\Psi=0\ ,
\label{eq:Klein-Gordon_gauge_GHS}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\sqrt{-g}=r(r-a)\sin\theta\ ,
\label{eq:determinant}$$ where $\mu_{0}$ is the mass of the scalar particle, and $e$ is its charge. As we are considering that the GHS dilaton black hole is electrically charged, we have that the 4-vector electromagnetic potential is given by [@NuclearPhysicsB.899.37] $$A_{\sigma}dx^{\sigma}=-\frac{Q}{r}\ dt\ .
\label{eq:potencial_EM_GHS}$$ Note that the magnetically charged solutions can be obtained by applying a duality transformation on the electromagnetic field and changing the sign of the dilaton field $(\phi \rightarrow -\phi)$. This means that the dilaton electric and magnetic fields have opposite signs, and that the geometry is preserved.
Thus, substituting Eq. (\[eq:metrica\_GHS\]) into Eq. (\[eq:Klein-Gordon\_gauge\_GHS\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& \biggl\{-\frac{r^{2}(r-r_{d})}{r-r_{h}}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{2}}+\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\biggl[(r-r_{h})(r-r_{d})\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\biggr]-\mathbf{L}^{2}\nonumber\\
&& -\frac{2i e Q}{r-r_{h}}r(r-r_{d})\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\frac{e^{2}Q^{2}(r-r_{a})}{r-r_{h}}-r(r-r_{d})\mu_{0}^{2}\biggr\}\Psi=0\ ,
\label{eq:mov_1_GHS}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{h}=2M$, $r_{d}=a$, and $\mathbf{L}^{2}$ is the angular momentum operator given by $$\mathbf{L}^{2}=-\frac{1}{\sin\theta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\biggl(\sin\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\biggr)-\frac{1}{\sin^{2}\theta}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\varphi^{2}}\ .
\label{eq:angular_operator_GHS}$$
Due to the spacetime symmetry we can separate the scalar wave function as $$\Psi(\mathbf{r},t)=R(r)Y_{l}^{m}(\theta,\varphi)\mbox{e}^{-i \omega t}\ ,
\label{eq:separacao_variaveis_GHS}$$ where $Y_{l}^{m}$ are the spherical harmonics, $l=\{0,1,2,...\}$ and $|m| \leq l$ are the orbital and the azimuthal quantum numbers, respectively. The frequency (energy) is taken as $\omega > 0$, which corresponds to the flux of particles at infinity. Therefore, by using this separation of variables, we can write Eq. (\[eq:mov\_1\_GHS\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{d}{dr}\biggl[(r-r_{h})(r-r_{d})\frac{dR}{dr}\biggr]\nonumber\\
&& +\biggl[\frac{r-r_{d}}{r-r_{h}}(\omega r-eQ)^{2}-\lambda_{lm}-r(r-r_{d})\mu_{0}^{2}\biggr]R=0\ ,
\label{eq:mov_radial_1_GHS}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{lm}=l(l+1)$.
The solutions for the angular part are different from the one obtained in the literature [@CanJPhys.87.349] which considers a magnetically charged GHS dilaton black hole. Otherwise, in Ref. which considers the electrically charged case, the solutions are the same that we obtained in a previous version of the present paper [@arXiv:1807.09135v1].
Radial equation
---------------
Until recently, the solutions of the radial Klein-Gordon equation in the GHS dilaton black hole spacetime were known only in the asymptotic regimes, namely, very close to the event horizon and far from the black hole [@ClassQuantumGrav.22.533; @AstrophysSpaceSci.333.369]. Otherwise, it is possible to know the solution in all region exterior to the event horizon, but only numerically [@PhysRevD.70.084046; @IntJTheorPhys.49.2786; @IntJTheorPhys.52.1474]. Nowadays, we know an exact solution for a scalar field in the GHS dilaton black hole magnetically charged [@CanJPhys.87.349]. In what follows we will reobtain the exact analytical solution of the radial equation, in the case under consideration, namely, a GHS dilaton black hole electrically charged, in the exterior region to the event horizon. It is worth calling attention to the fact that as the geometry of the black hole is preserved independently of the dilaton charge, if electric or magnetic, rigorously speaking, it was not necessary to reobtain the radial solution.
Thus, to solve exactly Eq. (\[eq:mov\_radial\_1\_GHS\]) we use the procedure developed in our recent papers (see for example Refs. and references therein). Adopting this procedure, the general solution of the radial equation, given by Eq. (\[eq:mov\_radial\_1\_GHS\]), in the region exterior to the event horizon, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
R(x) & = & \mbox{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha x}x^{\frac{1}{2}\beta}\{C_{1}\ \mbox{HeunC}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,\eta;x)\nonumber\\
&& +C_{2}\ x^{-\beta}\ \mbox{HeunC}(\alpha,-\beta,\gamma,\delta,\eta;x)\}\ ,
\label{eq:solucao_geral_radial_GHS}\end{aligned}$$ where $$x=\frac{r-r_{h}}{r_{d}-r_{h}}\ ,
\label{eq:x_GHS}$$ with $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ being constants, and the parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$, and $\eta$ given by $$\alpha=2(r_{h}-r_{d})(\mu_{0}^{2}-\omega^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}\ ,
\label{eq:alpha_radial_HeunC_GHS}$$ $$\beta=2i(\omega r_{h}-eQ)\ ,
\label{eq:beta_radial_HeunC_GHS}$$ $$\gamma=0\ ,
\label{eq:gamma_radial_HeunC_GHS}$$ $$\delta=(r_{h}-r_{d})[2eQ\omega+r_{h}(\mu_{0}^{2}-2\omega^{2})]\ ,
\label{eq:delta_radial_HeunC_GHS}$$ $$\eta=-\lambda_{lm}-\delta\ .
\label{eq:eta_radial_HeunC_GHS}$$
As $\beta$ is not necessarily an integer, the Heun’s functions that appear in Eq. (\[eq:solucao\_geral\_radial\_GHS\]) are linearly independent solutions of the confluent Heun differential equation, which can be written as [@JPhysAMathTheor.43.035203] $$\frac{d^{2}U}{dz^{2}}+\left(\alpha+\frac{\beta+1}{z}+\frac{\gamma+1}{z-1}\right)\frac{dU}{dz}+\left(\frac{\mu}{z}+\frac{\nu}{z-1}\right)U=0\ ,
\label{eq:Heun_confluente_forma_canonica}$$ where $U(z)=\mbox{HeunC}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,\eta;z)$ are the confluent Heun functions, with the parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ and $\eta$, related to $\mu$ and $\nu$ through the expressions $$\mu=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha-\beta-\gamma+\alpha\beta-\beta\gamma)-\eta\ ,
\label{eq:mu_Heun_conlfuente_2}$$ $$\nu=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\alpha\gamma+\beta\gamma)+\delta+\eta\ .
\label{eq:nu_Heun_conlfuente_2}$$
Therefore, we have reobtained an analytical solution of the Klein-Gordon equation in the background under consideration that is valid in the region exterior to the event horizon. This means that it includes the regions nearby the event horizon and far from the black hole.
Next, we will consider this radial solution to investigate two interesting phenomena, namely, the resonant frequencies and Hawking radiation.
Resonant frequencies {#Sec.III}
====================
In this section, we use the recently developed technique [@AnnPhys.373.28] to compute the resonant frequencies for scalar waves propagating in a GHS dilaton black hole. They are associated with the solution given by Eq. (\[eq:solucao\_geral\_radial\_GHS\]), with the boundary conditions that the radial solution should be finite on the exterior event horizon and well behaved at asymptotic infinity. The fact that the solution should be well behaved at asymptotic infinity demands that $R(x)$ must be a polynomial. Indeed, the function $\mbox{HeunC}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,\eta;x)$ turns to be a polynomial of degree $n$ if it satisfies the $\delta$-condition, which is given by [@MathAnn.33.161; @MathComp.76.811; @Ronveaux:1995] $$\frac{\delta}{\alpha}+\frac{\beta+\gamma}{2}+1=-n\ ,
\label{eq:delta_condition}$$ where $n=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ is a quantum number. This condition will permits us to obtain the desired resonant frequencies.
Thus, substituting Eqs. (\[eq:alpha\_radial\_HeunC\_GHS\])-(\[eq:delta\_radial\_HeunC\_GHS\]) into Eq. (\[eq:delta\_condition\]), we obtain the expression from which we can determine the resonant frequencies associated to scalar particles in the background under consideration, which is given by $$\frac{2eQ\omega+r_{h}(\mu_{0}^{2}-2\omega^{2})}{2(\mu_{0}^{2}-\omega^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}}+i(\omega r_{h}-eQ)=-(n+1)\ .
\label{eq:resonant_frequencies_GHS}$$
Equation (\[eq:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\]) can be written as a fourth order equation for $\omega$, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
&& -2 r_{h}^2 \omega ^4+2 r_{h} (i n+2 e Q+i) \omega ^3 \nonumber\\
&& +(n^2-2 i n e Q+2 n-2 e^2 Q^2-2 i e Q+2 \mu_{0} ^2 r_{h}^2+1) \omega ^2 \nonumber\\
&& -i \mu_{0} ^2 r_{h} (2 n-3 i e Q+2) \omega \nonumber\\
&& -\frac{1}{4} \mu_{0} ^2 (4 n^2-8 i n e Q+8 n-4 e^2 Q^2-8 i e Q+\mu_{0} ^2 r_{h}^2+4) = 0 \ .
\label{eq:fourth_order_omega}\end{aligned}$$ Note that Eq. (\[eq:fourth\_order\_omega\]) has the general form $$B_{4}\omega^{4}+B_{3}\omega^{3}+B_{2}\omega^{2}+B_{1}\omega+B_{0}=0\ ,
\label{eq:quartic_equation}$$ where $B_{4} \neq 0$. The roots of Eq. (\[eq:fourth\_order\_omega\]) can be determined by using an algebraic manipulation program. As the final expression is so long and no insight is gained by writing it out, we omitted it.
On the other hand, this quantization rule involves a complex number, that is, a frequency (energy) spectrum such that $\omega=\omega_{R}+i\ \omega_{I}$, where $\omega_{R}$ and $\omega_{I}$ are the real and imaginary parts, respectively. Indeed, the main feature of the resonant frequencies corresponds to the decay rate of the oscillation, which is characterized by the imaginary part. Note that the eigenvalues given by Eq. (\[eq:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\]) are not degenerate, due to the fact that there is no dependence on the eigenvalue $\lambda_{lm}$. We may obtain numerically two values for the resonant frequencies, given by Eq. (\[eq:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\]), by using the *FindRoot* function in the **Wolfram Mathematica**$^{\mbox{\tiny\textregistered}}$ **9**, such that $(\omega-\omega^{(1)}_{n})(\omega-\omega^{(2)}_{n})=0$.
Similar results were obtained in the literature by Ferrari *et al.* [@PhysRevD.63.064009] and Shu *et al.* [@PhysRevD.70.084046] using an approximate method. In our case we obtain the resonant frequencies directly from the confluent Heun function by using the condition which should be imposed in such a way that this function reduces to a polynomial. In addition, our results includes a discussion about the dependence of the resonant frequencies with the mass of the scalar field, which completes the results in both Refs. and .
The resonant frequencies for $n=0$, $e=0.1$, and $\mu_{0}=0.6$ are shown in Tables \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_1\] and \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_2\], where the units $M=1$ were chosen.
$a$ $\mbox{Re}[\omega^{(1)}_{0}]$ $\mbox{Im}[\omega^{(1)}_{0}]$
------ ------------------------------- -------------------------------
0.01 0.00455 0.16642
0.04 0.00911 0.16639
0.09 0.01366 0.16635
0.16 0.01822 0.16629
0.25 0.02277 0.16621
0.36 0.02733 0.16611
0.49 0.03189 0.16599
0.64 0.03645 0.16586
0.81 0.04101 0.16571
1.00 0.04557 0.16554
1.21 0.05014 0.16535
1.44 0.05471 0.16514
1.69 0.05928 0.16491
1.96 0.06385 0.16467
2.25 0.06843 0.16441
\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_1\]
From Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_1\] we see that the real part of the resonant frequencies increase with $a$, while the imaginary part decreases very slowly for fixed values of the charge and mass of the scalar field.
$a$ $\mbox{Re}[\omega^{(2)}_{0}]$ $\mbox{Im}[\omega^{(2)}_{0}]$
------ ------------------------------- -------------------------------
0.01 -0.58659 0.04292
0.04 -0.58637 0.04406
0.09 -0.58616 0.04522
0.16 -0.58595 0.04638
0.25 -0.58574 0.04754
0.36 -0.58554 0.04872
0.49 -0.58535 0.04990
0.64 -0.58516 0.05110
0.81 -0.58497 0.05230
1.00 -0.58479 0.05350
1.21 -0.58461 0.05472
1.44 -0.58444 0.05594
1.69 -0.58427 0.05716
1.96 -0.58410 0.05840
2.25 -0.58394 0.05964
\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_2\]
In Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_2\], the magnitude of the real part decreases while for the imaginary part it increases with parameter $a$.
The resonant frequencies that we obtained are shown in Figs. \[fig:Fig1\_GHS\_dilaton\], \[fig:Fig2\_GHS\_dilaton\], \[fig:Fig3\_GHS\_dilaton\], and \[fig:Fig4\_GHS\_dilaton\] as a function of $n$, $a$, $e$, and $\mu_{0}$, respectively. The units were chosen as multiples of $M$.
![The scalar resonant frequencies of a GHS dilaton black hole as a function of $n$ for $e=0.1$ and $a=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig1_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig1_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
In Fig. \[fig:Fig1\_GHS\_dilaton\] we see that for fixed values of the charge and the parameter $a$, the real part increases with $n$ and decreases with the mass of the field $\mu_{0}$, while the imaginary part is approximately constant with respect to the mass and thus the decay rate of the field is almost constant.
![The scalar resonant frequencies of a GHS dilaton black hole as a function of $a$ for $e=0.1$ and $\mu_{0}=0.4$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig2_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig2_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
From Fig. \[fig:Fig2\_GHS\_dilaton\] we conclude that the real part of the resonant frequencies increases with the values of $n$ and $a$. As to the imaginary part, it increases with $n$, but is approximately constant with respect to the parameter $a$.
![The scalar resonant frequencies of a GHS dilaton black hole as a function of $e$ for $a=1.1$ and $\mu_{0}=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig3_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig3_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
In this case, shown by Fig. \[fig:Fig3\_GHS\_dilaton\], where $a$ and $\mu_{0}$ are fixed, the real part of the resonant frequencies increases with the values of $a$ and the charge. As to the imaginary part, it increases with $n$, but is approximately constant with respect to the parameter $a$.
![The scalar resonant frequencies of a GHS dilaton black hole as a function of $\mu_{0}$ for $e=0.1$ and $a=1.6$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig4_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig4_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
In Fig. \[fig:Fig4\_GHS\_dilaton\] we see that, except for the case $n=0$ in which there is anomalous behavior, for all other values of $n$ the real part increases when the mass of the field decreases and $n$ increases, while the imaginary part increases with $n$, but is approximately constant with respect to the mass of the field.
Massless case
-------------
In the case where we have a massless scalar field, the expression for the resonant frequencies can be analytically solved for $\omega_{n}$. It is given by $$\omega_{n}=\frac{eQ}{r_{h}}+i\frac{n+1}{2r_{h}}\ ,
\label{eq:massless_resonant frequencies_GHS}$$ where the quantum number $n$ is a positive integer or zero.
The field energies given by Eq. (\[eq:massless\_resonant frequencies\_GHS\]) are not degenerate, due to the fact that there is no dependence on the eigenvalue $\lambda_{lm}$. The resonant frequencies for $n=1$, $e=1.1$, and $\mu_{0}=0$ are shown in Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_3\]. In Figs. \[fig:Fig5\_GHS\_dilaton\] and \[fig:Fig6\_GHS\_dilaton\], we present the resonant frequencies as function of $a$ and $e$, respectively. The units were chosen as multiples of $M$.
$a$ $\mbox{Re}(\omega_{1})$ $\mbox{Im}(\omega_{1})$
------ ------------------------- -------------------------
0.01 0.055 0.500
0.04 0.110 0.500
0.09 0.165 0.500
0.16 0.220 0.500
0.25 0.275 0.500
0.36 0.330 0.500
0.49 0.385 0.500
0.64 0.440 0.500
0.81 0.495 0.500
1.00 0.550 0.500
1.21 0.605 0.500
1.44 0.660 0.500
1.69 0.715 0.500
1.96 0.770 0.500
2.25 0.825 0.500
\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_3\]
In Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_3\], which is related to the massless case, we see that the real part of the resonant frequencies increases with the parameter $a$, while the imaginary part is constant and thus the field will decay with the same rate, independently on the value of $a$.
![The massless scalar resonant frequencies of a GHS dilaton black hole as a function of $a$ for $e=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig5_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig5_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
Figure \[fig:Fig5\_GHS\_dilaton\] shows that the real part as well as the imaginary part increases with $n$ and $a$, for a fixed value of charge.
In Fig. \[fig:Fig6\_GHS\_dilaton\] shown in what follows, the real and imaginary parts increase with $n$ and $e$, for fixed $a$. Thus, the decay rate of the field increases with $n$ and $e$.
![The massless scalar resonant frequencies of a GHS dilaton black hole as a function of $e$ for $a=1.1$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig6_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig6_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
Special case: Schwarzschild spacetime
-------------------------------------
In the case where $a=0$, we get the Schwarzschild black hole. In this scenario, the expression for the resonant frequencies turns into $$n+1-\frac{r_{h}(\mu_{0}^{2}-2\omega^{2})}{2\sqrt{\mu_{0}^{2}-\omega^{2}}}+i r_{h}\omega=0\ .
\label{eq:resonant frequencies_Sch}$$
The resonant frequencies associated to massive scalar particles in the Schwarzschild spacetime are shown in Tables \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_4\]-\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_7\] and Figs. \[fig:Fig7\_GHS\_dilaton\]-\[fig:Fig8\_GHS\_dilaton\]. The units were chosen as multiples of $M$.
$\mu_{0}$ $\mbox{Re}[\omega^{(1)}_{0}]$ $\mbox{Im}[\omega^{(1)}_{0}]$
----------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
0.1 -0.09957 0.00017
0.2 -0.19753 0.00199
0.3 0.00000 0.23611
0.4 0.00000 0.21924
0.5 0.00000 0.19581
0.6 0.00000 0.16643
0.7 0.00000 0.13169
0.8 0.00000 0.09209
0.9 0.00000 0.04808
\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_4\]
$\mu_{0}$ $\mbox{Re}[\omega^{(2)}_{0}]$ $\mbox{Im}[\omega^{(2)}_{0}]$
----------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
0.1 0.00000 0.24965
0.2 0.00000 0.24602
0.3 -0.29440 0.00695
0.4 -0.39118 0.01538
0.5 -0.48852 0.02709
0.6 -0.58681 0.04178
0.7 -0.68624 0.05916
0.8 -0.78691 0.07895
0.9 -0.88888 0.10096
\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_5\]
$n$ $\mbox{Re}[\omega^{(1)}_{0}]$ $\mbox{Im}[\omega^{(1)}_{0}]$
----- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
0 -0.09957 0.00017
1 -0.09988 0.00002
2 -0.09995 0.000007
3 -0.09997 0.000003
4 -0.09998 0.000001
5 -0.09999 0.0000009
6 -0.09999 0.0000005
7 -0.09999 0.0000003
8 -0.09999 0.0000002
9 -0.10000 0.0000001
\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_6\]
Tables \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_4\] and \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_5\] show the behavior of the real and imaginary parts of $\omega^{(1)}_{0}$ and $\omega^{(2)}_{0}$ as a function of the mass of the field in the case of a Schwarzschild black hole. Note that the decay rate of the field is not uniform.
In Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_6\] the mass was fixed. In this case, the magnitude of the real part of $\omega^{(1)}_{0}$ increases with $n$, while the imaginary part has an irregular behavior.
$n$ $\mbox{Re}[\omega^{(2)}_{0}]$ $\mbox{Im}[\omega^{(2)}_{0}]$
----- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
0 0.00000 0.24965
1 0.00000 0.49995
2 0.00000 0.74999
3 0.00000 0.99999
4 0.00000 1.25000
5 0.00000 1.50000
6 0.00000 1.75000
7 0.00000 2.00000
8 0.00000 2.25000
9 0.00000 2.50000
\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_7\]
In Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_7\], the mass was fixed. In this case the real part of $\omega^{(2)}_{0}$ is zero, while its imaginary part increases with $n$ and thus the decay rate will increase with $n$.
![The scalar resonant frequencies $\omega_{1}$ of a Schwarzschild black hole as a function of $\mu_{0}$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig7_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig7_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
Figure \[fig:Fig7\_GHS\_dilaton\] shows how the magnitude of the real pat behaves in terms of $n$ and $\mu_{0}$. It increases when $\mu_{0}$ increases and is constant for different values of $n$. As to the imaginary part, its magnitude increases with $n$ and is almost constant with respect to $\mu_{0}$.
![The scalar resonant frequencies $\omega_{2}$ of a Schwarzschild black hole as a function of $\mu_{0}$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig8_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig8_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
In Fig. \[fig:Fig8\_GHS\_dilaton\], for massive field, the imaginary part of the resonant frequencies increases with the values of $n$.
Now, taking into account a massless scalar field, we find the following expression for the resonant frequencies $$\omega_{n}=\frac{i(n+1)}{2r_{h}}\ ,
\label{eq:massless_resonant frequencies_Sch}$$ which are shown in Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_8\] and Fig. \[fig:Fig9\_GHS\_dilaton\]. The units were chosen as multiples of $M$.
$n$ $\mbox{Re}(\omega_{n})$ $\mbox{Im}(\omega_{n})$
----- ------------------------- -------------------------
0 0.00000 0.25000
1 0.00000 0.50000
2 0.00000 0.75000
3 0.00000 1.00000
4 0.00000 1.25000
5 0.00000 1.50000
6 0.00000 1.75000
7 0.00000 2.00000
8 0.00000 2.25000
9 0.00000 2.50000
\[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_8\]
These results of Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_8\] show us that for the massless field in Schwarzschild, the real part is zero and the imaginary part increases with $n$, which means that the decay rate increases with this number.
![The massless scalar resonant frequencies of a Schwarzschild black hole as a function of $n$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig9_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig9_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
Figure \[fig:Fig9\_GHS\_dilaton\] shows that the imaginary part of the resonant frequencies increases with $n$. This is the same qualitative behavior of the massive field whose results are given in Fig. \[fig:Fig8\_GHS\_dilaton\].
It is worth commenting that the results obtained in the case of GHS dilaton black hole seem to be qualitatively in accordance with the ones obtained by Ferrari *et al.* [@PhysRevD.63.064009]. The same to be happen with respect to the results concerning the Schwarzschild case, as compared with recent results in the literature [@PhysRevD.69.044004], taking into consideration the qualitative aspects. In which concerns the values obtained, they are different, which is expected due to the fact that we have used different boundary conditions as compared to the ones used in the literature.
All these results can be obtained in the case of stationary black holes, in principle. To do this we have to use the exact solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation due to the fact that the method is based on the exact solution of this equation. In the literature, we have some results in the Kerr black hole spacetime with the use of the approximate methods [@PhysRevD.84.044046; @PhysLettB.715.348].
Some aspects of Hawking radiation {#Sec.IV}
=================================
In this section, we will study and discuss some aspects of the black body radiation emitted by a GHS dilaton black hole. In order to do this, we need to consider the radial solution near the exterior event horizon, that is, to analyze the radial solution when $r \rightarrow r_{h}$ which implies that $x \rightarrow 0$. Similar studies were done in Ref. , which obtained the Hawking radiation spectrum and the relative scattering probability. Additionally we discussed the flux of particles and the free energy and how it depends on the dilaton charge.
Firstly, let us consider the expansion in power series of the confluent Heun function with respect to the independent variable $x$, in a neighborhood of the regular singular point $x=0$, which can be written as [@Ronveaux:1995] $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{HeunC}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,\eta;x) & = & 1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(-\alpha\beta+\beta\gamma+2\eta-\alpha+\beta+\gamma)}{(\beta+1)}x\nonumber\\
& + & \frac{1}{8}\frac{1}{(\beta+1)(\beta+2)}(\alpha^{2}\beta^{2}-2\alpha\beta^{2}\gamma+\beta^{2}\gamma^{2}\nonumber\\
& - & 4\eta\alpha\beta+4\eta\beta\gamma+4\alpha^{2}\beta-2\alpha\beta^{2}-6\alpha\beta\gamma\nonumber\\
& + & 4\beta^{2}\gamma+4\beta\gamma^{2}+4\eta^{2}-8\eta\alpha+8\eta\beta+8\eta\gamma\nonumber\\
& + & 3\alpha^{2}-4\alpha\beta-4\alpha\gamma+3\beta^{2}+4\beta\delta\nonumber\\
& + & 10\beta\gamma+3\gamma^{2}+8\eta+4\beta+4\delta+4\gamma)x^2+...\ .
\label{eq:serie_HeunC_todo_x}\end{aligned}$$
Thus, in this limit, the radial solution given by Eq. (\[eq:solucao\_geral\_radial\_GHS\]) becomes $$R(r) \sim C_{1}\ (r-r_{h})^{\beta/2}+C_{2}\ (r-r_{h})^{-\beta/2}\ ,
\label{eq:exp_0_solucao_geral_radial_GHS}$$ where we have only considered contributions of the first term in the expansion, and all constants are included in $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$. Then, considering the solution of the time dependence, near the exterior event horizon $r_{h}$ of the GHS dilaton black hole, we can write $$\Psi=\mbox{e}^{-i \omega t}(r-r_{h})^{\pm\beta/2}\ .
\label{eq:sol_onda_radial_GHS}$$ Taking into account Eq. (\[eq:beta\_radial\_HeunC\_GHS\]), the parameter $\beta$ can be rewritten as $$\frac{\beta}{2}=i(\omega r_{h}-eQ)=\frac{i}{2\kappa_{h}}(\omega-\omega_{h})\ ,
\label{eq:beta/2_solucao_geral_radial_GHS}$$ where $$\omega_{h}=e\Phi_{h}\ ,
\label{eq:omega0}$$ with $\Phi_{h}$ being the electric potential nearby the exterior event horizon ans is given by $$\Phi_{h}(M,a)=\frac{\partial M}{\partial Q}\biggr|_{S_{h}}=\frac{\sqrt{aM}}{r_{h}}\ .
\label{eq:pot_ele_a_GHS}$$ The parameter $\kappa_{h}$ is the gravitational acceleration on the background exterior event horizon surface, and can be written as $$\kappa_{h}=\frac{1}{2r_{h}}\ .
\label{eq:gravitational_acceleration_GHS}$$
Therefore, in the GHS dilaton black hole exterior horizon surface, the ingoing and outgoing wave solutions are given by $$\Psi_{in}=\mbox{e}^{-i \omega t}(r-r_{h})^{-\frac{i}{2\kappa_{h}}(\omega-\omega_{h})}\ ,
\label{eq:sol_in_1_GHS}$$ $$\Psi_{out}(r>r_{h})=\mbox{e}^{-i \omega t}(r-r_{h})^{\frac{i}{2\kappa_{h}}(\omega-\omega_{h})}\ .
\label{eq:sol_out_2_GHS}$$
Next, we obtain the expression for the relative scattering probability of the scalar wave, at the exterior event horizon surface, which is $$\Gamma_{h}(\omega)=\left|\frac{\Psi_{out}(r>r_{h})}{\Psi_{out}(r<r_{h})}\right|^{2}=\mbox{e}^{-\frac{2\pi}{\kappa_{h}}(\omega-\omega_{h})}=\mbox{e}^{-\beta_{h}(\omega-\omega_{h})}\ ,
\label{eq:taxa_refl_GHS}$$ where the thermodynamic quantity $\beta_{h}$ is given by$$\beta_{h}=\frac{1}{k_{B}T_{h}}\ ,
\label{eq:beta_GHS}$$ with $T_{h}$ being the Hawking temperature, which is related to the gravitational acceleration by the expression $$T_{h}=\frac{\partial M}{\partial S_{h}}\biggr|_{Q}=\frac{\kappa_{h}}{2\pi}\ ,
\label{eq:Hawking_temperature_GHS}$$ which is the same of the Schwarzschild black hole.
Thus, by using the method developed by Damour-Ruffini-Sannan [@PhysRevD.14.332; @GenRelativGravit.20.239], we get the resulting Hawking radiation spectrum of charged massive scalar particles (mean number of particles emitted), which is written as $$\bar{N}_{\omega}=\frac{\Gamma_{h}}{1-\Gamma_{h}}=\frac{1}{\mbox{e}^{\beta_{h}(\omega-\omega_{h})}-1}\ .
\label{eq:espectro_rad_GHS_2}$$ Equation (\[eq:espectro\_rad\_GHS\_2\]) give us the black body spectrum described by scalar particles which are emitted from the GHS dilaton black hole. It is worth calling attention to the fact that the results obtained until Eq. (\[eq:espectro\_rad\_GHS\_2\]) are similar the ones obtained in the literature [@CanJPhys.87.349]. From now on we will present the new results that follows.
In the limit where $\omega$ is a continuous variable, this yields a total rate of particle emission, which is expressed as $$\frac{dN}{dt}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\bar{N}_{\omega}}{2\pi}\ d\omega=\frac{1}{\beta_{h}}\ln\left(\frac{1}{1-\mbox{e}^{\beta_{h}\omega_{h}}}\right)\ .
\label{eq:total_rate_GHS}$$
The mass loss rate can be calculated using the following relation $$\frac{dM}{dt}=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\bar{N}_{\omega}\ \omega\ d\omega=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\beta_{h}^{2}}\mbox{Li}_{2}(\mbox{e}^{\beta_{h}\omega_{h}})\ ,
\label{eq:Mass_loss_GHS}$$ where $\mbox{Li}_{n}(z)$ is the poly-logarithm function with $n$ running from 1 to $\infty$.
The flux of scalar particles, $\Phi$, at infinity, i.e., far from the GHS dilaton black hole, is given by $$\Phi=\left|\frac{dM}{dt}\right|=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\beta_{h}^{2}}\mbox{Li}_{2}(\mbox{e}^{\beta_{h}\omega_{h}})\ .
\label{eq:Flux_GHS}$$
Finally, according to the canonical assembly theory [@CommunTheorPhys.52.189], considering that the frequency (energy) is continuous, the free energy of the scalar particle, $F_{e}$, can be expressed as $$F_{e}=-\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\Gamma_{h}(\omega)}{\mbox{e}^{\beta_{h}(\omega-\omega_{h})}-1}\ d\omega=\frac{\mbox{e}^{\beta_{h}\omega_{h}}+\ln(1-\mbox{e}^{\beta_{h}\omega_{h}})}{\beta_{h}}\ .
\label{eq:free_energy_GHS}$$ In Fig. \[fig:Fig10\_GHS\_dilaton\] is shown the free energy of the scalar particle as a function of $M$, for different values of $Q$. Note that the free energy of the scalar particle will be a real number only if the magnetic charge $Q$ or the charge of the scalar particle $e$ is negative.
![Free energy of the scalar particle in a GHS dilaton black hole as a function of $M$ for $e=-0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig10_GHS_dilaton"}](Fig10_GHS_dilaton_2.eps)
This result given by Fig. \[fig:Fig10\_GHS\_dilaton\] tell us that the free energy increases with the dilaton charge as well as with the mass of the GHS dilaton black hole.
Summary and discussion {#Sec.V}
======================
In this work, we have studied the interaction between scalar fields and the GHS dilaton black hole, and used the Klein-Gordon equation to investigate some physical process which correspond to the resonant frequencies and Hawking radiation.
These solutions confirm and extend the ones known in the literature, in the sense that now we have analytic solutions that are valid for a spacetime outside the exterior event horizon, which means, in the region between the event horizon and infinity, differently from the results obtained in [@NuclearPhysicsB.899.37; @ClassQuantumGrav.22.533; @CommunTheorPhys.52.189] which are valid only in asymptotic regions, namely, very close to the interior event horizon and far from the black hole. This approach has the advantage that it is not necessary to introduce any coordinate system, as for example, the particular ones used in [@IntJTheorPhys.52.1682].
We have imposed boundary conditions to the radial solution of the Klein-Gordon equation in order to analyze the resonant frequencies and then obtained a general expression for these oscillations. By using a numerical approach, we present some values for the resonant frequencies as functions of the involved parameters. We also calculated and discussed the massless resonant frequencies.
Considering the resonant frequencies we can conclude that for the fundamental mode, taking into account a massive field, the real and imaginary parts of the resonant frequencies $\omega^{(1)}_{0}$ of the quasispectrum decreases when the parameter $a$, which codifies the presence of the dilaton, decreases, as shown in Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_1\]. For fixed value of $a$, the behaviors of the real and imaginary parts of the resonant frequencies, for different modes, is shown in Fig. \[fig:Fig1\_GHS\_dilaton\]. Similarly, in Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_2\] and Fig. \[fig:Fig2\_GHS\_dilaton\], the behaviors of $\omega^{(2)}_{0}$ and $\omega^{(2)}_{n}$ ($n=\{0,1,2,3\}$) are shown, respectively.
Figure \[fig:Fig3\_GHS\_dilaton\] shows that for fixed values of $a$ and $\mu_{0}$, for the modes $n=\{0,1,2,3\}$, the real part of $\omega^{(1)}_{n}$ increases with the value of the charge $e$, while the imaginary part decreases slightly. Fig. \[fig:Fig4\_GHS\_dilaton\] shows the behavior of the resonant frequencies, but now as a function of $\mu_{0}$, for different modes.
For the fundamental mode, the behavior is not regular, while for the others modes, namely, $n=\{1,2,3\}$, the real part of the resonant frequencies increases with the decreasing of $\mu_{0}$, while the imaginary part is approximately constant.
A massless scalar field was also considered, for which behavior of the resonant frequencies is shown in Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_3\] for the first excited mode. Note that the real part increases, while the imaginary part is constant, with the increasing of the parameter $a$. This behavior is reconfirmed in Figs. \[fig:Fig5\_GHS\_dilaton\] and \[fig:Fig6\_GHS\_dilaton\], when different modes are considered, for fixed values of the charge $e$ and the parameter $a$, respectively.
Table \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_4\] shows the behavior of the resonant frequencies for different values of $\mu_{0}$, in the Schwarzschild case, for the fundamental mode. Comparing the results taking the values of $\mu_{0}$ from 0.1 to 0.6 of this Table with the results shown in Fig. \[fig:Fig3\_GHS\_dilaton\] for $n=0$, we can see how is the effect of the presence of the dilaton, in this particular case. Similar results should happens for all others configurations, as should be expected. Similarly, comparing Fig. \[fig:Fig8\_GHS\_dilaton\] with Fig. \[fig:Fig4\_GHS\_dilaton\] and Fig. \[fig:Fig9\_GHS\_dilaton\] with Fig. \[fig:Fig5\_GHS\_dilaton\], we can see how is the role played by the dilaton.
Comparing Tables \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_1\] and \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_2\] with Tables \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_4\], \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_5\], \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_6\] and \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_7\] for the massive case, we can see the influence of the dilaton. Also comparing Tables \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_3\] and \[tab:resonant\_frequencies\_GHS\_8\], for the massless case, the role made by the dilaton becomes evident.
The Hawking radiation spectrum was obtained from the asymptotic behavior of the radial solution at the exterior event horizon, where we have used the expansion in power series of the confluent Heun function.
Finally, we obtained the Hawking flux of scalar particles from the GHS dilaton black hole given by Eq. (\[eq:Flux\_GHS\]), from which we can conclude that this quantity depends on the parameter which codifies the presence of the dilaton through its influence on the Hawking temperature. Also, the free energy depends on the charge $Q$ and mass of the black hole $M$, and consequently on the presence of the dilaton field.
It is worth calling attention to the fact that the determination of the resonant frequencies and flux of particles emitted as a Hawking radiation can be done for the case of a more realistic black hole, as for example, in Kerr black holes, by using the same method that we have adopted. Certainly, this will be more difficult due the fact that the solution of the Klein-Gordon equation will be more complicated and not necessarily has an explicitly polynomial form.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
H. S. V. is funded by the CNPq through the research Project (150640/2018-8). V. B. B. is partially supported by the CNPq through the research Project (305835/2016-5). M. S. C. is partially supported by the CNPq through the research Project (312251/2015-7).
[99]{} B. P. Abbott *et al.* \[Ligo Scientific and Virgo Collaborations\], Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 221101 (2016). The Event Horizon Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett. **875**, L1 (2019). G. W. Gibbons, Nucl. Phys. B **207**, 337 (1982). R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, Ann. Phys. (NY) **172**, 304 (1986). R. C. Myers, Nucl. Phys. B **289**, 701 (1987). H. J. Vega and N. Sanchez, Nucl. Phys. B **309**, 552 (1988). G. W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. B **298**, 741 (1988). D. Garfinkle, G. T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D **43**, 3140 (1991); Erratum Phys. Rev. D **45**, 3888 (1992). A. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 1006 (1992). I. Sakali and A. Al-Badawi, Can. J. Phys. **87**, 349 (2015). H. S. Vieira, V. B. Bezerra, C. R. Muniz, M. S. Cunha and M. O. Tahim, arXiv:1807.09135v1 **\[gr-qc\]** (2018). M. A. Dariescu, C. Dariescu and C. Stelea, Adv. High Energy Phys. **2019**, 5769564 (2019). M. J. Lan, G. Chen and Y. W. Han, Chin. Phys. B **19**, 090401 (2010). X. M. Liu, L. C. Zhang and R, Zhao, Nuovo Cimento **122**, 904 (2007). C. Y. Wang and Y. X. Gui, Commun. Theor. Phys. **52**, 189 (2009). V. Ferrari, M. Pauri and F. Piazza, Phys. Rev. D **63**, 064009 (2001). F. W. Shu and Y. G. Shen, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 084046 (2004). S. Chen and J. Jing, Class. Quantum Grav. **22**, 1129 (2005). I. Sakali and G. Tokgoz, Adv. High Energy Phys. **2015**, 739153 (2015). S. W. Wei, Y. X. Liu, K. Yang and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 104042 (2010). S. L. Detweiler, *Sources of gravitational radiation*, edited by L. Smart (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979). S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B **761**, 53 (2016). B. Toshmatov and Z. Stuchlík, Eur. Phys. J. Plus **132**, 324 (2017). S. W. Hawking, Nature **248**, 30 (1974). S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. **43**, 199 (1975). H. S. Vieira and V. B. Bezerra, Ann. Phys. (NY) **373**, 28 (2016). I. Sakalli, Phys. Rev. D **94**, 084040 (2016). C. Y. Zhang, S. J. Zhang and B. Wang, Nuclear Physics B **899**, 37 (2015). S. Chen and J. Jing, Class. Quantum Grav. **22**, 533 (2005). K. Lin, Astrophys. Space Sci. **333**, 369 (2011). K. Lin, Int. J. Theor. Phys. **49**, 2786 (2010). H. Liao, J. Chen and Y. Wang, Int. J. Theor. Phys. **52**, 1474 (2013). V. B. Bezerra, H. S. Vieira and A. A. Costa, Class. Quantum Grav. **31**, 045003 (2014). H. S. Vieira, V. B. Bezerra and C. R. Muniz, Ann. Phys. (NY) **350**, 14 (2014). C. R. Muniz, M. O. Tahim, M. S. Cunha and H. S. Vieira, JCAP **001**, 006 (2018). P. P. Fiziev, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **43**, 035203 (2010). K. Heun, Math. Ann. **33**, 161 (1889). R. Maier, Math. Comp. **76**, 811 (2007). A. Ronveaux, *Heun’s differential equations*, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995). V. Cardoso, J. P. S. Lemos and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D **69**, 044004 (2004). S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 044046 (2011). S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B **715**, 348 (2012). T. Damour and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D **14**, 332 (1976). S. Sannan, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **20**, 239 (1988). C. Y. Wang and Y. X. Gui, Commun. Theor. Phys. **52**, 189 (2009). X. G. Lan, Int. J. Theor. Phys. **52**, 1682 (2013).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present an omnidirectional wireless power transfer (WPT) system capable of automatic power flow control using three orthogonal transmitter (Tx)-repeater (Rp) pairs. The power drawn from each transmitter is automatically adjusted depending on the mutual inductance between the receiver and the Tx-Rp pair. The proposed approach enables the receiver to harvest almost uniform power with high efficiency ($90\%$) regardless of its position.'
author:
- 'Prasad Jayathurathnage, Xiaojie Dang, Fu Liu, Constantin Simovski, and Sergei A. Tretyakov'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'Bibliography.bib'
title: Omnidirectional Wireless Power Transfer with Automatic Power Flow Control
---
Introduction
============
power transfer (WPT) is increasingly becoming a popular technique for providing power to electronic devices. Although it is convenient as no wire plugging is needed, misalignment between the receiver (Rx) coil and transmitter (Tx) coil reduce the transferred power and efficiency. To overcome this misalignment restriction, researchers have proposed several approaches, among which omnidirectional WPT with multiple three-dimensional (3D) coils is a prominent one as it provides more freedom for the position of the receivers. For example, a Tx with multiple orthogonal windings was proposed to enable multi-angle WPT [@wang2012enabling; @jonah2013orientation]. However, since the total magnetic field is the vector sum of the magnetic fields induced by all the coils, the total magnetic field is fixed at a particular direction, therefore, omnidirectional WPT is impossible to achieve.
To solve this problem, a nonidentical current control technique is employed in 3D transmitters to steer the direction of synthetic magnetic field depending on the position of the Rx [@2014_Hui_2D-3D; @2015_Hui_omni_control]. There are several controlling methods of the Tx currents such as amplitude modulation, phase shifting, and frequency modulation. The amplitude modulation, where the amplitude of the individual Tx current is controlled, can direct the total magnetic field vector toward the Rx, enabling *directional WPT* [@2016_Hui_mathanalysis; @2015_Hui_omni_control]. In this scenario, the optimal magnitude of a Tx current is proportional to the mutual inductance between that Tx and the Rx, and the power received by the load is proportional to the square sum of all the mutual inductances between each Tx and the Rx [@2016_Hui_mathanalysis]. A prerequisite of this action is the knowledge of all the mutual couplings, that is, the knowledge of the Rx position. For example, Zhang et al. in [@2015_Hui_omni_control] present a control method to detect the Rx position and focus the power flow toward the targeted receiver. However, this approach requires complex and high-precision control methods to guarantee an efficient directional WPT. On the other hand, the phase shifting method, where the phases of Tx currents are controlled, can create a rotating magnetic field around the 3D-transmitter, enabling *rotational WPT*. For example, a $120^{\circ}$ phase difference between the currents of the three orthogonal Txs is used to create a 3D rotating magnetic field in [@2014_Hui_2D-3D]. However, low transfer efficiency is inevitable in this scenario because power transfer is only effective when the field vector is oriented towards the Rx.
In this paper, we propose and experimentally verify a novel omnidirectional WPT system to realize the performance equivalent to *directional WPT* with automatic power flow control. The proposed WPT system consists of three transmitter-repeater pairs, which are placed in an orthogonal way and form three independent power channels, as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig.Omnidirectional\_WP\_coils\]. To achieve efficient omnidirectional WPT operation, we propose a setup for automatic tuning the amplitude of each Tx current to be proportional to the mutual inductance between its repeater (Rp) and the Rx, which is similar to the optimal current distribution in the directional WPT scenario. Only a simple control is needed in the transmitter side to keep Tx coil current in-phase with the supply voltage to ensure the constructive mutual coupling. The experimental results of the laboratory prototype validate the omnidirectional WPT performance of the proposed system.
![The proposed omnidirectional WPT system with three orthogonal Tx-Rp pairs[]{data-label="Fig.Omnidirectional_WP_coils"}](figures/Omnidirectional_WPT_coils.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Theoretical Analysis
====================
The Equivalent Circuit Analysis
-------------------------------
![The equivalent circuit of the proposed WPT system with three Tx-Rp pairs and the Rx[]{data-label="Fig.EEq_cct"}](figures/EEq_cct.pdf){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
The equivalent circuit of the proposed omnidirectional WPT system is shown in Fig. \[Fig.EEq\_cct\]. All the Txs are series compensated and connected in parallel to the output of a full-bridge inverter. Because of the high-Q resonance network, we assume that the three Txs are connected to an ideal sinusoidal voltage source with an RMS voltage of $\Vs=2\sqrt{2}\VDC/\pi$, where $\VDC$ is the DC source voltage. As the three Tx-Rp pairs are orthogonal to each other, the cross couplings between the transmitter coils and repeater coils that belong to different pairs are negligible, which ensures that the Tx-Rp pairs form three independent power channels. The master equation of this WPT system can be written as $$\begin{bmatrix}
\vVTx \\ \vec{0} \\ 0
\end{bmatrix}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\RTx+j \Xt & j \omega_0 M_0 & j \omega_0 \vec{\Gamma}\\
j \omega_0 M_0 & \RRp & j \omega_0 \vec{M}\\
j \omega_0 \vec{\Gamma}\T & j \omega_0 \vec{M}\T & \RL+\RRx
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vITx \\ \vIRp \\ \IRx
\end{bmatrix},$$ where the left (right) column vector represents the voltages (currents) in the Txs, Rps, and Rx, with $\vVTx=\left[\Vs \; \Vs \; \Vs \right]\T$ denoting the identical source voltages, $\vITx=\left[I_\mathrm{Tx1} \; I_\mathrm{Tx2} \; I_\mathrm{Tx3} \right]\T$, $\vIRp=\left[I_\mathrm{Rp1} \; I_\mathrm{Rp2} \; I_\mathrm{Rp3} \right]\T$, and $\IRx$ denoting the currents in the Tx, Rp, and Rx. The impedance matrix relates the voltages and currents of the whole system, with $\RTx, \RRp$, and $\RRx$ being the parasitic resistances of Tx, Rp, and Rx coils, respectively. $R_L$ is load resistance, $M_0$ is the mutual inductance between the transmitter and repeater belonging to the same channel, $\vec{M}=\left[M_1 \; M_2 \; M_3 \right]\T$ denoting the mutual inductance between each repeater coil and the receiver coil and $\vec{\Gamma}=\left[\gamma_1 M_1 \; \gamma_2 M_2 \; \gamma_3 M_3 \right]\T$ denoting the mutual inductance between each transmitter coil and the receiver coil, see Fig. \[Fig.EEq\_cct\] for reference. We note that in developing this master equation we have used the same resonant frequency $\omega_0$ (also the working frequency) in the repeater and receiver, while the transmitter has non-zero reactance $\Xt$.
If we assume ideal coils and neglect the parasitic resistances, i.e., $\RTx=\RRp=\RRx \approx 0$, we find that the input resistance $\vRin$ and input reactance $\vXin$ seen from the transmitters are $$\begin{aligned}
\vRin & = & \dfrac{M_0^2 \RL}{\Msum \vec{M}}, \\
\vXin & = & \dfrac{\Xt \vec{M}\cdot\vec{M} - 2\omega_0 M_0 \vec{\Gamma}\cdot\vec{M}}{\Msum \vec{M}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Msum=M_1+M_2+M_3$. As all the Tx-Rp pairs are identical, it is reasonable to assume $\gamma_1=\gamma_2=\gamma_3=\gamma$ which implies $\vec{\Gamma}=\gamma\vec{M}$. In this case, all the input reactances can be easily nullified at the same time by choosing $$\label{Eq.Xt}
\Xt=2\omega_0 \gamma M_0,$$ which is completely independent from receiver position. Finally, under the above conditions, we find the currents in the transmitter, repeater, and receiver as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq.ITx}
\vITx & = & \dfrac{\Msum\vec{M}}{M_0^2}\dfrac{\Vs}{\RL}, \\
\label{Eq.IRp}
\vIRp & = & -\gamma \vITx-\dfrac{j\Vs}{\omega_0 M_0}, \\
\label{Eq.IRx}
\IRx & = & -\dfrac{\Msum}{M_0}\dfrac{\Vs}{\RL}.\end{aligned}$$
We note that Tx currents are proportional to $\vec{M}$, which is analogous to the optimal Tx currents in *directional WPT* [@2016_Hui_mathanalysis]. This means that the current in a particular Tx increases with the increase of the mutual coupling between its repeater and the Rx, while it is suppressed when the coupling is very small. This is in fact an essential and desired criterion for high efficiency omnidirectional WPT, because the power transfer contribution from each Tx is automatically adjusted based on the mutual inductance between the receiver and the corresponding repeater. This automatic power flow control capability is also reflected in the Rx current $\IRx$. As $\IRx$ is proportional to $\Msum$, stable output power can be achieved as long as the total coupling inductance $\Msum$ between the repeaters and receiver is stable.
Transmitter Switching Strategy
------------------------------
When the receiver moves, a good strategy to achieve stable output power is to always ensure constructive magnetic field flux through the receiver from all Tx coils. However, this is impossible without control. For example, let us consider the case shown in Fig. \[Fig.Omnidirectional\_WP\_coils\]. When the receiver moves in the $x-y$ plane while facing the center of the Tx coils, the three mutual inductances composing the vector $\vec{M}$ experience variation between positive and negative values and the variations have 120$^{\circ}$ phase difference. As a result, the total magnetic flux is not always added in phase to feed the receiver. This will decrease $\Msum$ and reduce the transferred power. In order to resolve this issue, we can simply employ a Tx-side control strategy, inverting the direction of the Rp current by reversing the terminals of that transmitter which has negative mutual inductance with the receiver. This inversion will change the sign of the effective mutual inductance and the inductive coupling becomes constructive. From Eq. , we see that the detection of the destructive mutual coupling can be done by measuring the phase of all three Tx currents separately. Thus, the Tx-side control strategy allows us to keep Tx current and its terminal voltage in-phase, no any feedback from the Rx-side is needed. It only requires additional switches at the Tx terminals or three separate power converters connected to each Tx. Using this strategy, the total mutual coupling $\Msum$ is redefined as $\Msum=|M_1|+|M_2|+|M_3|$. High efficiency and optimal output power can be then achieved regardless of the receiver position.
WPT Performances
----------------
Let us define the performance indicators of the WPT system including the output power at the load and the efficiency using -. The output power $\Pout$ can be calculated as $$\label{Eq.Pout}
\Pout=\left|\IRx\right|^2 \RL=\left(\dfrac{\Msum}{M_0}\right)^2\dfrac{\Vs^2}{\RL}.$$ We can observe that it is proportional to $\Msum^2$, which is comparable to the $\Pout$ profile in the amplitudes-controlled *directional WPT* [@2015_Hui_omni_control; @2016_Hui_mathanalysis]. Next, power efficiency can be calculated as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq.Efficiency}
\eta & = & \dfrac{1}{1+\xi_\mathrm{Tx}+\xi_\mathrm{Rp}+\xi_\mathrm{Rx}},\\
\text{where~~~~~} \xi_\mathrm{Tx} & = & \dfrac{\vec{M}\cdot\vec{M}}{M_0^2}\dfrac{\RTx}{\RL},~~~~~\xi_\mathrm{Rx} = \dfrac{\RRx}{\RL}, \nonumber\\
\xi_\mathrm{Rp} & = & \dfrac{3 \RRp \RL}{\omega_0^2 \Msum^2} +\dfrac{\gamma^2\vec{M}\cdot\vec{M}}{M_0^2}\dfrac{\RRp}{\RL}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
The terms $\xi_\mathrm{Tx}$, $\xi_\mathrm{Rp}$, and $\xi_\mathrm{Rx}$ represent the loss ratios between the losses in Txs, Rps, and Rx and the output power, respectively. The term $\xi_\mathrm{Rx}$ is very small as the coil resistance $\RRx$ is usually much smaller than the load resistance. For the same reason, the losses in the Txs are very small and can be further minimized by increasing the coupling $M_0$. Therefore, the most prominent losses are from the Rps. To improve the efficiency, the coil resistance $\RRp$ and $\gamma$ should be as low as possible while having high $\Msum^2$.
In summary, the proposed omnidirectional WPT transmitter provides stable output power with high efficiency nearly equivalent to that of the optimal *directional WPT*. Only a simple control at the Tx side is needed to deal with destructive mutual coupling (which is inherent also to other omnidirectional WPT systems).
Experimental Validation
=======================
Description of the WPT Setup
----------------------------
The proposed concept of the omnidirectional WPT system is verified using an experimental prototype operating at 593 kHz. Litz wire is used for the coils to minimize the parasitic resistances and it is winded in helical shape for all the coils. To fulfill the desired condition $\gamma_1 \approx \gamma_2 \approx\gamma_3 < 1$ for all the Rx positions, the diameter of the Tx coils is chosen to be $260$ mm, slightly smaller than that of the Rp coils, which is $300$ mm. In addition, the Tx and Rp coils have $3$ turns. On the other hand, the Rx coil has $10$ turns with diameter of $300$ mm. The measured electrical parameters of the WPT coils are listed in Table \[Table.coil\_measure\].
\[Table.coil\_measure\]
-------------- ---------- ------------- ----- -------
($\mu$H) (m$\Omega$) (kHz)
Tx1 (Red) 6.41 49 490 312.7
Tx2 (Green) 6.33 47 505 310
Tx3 (Yellow) 6.43 39 620 316.3
Rp1 (Red) 7.39 55 510 592.8
Rp2 (Green) 7.45 55 512 593.7
Rp3 (Yellow) 7.53 37 765 592.3
Rx 75.93 469 610 592.6
-------------- ---------- ------------- ----- -------
: Measured Parameters of the WPT Coils
![The experimental setup.[]{data-label="Fig.The_experimental_setup"}](figures/The_experimental_setup.pdf){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
In the experimental setup, the transmitter is placed so that all three Tx (and Rp) coils make the same inclination angle with the horizontal plane, as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig.The\_experimental\_setup\]. For visual aid, the coils of the three transmitters Tx1, Tx2, and Tx3 (and the repeaters Rp1, Rp2, and Rp3) are winded in support structures with color red, green, and yellow, respectively. The Rx is vertically placed at the same level and moves around the Txs in the horizontal plane with fixed distance $200$ mm from the center of Txs. Therefore, the Rx position can be denoted by a rotation angle and we choose the zero angle reference to be the position where the Rx is facing Tx2, as indicated in Fig. \[Fig.The\_experimental\_setup\]. For the power source, a full-bridge inverter is built using two Gallium Nitride half-bridges ${\rm LMG5200}$. The load resistance is connected to the Rx coil through a diode rectifier. As the primary focus of this letter is to introduce the omnidirectional WPT concept, the transmitter terminals are manually switched to deal with negative mutual inductance.
Results and Discussions
-----------------------
![Mutual inductance variations with respect to the receiver position angle at $200$ mm distance.[]{data-label="Fig.M_variations_vs_angle_200mm"}](figures/M_variations_vs_angle_200mm.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
First, the mutual inductances between Txs-Rx and Rps-Rx are numerically calculated using the approach in [@babic2010mutual] and experimentally verified. The results are presented in Fig. \[Fig.M\_variations\_vs\_angle\_200mm\]. It is clear that the mutual couplings experience positive/negative value variations with $120^{\circ}$ shift, and the measured $\gamma$ varies between $0.66$ and $0.75$. The measured mutual inductance $M_0$ is about $3.1~{\rm \mu H}$, while the cross coupling between the coils that belong to different Tx-Rp pairs is around $20$ nH, much smaller than the mutual inductances between Rp and Rx. Therefore, the claim of completely uncoupled and independent Tx-Rp channels is well justified. Using and the measured $M_0$ and $\gamma$ values, we obtain that the required value for the reactive impedance $\Xt$ of Txs is between $15.2~{\rm \Omega}$ and $17.3~{\rm \Omega}$. In fact, slightly inductive input impedance is preferred to achieve soft-switching of the converter [@Pantic_ZCS]. Therefore, $\Xt$ is set to be $17.5~{\rm \Omega}$ at the working frequency in the experiment by properly tuning the resonance frequencies of the Tx coils. On the other hand, all the repeaters and the receiver are resonant at the working frequency, and the measured resonant frequencies are also listed in Table \[Table.coil\_measure\].
Next, the performances of the omnidirectional WPT system is experimentally verified when the Rx is circulating around the transmitter. The measured output power and efficiency are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig.Experimental\_Pout\_eta\]. As we can observe, the output power is quite stable while varying within an acceptable range when the the receiver position varies for $360^{\circ}$. It is worth to note that the output power profile overlaps with $\Msum^2$, validating the theoretical derivation in . The six dips at $30^{\circ}+n60^{\circ} (n=0,1,...,5)$ come from the minimum $\Msum$ values when the receiver is perpendicular to one of the three Tx coils and only two Txs contribute to the power transfer. Furthermore, from Fig. \[Fig.Experimental\_Pout\_eta\](b) we can observe that the measured DC-to-DC efficiency is almost constant at around $90\%$ regardless of Rx position. The slightly lower measured efficiency (about $5\%$ less compared to the numerical one) is due to the fact that only coil losses are considered in the numerical calculations while the measured one includes also the losses in the full-bridge inverter and the rectifier. In fact, the experimental performance is in excellent agreement with the theoretical results.
Finally, the measured Tx and Rp currents are presented in Fig. \[Fig.Txcurrent\_vs\_angle\_200mm\] to explain the basic principle of the proposed automatic power flow control. While the variations of Tx currents follow the mutual inductance profile \[see Figs. \[Fig.M\_variations\_vs\_angle\_200mm\] and \[Fig.Txcurrent\_vs\_angle\_200mm\](a)\], the Rp currents remain almost constant against the rotational angle of receiver \[see Fig. \[Fig.Txcurrent\_vs\_angle\_200mm\](b)\]. These results are consistent with the theoretical results presented in and , as we expected.
{width="0.7\columnwidth"}
\[Fig.Experimental\_Pout\_eta\]
![Comparison of numerical and measured currents with respect to receiver position angle at $200$ mm distance; (a) Transmitter currents, and (b) Repeater currents. []{data-label="Fig.Txcurrent_vs_angle_200mm"}](figures/Experimental_ITx_IRp.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have proposed a novel omnidirectional WPT system with automatic power flow control capability using three pairs of orthogonal transmitters and repeaters as three independent power channels. It has been theoretically and experimentally confirmed that the proposed WPT system can generate true omnidirectional WPT with high efficiency and stable output power. Tx coil currents are proportional to the mutual inductance between each repeater and the receiver, which guarantees automatic power control depending on the receiver position. Compared to the conventional WPT systems with complex control, the proposed system only requires switching Tx-terminals to ensure in-phase Tx currents and their terminal voltages. This simple tuning can be implemented using only Tx-side sensors, that ensures constructive power contribution from each channel in spite of destructive mutual coupling. The experimental system features power transfer efficiency around $90\%$ over the full range of receiver positions at transfer distance of $200$ mm.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
1.0cm 1.0cm
We calculate radiative and collisional energy loss of hard partons traversing the quark-gluon plasma created at RHIC and compare the respective size of these contributions. We employ the AMY formalism for radiative energy loss and include additionally energy loss by elastic collisions. Our treatment of both processes is complete at leading order in the coupling, and accounts for the probabilistic nature of jet energy loss. We find that a solution of the Fokker-Planck equation for the probability density distributions of partons is necessary for a complete calculation of the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ for pion production in heavy ion collisions. It is found that the magnitude of $R_{AA}$ is sensitive to the inclusion of both collisional and radiative energy loss, while the average energy is less affected by the addition of collisional contributions. We present a calculation of $R_{AA}$ for $\pi^0$ at RHIC, combining our energy loss formalism with a relativistic (3+1)-dimensional hydrodynamic description of the thermalized medium.
author:
- 'G.Y. Qin$^1$'
- 'J. Ruppert$^{1,3}$'
- 'C. Gale$^1$'
- 'S. Jeon$^1$'
- 'G. D. Moore$^1$'
- 'M. G. Mustafa$^2$'
title: 'Radiative and Collisional Jet Energy Loss in a Quark-Gluon Plasma'
---
Introduction
============
The main goal of relativistic heavy ion collisions is to study strongly interacting nuclear matter at extreme temperatures and densities and investigate the possibility of a phase transition between hadronic matter and a quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) have demonstrated a significant suppression of high $p_T$ hadrons produced in central $A+A$ collisions in comparison to those in binary scaled $p+p$ collisions [@Adcox:2001jp; @Adler:2002xw]. This result has been referred to as jet quenching and has been attributed to the energy loss of hard $p_T$ partons in a hot quark-gluon plasma [@Gyulassy:1993hr]. Experimentally, jet quenching can be characterized by measurements of various quantities, i.e., the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$, the elliptic flow $v_2$ at high $p_T$, and high $p_T$ hadron correlations, etc.
In [@Qin:2007zz] we presented a systematic calculation of $R_{AA}$ for $\pi^0$ in central and non-central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 200$ AGeV combining the Arnold, Moore and Yaffe (AMY) [@Arnold:2001ms] formalism with a (3+1)-dimensional ideal hydrodynamical model [@Nonaka:2006yn]. In this contribution, we consistently incorporate both collisional and radiative energy loss in the same framework [@Qin:2007rn].
Jet Energy Loss in the AMY Formalism
====================================
In the AMY formalism, the evolution of the jet momentum distribution $P(E,t)={dN(E,t)}/{dE}$ in the QGP is obtained by solving a set of coupled Fokker-Planck type rate equations for quarks plus anti-quarks and gluons, which have the following generic form, $$\label{jet-evolution-eq} \frac{dP(E)}{dt} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega \left[P(E{+}\omega)
\frac{d\Gamma(E{+}\omega,\omega)}{d\omega dt} - P(E)\frac{d\Gamma(E,\omega)}{d\omega dt}\right]$$ where ${d\Gamma(E,\omega)}/{d\omega dt}$ is the transition rate for processes in which partons of energy $E$ lose energy $\omega$. The $\omega < 0$ part of the integration incorporates processes which increase a particle’s energy. The radiative part of the transition rates is discussed in [@Jeon:2003gi; @Turbide:2005fk; @Qin:2007zz]. In the following, we address the calculation of elastic collision rates [@Qin:2007rn].
As collisional energy losses are more sensitive to small energy transfers in comparison to radiative ones, it should be an adequate procedure to approximate elastic collisions by a mean energy loss plus a momentum diffusion term as dictated by detailed balance. If elastic collisions turn out to dominate jet quenching we may want to improve this treatment, but if they are subdominant it should be sufficient to quantify their effect.
As we perform the numerical computation of discretized Eq. (\[jet-evolution-eq\]) such that $\int d\omega
\rightarrow \Delta_\omega \sum_{\omega = n \Delta_\omega}$, the transition rates for elastic collisions are approximated by two spikes at $\omega=\pm \Delta_\omega$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Gamma(E,\omega)}{d\omega dt} \!\!&\approx&\!\! \left[1+f_B(\Delta_\omega)\right]\frac{1}{\Delta_\omega}
\frac{dE}{dt} \delta(\omega-\Delta_\omega) + f_B(\Delta_\omega)\frac{1}{\Delta_\omega} \frac{dE}{dt}
\delta(\omega+\Delta_\omega)\, ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \\end{aligned}$$ with $f_B$ the Bose-Einstein thermal distribution function. For small $\Delta_\omega$, the above collisional transition rates yield the correct energy loss rate and preserve the detailed balance. In the small $\delta_\omega$ limit, this procedure to incorporate collisional energy loss is equivalent to introducing the drag term $(dE/dt)dP(E)/dE$, and the diffusion term $T(dE/dt)d^2P(E)/dE^2$ into Eq. (\[jet-evolution-eq\]).
At leading order, the mean energy loss by elastic collisions is calculated in kinetic theory, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dEdt} \frac{dE}{dt} \!\!&=&\!\! C_{\rm coll} \pi \alpha_s^2 T^2 \left[\ln\frac{ET}{m_g^2} + D_{\rm coll}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{\rm coll}$ and $D_{\rm coll}$ are ${\cal O}(1)$ constants depending on different channels [@Qin:2007rn], and $m_g^2 = 2 \pi \alpha_s T^2 (1 + N_f/6)$ is the thermal gluon mass.
Results at RHIC
===============
Now we employ this formalism to a realistic description of energy loss of hard $p_T$ leading partons in the soft nuclear medium in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 200~{\rm AGeV}$ at RHIC. We utilize a fully (3+1)-dimensional hydrodynamical model for the description of the thermalized medium created in the collisions as it has been shown to give a good description of bulk properties at RHIC [@Nonaka:2006yn]. The product of the initial hard parton densities is determined from the overlap geometry between two nuclei in the transverse plane of the collision zone. The initial momentum distribution of hard jets is computed from perturbative QCD, using the factorization theorem. The evolution of jet momentum distribution in the thermalized medium is evaluated in AMY [@Arnold:2001ms], solving Eq. (\[jet-evolution-eq\]) with both collisional and radiative energy loss. The final hadron spectrum at high $p_T$ is obtained by the fragmentation of jets in the vacuum after their passing through the (3+1)-dimensional expanding medium. For further details see [@Qin:2007zz] where the radiative energy loss has been studied in an analogous manner.
The nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ is defined as the ratio of the hadron yield in A+A collisions to that in p+p interactions scaled by the number of binary collisions $N_{\rm coll}$: $$\begin{aligned}
R^h_{ AA}(b,\vec{p}_T,y) &=& \frac{1}{N_{\rm coll}(b)} \frac{{dN^h}(b)/{d^2p_Tdy}} {{dN^h_{ pp}}/{d^2p_Tdy}}.\end{aligned}$$
In the AMY formalism, the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ is the only quantity which is not uniquely determined by the model, once the temperature and flow profiles are fixed by the initial conditions and subsequent evolution of the (3+1)-dimensional hydrodynamics. In this work, we take its value to be constant at $\alpha_{\rm s}=0.27$, which reproduces the most central data (see Fig. \[fig34\]).
![(Color online) A single quark jet starts from the center and propagates in plane through the nuclear medium created in most central Au+Au collisions ($b = 2.4~{\rm fm}$) at RHIC. Left: The final probability distribution $P(E,
t_f)$ of a single quark with initial energy $E_i = 16~{\rm GeV}$ after passing through the medium. Right (from [@Qin:2007rn]): The fractional averaged energy loss of a quark jet with initial energy $E_i$ after passing through the medium. []{data-label="fig12"}](3d_hydro_quark_evolution.eps "fig:"){width="7.4cm"} ![(Color online) A single quark jet starts from the center and propagates in plane through the nuclear medium created in most central Au+Au collisions ($b = 2.4~{\rm fm}$) at RHIC. Left: The final probability distribution $P(E,
t_f)$ of a single quark with initial energy $E_i = 16~{\rm GeV}$ after passing through the medium. Right (from [@Qin:2007rn]): The fractional averaged energy loss of a quark jet with initial energy $E_i$ after passing through the medium. []{data-label="fig12"}](mean_energy_loss_3d_hydro_fractional.eps "fig:"){width="7.4cm"}
To illustrate how collisional and radiative energy loss influence the time evolution of the leading parton distributions, we first consider an initial single quark jet starting from center and propagating in plane through the thermalized medium created in central collisions ($b = 2.4~{\rm fm}$) at RHIC, as shown in Fig. \[fig12\]. In the left panel, we compare final parton distribution $P(E,t_f)$ under three different situations: (1) with only collisional energy loss, (2) with only radiative energy loss, and (3) with both energy loss mechanisms. In the right panel, the mean energy loss of quark jets after passing through the medium is shown as a function of their initial energy $E_i$. As expected, induced gluon radiation leads to a much larger mean energy loss than elastic collisions, in agreement with [@Zakharov:2007pj]. While the average energy is not very affected by the addition of collisional contributions, large differences are observed for the time evolutions of $P(E,t)$ between case (3) and case (2). This is especially true for energies close to the initial parton energy $E_i$. As the initial parton spectrum in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions is steeply falling, stronger differences in $R_{AA}$ can result.
![(Color online) Left (from [@Qin:2007zz; @Qin:2007rn]): $R_{AA}$ for $\pi^0$ in most central and mid-central Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The dashed curves includes radiative energy loss only, the dash-dotted curves include collisional energy loss and the solid curves include both radiative and collisional energy loss. The dotted curves are the results from [@Qin:2007zz] with radiative energy loss only ($\alpha_s = 0.33$). Right: $R_{AA}$ for $\pi^0$ in plane and out of plane in Au+Au collisions ($b = 7.5~{\rm fm}$) at RHIC before and after the inclusion of collisional energy loss.[]{data-label="fig34"}](raa_rad_vs_col2.eps "fig:"){width="7.4cm"} ![(Color online) Left (from [@Qin:2007zz; @Qin:2007rn]): $R_{AA}$ for $\pi^0$ in most central and mid-central Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The dashed curves includes radiative energy loss only, the dash-dotted curves include collisional energy loss and the solid curves include both radiative and collisional energy loss. The dotted curves are the results from [@Qin:2007zz] with radiative energy loss only ($\alpha_s = 0.33$). Right: $R_{AA}$ for $\pi^0$ in plane and out of plane in Au+Au collisions ($b = 7.5~{\rm fm}$) at RHIC before and after the inclusion of collisional energy loss.[]{data-label="fig34"}](raa_phi_rad_vs_col.eps "fig:"){width="7.4cm"}
In the left panel of Fig. \[fig34\], we present the calculation of $R_{AA}$ for $\pi^0$ measured at mid-rapidity for two different impact parameters, $2.4$ fm and $7.5$ fm, compared with PHENIX data for the most central (0-5%) and mid-central (20-30%) collisions [@Adler:2002xw]. We present $R_{AA}$ for purely collisional (1) and purely radiative (2) energy loss, as well as the combined case (3). One finds that while the shape of $R_{AA}$ for case (3) is not strongly different from case (2), the overall magnitude of $R_{AA}$ changes significantly. The magnitude of $R_{AA}$ is therefore sensitive to the actual form of the parton distribution functions at fragmentation and not only to the average energy loss of single partons (compare Fig. \[fig12\]). In [@Qin:2007zz], a systematic study of the observational implications on $R_{AA}$ measurements due to only radiative energy loss was presented. Here we recalculate $R_{AA}$ versus reaction plane including elastic collisions, as shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig34\], and only small differences (after rescaling the coupling strength from $\alpha_s=0.33$ to $\alpha_s=0.27$) is found in the shape of $R_{AA}$ for the $p_T$ range explored.
Summary
=======
In conclusion, we have calculated radiative and collisional energy loss of hard partons in the hot and dense nuclear medium being created at RHIC. The induced gluon bremsstrahlung is treated in the AMY formalism and elastic collisions are incorporated using a drag plus diffusion term reproducing average energy loss rate and detailed balance. While the additional average energy loss induced by elastic collisions is small in comparison to the radiative one, the time evolutions of the parton distributions in both cases differ significantly. We find that the inclusion of collisional energy loss significantly influences the overall magnitude of $R_{AA}$ for $\pi^0$ at RHIC, while the shape of $R_{AA}$ does not show a strong sensitivity.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank C. Nonaka and S. A. Bass for their hydrodynamical calculation [@Nonaka:2006yn]. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, by the McGill-India Strategic Research Initiative, and by the Fonds Nature et Technologies of Quebec.
[50]{}
K. Adcox [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 022301 (2002). C. Adler [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} 202301 (2002). M. Gyulassy and X. Wang, Nucl. Phys. [**420**]{} 583 (1994).
G.Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, S. Turbide, C. Gale, C. Nonaka and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C [**76**]{}, 064907 (2007) P. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP [**0111**]{}, 057 (2001); JHEP [**0112**]{}, 009 (2001); JHEP [**0206**]{}, 030 (2002). C. Nonaka and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 014902 (2007) G.Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, G. D. Moore and M. G. Mustafa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 072301 (2008) S. Jeon and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 034901 (2005) S. Turbide, C. Gale, S. Jeon and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 014906 (2005) B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. [**86**]{}, 444 (2007)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a class of 2D systems which shows a counterintuitive property that contradicts a semi classical intuition: A 2D quantum particle “prefers” tunneling through a barrier rather than traveling above it. Viewing the one particle 2D system as the system of two 1D particles, it is demonstrated that this effect occurs due to a specific symmetry of the barrier that forces excitations of the interparticle degree of freedom that, in turn, leads to the appearance of an effective potential barrier even though there is no “real” barrier. This phenomenon cannot exist in 1D.'
author:
- 'Denys I. Bondar'
- 'Wing-Ki Liu'
- 'Misha Yu. Ivanov'
bibliography:
- '2D\_Tunnelling.bib'
title: Enhancement and suppression of tunneling by controlling symmetries of a potential barrier
---
Introduction
============
Quantum tunneling has been one of the most important problems in quantum mechanics since its foundation. The simplest problems of tunneling are one-dimensional, which is where our intuition on tunneling comes from. The extension of 1D tunneling to many dimensions is not straightforward. There are many peculiarities that appear in many dimensional cases that do not exist in 1D (for systematic studies of such differences see, e.g., Refs. [@Chabanov1999; @Chabanov2000; @Zakhariev2008]). Quite often many dimensional tunneling is equated to the tunneling of complex (i.e., many particle) systems.
Key aspects of the quantum mechanical tunneling of complex systems were analyzed by Zakhariev [*et al.*]{} [@Zakhariev1964; @Amirkhanov1966] in the mid-1960s; nevertheless, this problem has become an area of active research only in the past few decades (see, e.g., Refs. [@Tomsovic1998; @Takagi2002; @Zakhariev2002; @Razavy2003a; @Ankerhold2007] and references therein). Tunneling of a diatomic molecule has been studied in Refs. [@Goodvin2005; @Goodvin2005a; @Lee2006; @Hnybida2008; @Shegelski2008; @Kavka2010]. Mechanisms of single and double proton transfer have been modelled by multidimensional tunneling [@Smedarchina1995; @Smedarchina2007; @Smedarchina2008]. Time-dependent numerical study of tunneling dynamics of a two-particle quantum system with an internal degree of freedom has been analyzed in Ref. [@Volkova2006], and an enhancement of the tunneling probability due to the formation of a long-lived resonant state of the system in the barrier region has been discovered (similar analytical studies have been done in Ref. [@Yamamoto1996]). It has also been suggested that collective tunneling of electrons may have an important contribution to multiple ionization of atoms in a superstrong laser field [@Kornev2009]. Quantum tunneling of complex systems is not only of theoretical interest. Recent experiments where this phenomenon is observed directly include tunneling of a singe hydrogen atom [@Lauhon2000], resonant tunneling of Cooper pairs [@Toppari2007], and a bosonic Josephson junction consisting of two weakly coupled Bose-Einstein condensates in a macroscopic double-well potential [@Albiez2005].
We present a class of 2D systems which has a counterintuitive property that contradicts the semi classical intuition: A 2D quantum particle “prefers” tunneling through to flying above a barrier. According to our analysis, such “paradoxical” dynamics is caused by a peculiar symmetry of the barrier that leads to excitations of an interparticle degree of freedom. There is no 1D counterpart of such systems.
The rest of the article is organized as follows: In Sec. \[Sec2\], we present the systems and describe the counterintuitive effect. The observed “paradox” is explained in Sec. \[Sec3\]. Connections between the phenomenon and classical physics are discussed in Sec. \[Sec4\]. Concluding remarks and a possible application of the effect to quantum control are presented in the last section.
Formulation of the “paradox” {#Sec2}
============================
Let us consider a particle moving in 2D (coordinates $x_1$ and $x_2$) toward a barrier located at the origin $x_1=x_2=0$. The initial velocity of the particle is chosen to be directed along the diagonal $x_1=x_2$, incident on the barrier from the third (where $x_1 < 0$ and $x_2 < 0$) to the first quadrant (where $x_1 > 0$ and $x_2 > 0$); see Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\]. While the numerical calculations are done for a specific Hamiltonian, the analytical analysis that follows relies exclusively on the symmetry properties of the 2D potential, making our conclusions, drawn from the numerical analysis, general.
The model Hamiltonian for our system is chosen as (atomic units are used throughout) $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hat{H}_N (\alpha) = -\frac 1{2} \left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2} \right) + \Omega_N (\alpha; x_1, x_2), \label{HamiltonianCartesianDef} \\
&& \Omega_N (\alpha; x_1, x_2) = \alpha V(x_1) + 3V(x_2) + U_N(x_2 - x_1). \end{aligned}$$ where $N=1,2,4$ and $\alpha$ being an arbitrary real parameter. The potentials $V(x_1)$ and $V(x_2)$ describe the potential barriers near the origin, for the motion along each of the two coordinates. The parameter $\alpha$ allows us to vary the relative height of the barriers. We have chosen $$\begin{aligned}
V(x) = x \exp(-x^2),\end{aligned}$$ which corresponds to a potential barrier preceded by a potential well.
The potential $U_N(\rho)$ describes the coupling between the two degrees of freedom. In the absence of $U_N(\rho)$ \[i.e., for $U_N(\rho)=0$\], the 2D dynamics breaks into two uncoupled 1D motions. Nontrivial features in tunneling appear as the result of nonzero coupling of the two degrees of freedom.
Before we describe the choice of $U_N(\rho)$ in our model, let us introduce the center of mass ($R$) and relative ($\rho$) coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SimpleCMandRelativeCoord}
R = (x_1 + x_2)/2, \qquad \rho = x_2 -x_1.\end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian (\[HamiltonianCartesianDef\]) in these new coordinates reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hamiltonian_NewCoord}
\hat{H}_N(\alpha) &=& \frac{-1}{2M}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial R^2} + \frac{-1}{2\mu}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \rho^2} + \Omega_N (\alpha; \rho, R), \nonumber\\
\Omega_N (\alpha; R, \rho) &=& \alpha V\left( R - \rho/2\right) + 3V\left( R + \rho/2\right) \nonumber\\
&&+ U_N(\rho), \label{PotentialDeff}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu = 1/2$ and $M = 2$.
Now we can specify the potential that couples the two degrees of freedom and see its role in the problem. If $U_N(\rho)$ is attractive, as it is in our calculations, it may support bound states. These bound states, and their symmetries, play a key role.
Here, we set $U_N$ to describe a short-range attraction, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Un_potentials}
U_N (\rho) = -A\exp\left( -\rho^2/r_N^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ Varying the parameter $r_N$, we change the number of bound states supported by the attracting potential. In the calculations, we use $A=2$ and $r_1 = 1$, $r_2 = 1.961$, $r_4 =3.162$ corresponding to one, two, and four bound states supported by the Hamiltonian $-1/(2\mu) \partial^2/\partial \rho^2 + U_N(\rho)$. The energies of these states are $-0.955$ for $U_1$; $-1.377$ and $-0.372$ for $U_2$; and, finally, $-1.590$, $-0.856$, $-0.308$, and $-0.012$ for $U_4$.
Following Ref. [@Volkova2006], we study the tunneling within the time-dependent approach solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TimDepSchEq}
\left[ i\partial/\partial t - \hat{H}_N(\alpha)\right] \Psi_N(\alpha; t, x_1, x_2) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ with the initial condition at $t=0$ that reads in the coordinates (\[SimpleCMandRelativeCoord\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InitialCondition}
\Psi_N(\alpha; 0, R, \rho) = C \phi_g(\rho) e^{ -(R-\bar{R})^2/\left(2\sigma_R^2\right) + i\sqrt{2M E_{cm}}R }.\end{aligned}$$ Here $C$ is a normalization constant and $\phi_g(\rho)$ is the ground state of the interparticle Hamiltonian, $-1/(2\mu) \partial^2/\partial \rho^2 + U_N(\rho)$. In all our studies, we set $m=1$, $\bar{R} = -55$, $\sigma_R = 3$, and $E_{cm} = 1$ (all values are in atomic units).
The initial wave function (\[InitialCondition\]) is localized in the third quadrant, and we calculate the probability of finding the particle in the first quadrant, i.e., the probability of tunneling at later time $\tau$. The reason for using $\phi_g(\rho)$ as the relative coordinate part of the initial wave function is that we wanted to avoid spreading of the wave packet along $\rho$ before it reached the potential barrier.
We also present the initial expectation value of energy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AvEDef}
\bar{E}_N = {\left\langle{\Psi_N(\alpha; 0, x_1, x_2) }\right|}\hat{H}_N(\alpha) {\left| \Psi_N(\alpha; 0, x_1, x_2) \right\rangle}, \\
\bar{E}_1 = 0.05911, \quad \bar{E}_2 = -0.3631, \quad \bar{E}_4 = -0.5766 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ (all values are in atomic units). Rigorously speaking, $\bar{E}_N$ depends on $\alpha$; however, this dependence is very weak because the initial wave function (\[InitialCondition\]), independent of $\alpha$, is mostly localized in the region where the potential barrier, $\alpha V(x_1) + 3V(x_2)$, vanishes.
The probabilities of tunneling, disintegration (see below for the clarification of this term), and reflection are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
P_T^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau) &=& \int_0^{\infty} dx_1 \int_0^{\infty} dx_2 \, \left| \Psi_N(\alpha; \tau, x_1, x_2) \right|^2, \label{Prob_T_deff}\\
P_D^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau) &=& \int_{-\infty}^0 dx_1 \int_0^{\infty} dx_2 \, \left| \Psi_N(\alpha; \tau, x_1, x_2) \right|^2 \nonumber\\
&+& \int_0^{\infty} dx_1 \int_{-\infty}^0 dx_2 \, \left| \Psi_N(\alpha; \tau, x_1, x_2) \right|^2, \label{Prob_D_deff}\\
P_R^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau) &=& \int_{-\infty}^0 dx_1 \int_{-\infty}^0 dx_2 \, \left| \Psi_N(\alpha; \tau, x_1, x_2) \right|^2. \label{Prob_R_deff}\end{aligned}$$
However, since the potential barrier, $\alpha V(x_1) + 3V(x_2)$, has “well” and “hill” regions, we also employ the corresponding “shifted” probabilities to exclude regions were the potential barrier is localized $$\begin{aligned}
p_t^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau) &=& \int_3^{\infty} dx_1 \int_3^{\infty} dx_2 \, \left| \Psi_N(\alpha; \tau, x_1, x_2) \right|^2, \label{prob_t_deff} \\
p_d^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau) &=& \int_{-\infty}^{-3} dx_1 \int_3^{\infty} dx_2 \, \left| \Psi_N(\alpha; \tau, x_1, x_2) \right|^2 \nonumber\\
&+& \int_3^{\infty} dx_1 \int_{-\infty}^{-3} dx_2 \, \left| \Psi_N(\alpha; \tau, x_1, x_2) \right|^2, \label{prob_d_deff}\\
p_r^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau) &=& \int_{-\infty}^{-3} dx_1 \int_{-\infty}^{-3} dx_2 \, \left| \Psi_N(\alpha; \tau, x_1, x_2) \right|^2, \label{prob_r_deff}\\
p_s^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau) &=& 1 - p_t^{(N)} - p_d^{(N)} - p_r^{(N)},\end{aligned}$$ $p_s^{(N)}$ is the probability that a particle is trapped in the neighborhood of the potential barrier (in fact, mostly in the well region of the potential barrier). We introduce these quantities to verify that our conclusions are not due to variations of the probability density in a neighborhood of the potential barrier (see Ref. [@EPAPS_Animations]).
The Hamiltonian (\[HamiltonianCartesianDef\]) can be viewed as the Hamiltonian of two 1D particles, where $x_{1,2}$ are coordinates of the first and second particles, respectively. This interpretation is crucial to explain the observed effect. Utilizing such a point of view, quantities $P_D^{(N)}$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_D\_deff\])\] and $p_d^{(N)}$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_d\_deff\])\] can be indeed labeled as the probabilities of disintegration because the particles are flying apart (i.e., the two particle system is disintegrating) if after sufficiently long time $\tau$ either $x_1>0$ and $x_2 <0$ or $x_1<0$ and $x_2>0$.
![(Color online) Plots of the potential $\Omega_N (\alpha; R, \rho)$ \[Eq. (\[PotentialDeff\])\] for different $\alpha$ and $N$. Roman numerals in plot (a) label quadrants. Black solid lines denote the level sets of the expectation value of the initial energy, $\bar{E}_N$ \[Eq. (\[AvEDef\])\], i.e., the boundary between the classically allowed and classically forbidden regions. (a) $N=1$ and $\alpha=3$; (b) $N=1$ and $\alpha = -3$; (c) $N=2$ and $\alpha=3$; (d) $N=2$ and $\alpha=-3$; (e) $N=4$ and $\alpha=3$; (f) $N=4$ and $\alpha=-3$. []{data-label="Fig_potentials"}](Potentials.pdf)
Before stating the results of numerical calculations, let us qualitatively analyze dynamics of the system within a semiclassical consideration. Figure \[Fig\_potentials\] presents the plots of the potentials (\[PotentialDeff\]). According to the initial condition \[see Eqs. (\[InitialCondition\]) and (\[AvEDef\])\], the particle is located on the axis $\rho=0$ and its initial velocity is directed along this axis toward the first quadrant, and the amplitude of the velocity is chosen such that the total energy of the particle equals $\bar{E}_N$; hence, the boundaries between the classically allowed and classically forbidden regions are drawn by solid black lines in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\]. Now compare Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) with Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b). Since the semi classical counterpart of our quantum particle “experiences” the barrier in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) (penetration though a barrier is of exponentially small probability) and does not “feel” any barrier in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b) (the particle moves solely in the classically allowed region) while traveling along the axis $\rho=0$, then one would intuitively conclude that the probability of finding the particle in the first quadrant in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) ought to be smaller than in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b). By the same token, the very same probabilities in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](e) should be smaller than in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f), respectively. Further discussions of the phenomenon from the point of view of classical trajectories are presented in Sec. \[Sec4\].
The results presented in Figs. \[Fig\_tunneling\_prob\]–\[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\] are obtained from the numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (\[TimDepSchEq\]) by means of the split-operator method with an absorbing boundary condition. Figures \[Fig\_tunneling\_prob\]–\[Fig\_reflection\_prob\] show the dependence of the probabilities of tunneling, disintegration, and reflection as function of the parameter $\alpha$ that characterizes the asymmetry of the potential barrier. Dynamics of tunneling processes occurring in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](a)–(f) are visualized as animations, which are available for viewing in Ref. [@EPAPS_Animations].
Remarkably, while our qualitative conclusion reached regarding Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) and \[Fig\_potentials\](b) is indeed correct (see Fig. \[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\]), the conclusions regarding the comparison of Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](e) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f) turn out to be completely wrong. In other words, the particle does prefer to “go” through the barrier \[Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](e)\] rather than flying above the barrier \[Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](e)\]. Furthermore, even though the potentials $\Omega_1 (\pm 3; R, \rho)$ look similar to $\Omega_{2,4} (\pm 3; R, \rho)$, the particle favors motion above the barrier \[Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b)\] rather than penetration through the barrier \[Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a)\] for the former pair of the potentials. This “paradox” is resolved in the next section.
![(Color online) Probabilities of tunneling as a function of the height of the barrier ($\alpha$). (a) $P_T^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_T\_deff\])\]; (b) $p_t^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_t\_deff\])\]. []{data-label="Fig_tunneling_prob"}](TunnellingProb.pdf)
![(Color online) Probabilities of disintegration as a function of the height of the barrier ($\alpha$). (a) $P_D^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_D\_deff\])\]; (b) $p_d^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_d\_deff\])\]. []{data-label="Fig_disintegr_prob"}](DesintegrProb.pdf)
![(Color online) Probabilities of reflection as a function of the height of the barrier ($\alpha$). (a) $P_R^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_R\_deff\])\]; (b) $p_r^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_r\_deff\])\]. []{data-label="Fig_reflection_prob"}](ReflectionProb.pdf)
![(Color online) The probabilities of tunneling $P_T^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau)$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_T\_deff\])\] and $p_t^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau)$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_t\_deff\])\] as functions of time $\tau$. (a) Comparison of Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) vs. Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b); (b) comparison of Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) vs. Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](d); (c) comparison of Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](e) vs. Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](f).[]{data-label="Fig_probability_tunnel_time"}](ProbTunnelingTime.pdf)
Explanation of the effect {#Sec3}
=========================
The “paradox” posed in Sec. \[Sec2\] is resolved in this section by analyzing a perturbation theory solution of the Schrödinger equation.
In this section, we shall study a general two-1D-particles system given by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HamiltonianR_RHO}
\hat{H} &=& \frac{-1}{2M}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial R^2} + \frac{-1}{2\mu}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \rho^2} + \nonumber\\
&& U(\rho) + V_1\left( R - \frac{\mu}{m_1} \rho\right) + V_2\left( R + \frac{\mu}{m_2} \rho\right),\end{aligned}$$ which is already written in the (general) center of mass ($R$) and relative ($\rho$) coordinates, $$\begin{aligned}
&& R = (m_1 x_1 + m_2 x_2)/(m_1 + m_2), \quad \rho = x_2 -x_1, \nonumber\\
&& \mu = m_1 m_2 /M, \quad M = m_1 + m_2, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $x_{1,2}$ ($m_{1,2}$), as previously, being the coordinates (masses) of the first and second particles, respectively.
Let us introduce the following notation $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}(t_f, t_i) &=& \hat{T} \exp\left[ -i \hat{H}(t_f - t_i)\right], \\
\hat{U}_0(t_f, t_i) &=& \hat{T} \exp\left[ -i( \hat{H} - V_1 - V_2)(t_f - t_i) \right],\end{aligned}$$ for total and unperturbed propagators, respectively. The sum of the potential barriers, $V_1 + V_2$, shall be considered as a perturbation. The eigenfunctions, ${\left| n \right\rangle}$, and eigenvalues, $E_n$, of the internal motion are the solutions of the problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InternalMotionEigenstates}
\left[ \frac{-1}{2\mu}\frac{d^2}{d\rho^2} + U(\rho) \right]{\left| n \right\rangle} = E_n{\left| n \right\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where the index $n$ denotes bound and continuous states. Introducing ${\left| n k \right\rangle} \equiv {\left| n \right\rangle} \otimes {\left| k \right\rangle}$, where ${\left| k \right\rangle}$ is an eigenfunction of the free motion of the center of mass $\langle R {\left| k \right\rangle} \equiv \exp(ikR)/\sqrt{2\pi}$ – a plane wave and ${\left| n \right\rangle}$ is an eigenstate of the internal motion, the unperturbed propagator reads $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}_0(t_f, t_i) = { \mathop{\hbox to4pt{ $\sum$ \hss}{\displaystyle\int}} }_n \int dk e^{-i\left(E_n + \frac{k^2}{2M}\right)(t_f - t_i)}{\left| n k \right\rangle}{\left\langle{k n}\right|}\end{aligned}$$ The total propagator is a solution of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation written in the “post” form $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}(t_f, t_i) &=& \hat{U}_0(t_f, t_i) \nonumber\\
&-& i \int_{t_i}^{t_f} dt \hat{U}_0(t_f, t) [V_1 + V_2] e^{\epsilon t} \hat{U}(t, t_i),\end{aligned}$$ where we set $\epsilon \to 0$.
Assuming that the initial condition ${\left| \Psi(t_i) \right\rangle} \equiv {\left| n \right\rangle}\otimes{\left| \psi_{in} \right\rangle}$, where ${\left| n \right\rangle}$ is one of the eigenstates (\[InternalMotionEigenstates\]) and ${\left| \psi_{in} \right\rangle}$ is a wave packet localized before the barriers \[see, e.g., Eq. (\[InitialCondition\])\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \Psi(+\infty) \right\rangle} &\approx& \hat{U}_0(+\infty, -\infty){\left| \Psi(-\infty) \right\rangle} + {\left| \Psi_1 \right\rangle} + {\left| \Psi_2 \right\rangle}, \label{Psi_at_plus_infty}\\
{\left| \Psi_1 \right\rangle} &=& -2\pi i{ \mathop{\hbox to4pt{ $\sum$ \hss}{\displaystyle\int}} }_{n'} \int dk dk' \delta\left( E_{n'} + \frac{k'^2}{2M} - E_n - \frac{k^2}{2M} \right) \nonumber\\
&& \times {\left| n' k' \right\rangle} W_{n n'}(k-k') \langle k{\left| \psi_{in} \right\rangle}, \\
{\left| \Psi_2 \right\rangle} &=& -2\pi i{ \mathop{\hbox to4pt{ $\sum$ \hss}{\displaystyle\int}} }_{n'', n'} \int dkdk'dk'' {\left| n'' k'' \right\rangle}\langle k {\left| \psi_{in} \right\rangle} \nonumber\\
&& \times \delta\left( E_{n''} + k''^2 /[2M] - E_n - k^2/[2M]\right) \nonumber\\
&&\times \frac{ W_{n' n''}(k'-k'') W_{n n'}(k-k')}{E_n + k^2/(2M) - E_{n'} - k'^2/(2M) + i0},\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{n n'}(k - k') = {\left\langle{k' n'}\right|} V_1 + V_2 {\left| n k \right\rangle}$ and ${\left| \Psi_{1,2} \right\rangle}$ are the first- and second-order corrections, respectively. Higher-order corrections can be derived in a similar manner, but what is important for our further analysis is that they are functions of $W$.
We simplify the matrix element $W$ by representing it as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W_initial_expression}
W_{n n'}(k - k') &=& \int \frac{dR d\rho dq}{2\pi} e^{i(k-k')R}\phi_{n'}^*(\rho)\phi_n(\rho) \nonumber\\
&& \times [ V_1(q)\delta(R - \mu\rho/m_1 - q) \nonumber\\
&& + V_2(q)\delta(R + \mu\rho/m_2 - q)],\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_n(\rho) = \langle \rho {\left| n \right\rangle}$. After trivial integration over $R$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Simplified_W_general}
&& W_{n n'}(k - k') = \mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}\left( \frac{\mu}{m_1}[k-k']\right)\int \frac{dq}{2\pi} e^{i(k-k')q} V_1(q) \nonumber\\
&& \quad + \mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}\left( \frac{\mu}{m_2}[k'-k]\right)\int \frac{dq}{2\pi} e^{i(k-k')q} V_2(q),\end{aligned}$$ where the quantity, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Formfactor_Def}
\mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}(p) = \int d\rho e^{ip\rho} \phi_{n'}^*(\rho)\phi_n(\rho),\end{aligned}$$ is called the form factor, and it is well known in the scattering theory. Its physical interpretation is the probability amplitude of transferring a momentum $p$ from the center of mass to the interparticle degree of freedom by making the transition $n\to n'$.
Now we consider the case of identical particles: $m_1 = m_2 = m$ and $U(-\rho) = U(\rho)$. Then, there are two types of the eigenstates of the internal motion: even ($+$), $\phi_n(-\rho) = \phi_n(\rho)$, and odd ($-$), $\phi_n(-\rho) = -\phi_n(\rho)$. Since $ \mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}(-p) = \mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}(p)$ \[$\mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}(-p) = -\mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}(p)$\] in the case of $\phi_n$ and $\phi_{n'}$ being of the same (different) parity, Eq. (\[Simplified\_W\_general\]) takes the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{W_equivalent_particles}
W_{n n'}(k - k') &=& \left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
\mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}\left( [k - k']/2\right) \int \frac{dq}{2\pi}e^{i(k-k')q} [V_1(q) + V_2(q)], &\mbox{if}& \mbox{$\phi_n$ and $\phi_{n'}$ have the same parity} \\
\mathrsfs{F}_{n n'}\left( [k - k']/2\right) \int \frac{dq}{2\pi}e^{i(k-k')q} [V_1(q) - V_2(q)], &\mbox{if}& \mbox{$\phi_n$ and $\phi_{n'}$ have different parities},
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
which is the product of the form factor and the Fourier transform of either the sum of the barriers or the difference of the barriers, depending on the parities of the initial and final states.
Two conclusions can be readily drawn from Eq. (\[W\_equivalent\_particles\]): First, considering tunneling within the time-independent picture, Amirkhanov and Zakhariev [@Amirkhanov1966] have discovered the violation of the barrier penetration symmetry for complex particles, i.e., the penetration of composite particles through asymmetric barriers in opposite directions may differ. \[Note that the rates of tunneling of an elementary (structureless) particle are exactly the same in both the directions within the time-independent approach.\] The situations when the system approaches the barrier from the left and from the right differ only by inversion of the sign of the momentum of the center of mass. The only part of the wave function (\[Psi\_at\_plus\_infty\]) that maintains the dependence on the sign of the momentum is the matrix element (\[Simplified\_W\_general\]). Thus, the discussed phenomenon of tunneling asymmetry is manifested in our consideration as a physical consequence of the property $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SymmetryW}
W_{n n'}(k'-k) = W_{n n'}(k-k') \Longleftrightarrow V_1(q) = V_2(-q).\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[SymmetryW\]) is not only an alternative and perhaps faster way of achieving the main result of Ref. [@Amirkhanov1966] but also the generalization of their conclusion for the case of nonidentical barriers ($V_1 \neq V_2$).
Second, Eq. (\[W\_equivalent\_particles\]) basically provides an explanation of the observed anomalies related to the potentials $\Omega_n (\alpha; x_1, x_2)$ \[Eq. (\[PotentialDeff\])\] pictured in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\], if we recall that tunneling of a 2D particle in the potential $\Omega_n (\alpha; x_1, x_2)$ is equivalent to collective tunneling of two equal 1D particles through the potential barriers $V_1(x_1) = \alpha V(x_1)$ and $V_2(x_2) = 3 V(x_2)$. Hence, Eq. (\[SymmetryW\]) determines the selection rule for transitions between states of the internal degree of freedom induced by (collective) tunneling. The key point is that the probability of collective tunneling strongly depends on whether an excitation of the internal degree of freedom is possible. If a system is initially in the ground state and the excitations are allowed, then by going to an excited state, the center of mass of the system lowers its kinetic energy (i.e., increasing the width of the barrier), consequently reducing the probability of tunneling (see Refs. [@Zakhariev2002; @Goodvin2005; @Goodvin2005a; @Hnybida2008; @Shegelski2008] and reference therein). We recall that the parity of the ground state is even, the first excited state – odd, the second excited state – even, etc.; therefore, according to Eq. (\[W\_equivalent\_particles\]), if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Condition_not_forcing_transitions}
V_1(q) = V_2(q),\end{aligned}$$ then the transition from the ground state to the first excited state is forbidden, but if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Condition_forcing_transitions}
V_1(q) = -V_2(q),\end{aligned}$$ then the transition is allowed. Paraphrasing, we note that if condition (\[Condition\_not\_forcing\_transitions\]) takes place then the interparticle degree of freedom may stay the same while the center of mass traverses the barriers, but if condition (\[Condition\_forcing\_transitions\]) holds then the state of the interparticle degree of freedom can change. In essence, this is the core of the observed phenomenon in Sec. \[Sec2\].
Indeed, condition (\[Condition\_forcing\_transitions\]) is satisfied for Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f). Hence, the tunneling probability is less in these cases than in cases Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](e) for which equality (\[Condition\_not\_forcing\_transitions\]) takes place. On the whole, the same conclusion is valid as long as the potential $U_N(\rho)$ can have at lest two bound states. In Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) and \[Fig\_potentials\](b), when there is only a single bound state supported by the intraparticle interaction, the simple intuitive picture holds. Why is this the case? After all, there are also continuum states of the intraparticle motion available for the excitation.
To answer this question, let us look at collective tunneling from the point of view of the (time-independent) multichannel formalism, which is the most common method employed to the problem at hand (see, e.g., Refs. [@Zakhariev1964; @Amirkhanov1966; @Zakhariev2002; @Saito1994; @Penkov2000; @Chabanov2000; @Penkov2000a; @Razavy2003a; @Goodvin2005; @Goodvin2005a; @Lee2006; @Hnybida2008; @Shegelski2008; @Zakhariev2008]). According to the multi-channel approach, using the expansion $\Psi(R, \rho) = { \mathop{\hbox to4pt{ $\sum$ \hss}{\displaystyle\int}} }_n \phi_n(\rho)\chi_n (R)$, the stationary Schrödinger equation, $\hat{H}\Psi(R, \rho) = E\Psi(R, \rho)$, is reduced to the following system of ordinary differential equations for unknown functions $\chi_n(R)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{1}{2M} \frac{d^2\chi_n(R)}{dR^2} - { \mathop{\hbox to4pt{ $\sum$ \hss}{\displaystyle\int}} }_{n'} Z_{nn'}(R) \chi_{n'}(R) = (E_n-E)\chi_n(R),\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_{nn'}(R)$ being effective potentials, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Effective_Potential_Def}
Z_{nn'}(R) &=& \int d\rho \, \phi^*_n(\rho)\left[ V_1\left( R - \frac{\mu}{m_1} \rho\right) + \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. + V_2\left( R + \frac{\mu}{m_2} \rho\right) \right]\phi_{n'}(\rho).\end{aligned}$$ Such an effective potential may be interpreted as the potential barrier that the center of mass encounters while incident in the state $n'$ and reflected or transmitted in the state $n$.
Let $g$ denote the ground as well as the single bound state of the potential $U_1(\rho)$ \[Eq. (\[Un\_potentials\])\], and $c$ a low-lying odd (unbound) state of the continuum spectrum, which is normalized to the delta function. Then, $Z_{cg}(R) \equiv Z_{gc}(R) \equiv 0$ since the $g\to c$ transition is forbidden in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) ; respectively, $Z_{gg}(R) \equiv 0$ in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b). The first nonzero effective potentials in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) and \[Fig\_potentials\](b) are $Z_{gg}(R)$ and $Z_{cg}(R)$, respectively, and they are plotted in Fig. \[Fig\_effective\_potentials\]. Taking into account that $E_g - \bar{E}_1 \approx E_{cm} = 1$ (a.u.) ($E_g$ being the ground state energy) is the kinetic energy of the center of mass, we may qualitatively conclude from Fig. \[Fig\_effective\_potentials\] that the center of mass needs to tunnel through the barrier \[$Z_{gg}(R)$\] in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) and flies above the barrier \[$Z_{cg}(R)$\] in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b); thus, the probability of finding the particle in the first quadrant in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b) prevails over the probability of tunneling in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a). Finally, we note that the first nonzero effective potentials in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](d) are of the same order; the same statement is valid in cases Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](e) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f).
![(Color online) Plots of effective potentials $Z_{nn'}(R)$ \[Eq. (\[Effective\_Potential\_Def\])\]. The solid line is $Z_{gg}(R)$ for case (a) of Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\]. The dashed line represents $Z_{cg}(R)$ for case (b) of Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\]. []{data-label="Fig_effective_potentials"}](EffectivePotentials.pdf)
Traces of the forced excitations, which occur in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f), can be directly observed in obtained numerical data; these are steplike structures in $P^{(2)}_T(-3, \tau)$, $p^{(2)}_t (-3, \tau)$, $P^{(4)}_T(-3, \tau)$, and $p^{(4)}_t (-3, \tau)$ \[see Figs. \[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\](b) and \[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\](c)\] and a snakelike shape of the wave function $\Psi_{2,4}(-3; t, R, \rho)$ that emerges from the barrier (see Ref. [@EPAPS_Animations]). Nevertheless, the data regarding Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b) \[see Fig. \[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\](a)\] seems not to reveal similar jumps at first sight. It is due to the fact that the coupling between bound states \[the form factor (\[Formfactor\_Def\]), more precisely\] is bigger than the coupling of a bound state to a state of the continuum spectrum. Regardless of smallness, these transitions show up in the observation that the probability of disintegration in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) is less than in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b) \[see Fig. \[Fig\_disintegr\_prob\] that $P_D^{(1)} (3, 150) < P_D^{(1)} (-3, 150)$ as well as $p_d^{(1)} (3, 150) < p_d^{(1)} (-3, 150)$\].
Concluding this section, we list pivotal factors in explaining the “paradox” reported in Sec. \[Sec2\]. (i) This effect cannot exist in one dimension, it requires at least two dimensions. (ii) Our explanation of the effect relies on a natural isomorphism between systems of one 2D particle and two 1D particles of the same mass. The essence of the effect lies in possibility of tuning the potential barriers such that the intraparticle degree of freedom is excited. (iii) Dynamics of tunneling crucially depends on whether the intraparticle potential supports one or more bound states (an exact number is irrelevant for the qualitative description).
Classical Physics and The “paradox” {#Sec4}
===================================
A classical counterpart of the quantum system at hand \[Eq. (\[HamiltonianCartesianDef\])\] is a mechanical system with the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ClassicalHamiltonianCartesian}
\mathrsfs{H}(p_1, p_2; x_1, x_2) = \left( p_1^2 + p_2^2 \right)/2 + \Omega_N (\alpha; x_1, x_2),\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{1,2}$ and $x_{1,2}$ are canonically conjugate variables. One may perform the canonical transformation to rewrite the Hamiltonian (\[ClassicalHamiltonianCartesian\]) in terms of the new canonical variables $P_R$, $P_{\rho}$ and $R$, $\rho$, where the latter pair being the center of mass and relative coordinates \[Eq. (\[SimpleCMandRelativeCoord\])\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ClassicalHamiltonianCM_Relative}
\mathrsfs{H}\left( P_R, P_{\rho}; R, \rho\right) = P_R^2 /4 + P_{\rho}^2 + \tilde{\Omega}_N (\alpha; R, \rho).\end{aligned}$$ The connection between new and old canonical momenta reads: $
p_1 = P_R/2 - P_{\rho}, \quad p_2 = P_R/2 + P_{\rho}.
$
The initial condition for the classical counterpart that corresponds to the initial condition (\[InitialCondition\]) is $x_1(0) = x_2(0) = \bar{R}$ and $p_1(0) = p_1(0) = \left[ \bar{E}_N -\Omega_N (\alpha; \bar{R}, \bar{R}) \right]^{1/2}$. Having calculated classical trajectories with this initial condition, we observe that the classical particle does not reach the first quadrant in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](b), \[Fig\_potentials\](d), and \[Fig\_potentials\](f); it is reflected back to the third quadrant. The same conclusion can be reach qualitatively by calculating the force that acts on the classical counterpart, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1,2}(x_1, x_2) = -\partial \Omega_N (\alpha; x_1, x_2) /\partial x_{1,2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
F_1(x,x) = (2\alpha x^2 -\alpha) e^{-x^2}, \quad
F_2(x,x) = (6x^2 - 3)e^{-x^2},\end{aligned}$$ the classical particle experiences the force that deflects it from moving along the diagonal, $x_1 = x_2$ (which coincides with the axis $\rho=0$), and pushes it toward a knee-like barrier located in the second quadrant (see Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\]); hence, the particle eventually bounces off the barrier back to the third quadrant.
It is noteworthy to mention a peculiarity of numerical calculations. We have found that it is advantageous to employ a (fourth-order) symplectic integrator [@Forest1990; @Yoshida1990; @Candy1991] for solving Hamilton’s equations in this section due to the following reason: A sharp and localized shape of the kneelike barrier leads to an unstable motion of the classical particle. If one employs nonsymplectic integrators (e.g., the Runge-Kutta methods), a very tiny time step must be chosen in order to properly account for the influence of the kneelike barrier; this, in fact, often leads to instability of the numerical scheme for a long time propagation. A physical reason of such an instability lies in the fact that nonsymplectic integrators do not explicitly conserve energy while the symplectic integrators always do; hence, they give a proper long-time evolution of any chaotic Hamiltonian system.
The observation of this behavior of the classical counterpart casts doubt on the quantum nature of the “paradox.” More precisely, is it possible that an ensemble of classical particles, which corresponds (in some sense) to the initial wave function of the system at hand (\[InitialCondition\]), would mimic the observed phenomenon? As shown below, the answer turns out to be negative.
Furthermore, since it is well known that the application of the semi classical approximation, as a mediator between classical and quantum mechanics, to tunneling often is very fruitful in shading light on the physical nature of the studied process (see, e.g., Refs. [@Maitra1997; @Spanner2003]), the addressed question is important as the first step toward the usage of semiclassical methods for the interpretation of the “paradox.”
Shirokov has proposed the unified formalism for quantum and classical mechanics [@Shirokov1979d]–a reformulation of both the theories in terms of the same physical and mathematical concepts. Crudely speaking, this formalism is based on the well-known fact that observables of quantum mechanics can be converted from operators to functions (i.e., to a very similar form as in classical physics) by means of the Weyl representation [@Weyl1950]. In these terms, the probability density of quantum states is represented by the Wigner quasiprobability density distribution function [@Wigner1932]. Hence, in order to construct a classical ensemble that corresponds to the quantum particle, we shall calculate the Wigner function $W(P_R, P_{\rho}; R, \rho)$ for the initial condition (\[InitialCondition\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{WingerFunctionForInitialState}
&& W(P_R, P_{\rho}; R, \rho) = (2\pi)^2 \int \Psi\left( R-R'/2, \rho-\rho'/2\right)\\
&& \qquad\quad \times \Psi^*\left( R+R'/2, \rho+\rho'/2\right) e^{i\left( P_R R'\ + P_{\rho} \rho' \right)} d\rho' dR', \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi (R, \rho) \equiv \Psi_N(\alpha; 0, R, \rho)$. Since $\phi_g(\rho)$ has no zeros and decays exponentially at infinity, we shall approximate it by a Gaussian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GaussApproxGroundState}
\phi_g(\rho) \propto \exp\left[ -\rho^2 / \left(2\sigma_{\rho}^2\right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where we set $\sigma_{\rho} = 1.5$ (a.u.). Substituting Eqs. (\[GaussApproxGroundState\]) and (\[InitialCondition\]) into Eq. (\[WingerFunctionForInitialState\]), one readily obtains $$\begin{aligned}
W(P_R, P_{\rho}; R, \rho) &\propto& \exp\left\{ -(R-\bar{R})^2 / \sigma_R^2 -\rho^2 / \sigma_{\rho}^2 \right. \\
&& \left. - \sigma_R^2 \left( P_R - \sqrt{2M E_{cm}}\right)^2 -\sigma_{\rho}^2 P_{\rho}^2 \right\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, our quantum system corresponds to an ensemble of classical particles with the Hamiltonian (\[ClassicalHamiltonianCM\_Relative\]), and the initial state of the ensemble that corresponds to the initial condition (\[InitialCondition\]) can be generated by considering $R$, $\rho$, $P_R$, and $P_{\rho}$ as independent normal random variables with means $\bar{R}$, 0, $\sqrt{2M E_{cm}}$, 0 and with standard deviations $\sigma_R/\sqrt{2}$, $\sigma_{\rho}/\sqrt{2}$, $\left[\sqrt{2}\sigma_R\right]^{-1}$, $\left[\sqrt{2}\sigma_{\rho}\right]^{-1}$, respectively.
Results of classical simulations of dynamics of an ensemble of $10^6$ particles are compared with [*ab initio*]{} quantum simulations in Fig. \[CvsQ\]. Foremost, one may notice how well the classical simulations reproduced quantum behavior in the classically allowed regions in almost all the cases. One observes a qualitative agreement between classical and quantum results in the cases of tunneling \[Figs. \[CvsQ\](a), \[CvsQ\](c), and \[CvsQ\](e)\]. Nevertheless, in the cases of the over barrier motion \[Figs. \[CvsQ\](b), \[CvsQ\](d), and \[CvsQ\](f)\], classical mechanics gives more asymmetric probability distributions than quantum mechanics. This can be explained by means of a simple observation that there are the kneelike potential barriers in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](b), \[Fig\_potentials\](d), and \[Fig\_potentials\](f), which force a majority of classical particles to go to the fourth quadrant.
Having calculated the classical probability density distributions, we may introduce the probability of tunneling as well as the shifted probability of tunneling analogously to the corresponding quantum quantities \[Eqs. (\[Prob\_T\_deff\]) and (\[prob\_t\_deff\])\]. The classical probabilities of tunneling in the above-barrier cases are an order of magnitude larger than the corresponding classical probabilities in the under-barrier cases. This conclusion contradicts the results of the quantum calculations (Fig. \[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\]). In other words, there is no “paradox” in classical physics. It is natural since the ensemble of classical particles should “prefer” going above than “tunneling through” the barrier. Hence, we have confirmed that the reported effect is genuinely quantum mechanical.
Conclusions and discussions
===========================
In Sec. \[Sec2\], we presented the 2D systems, whose potentials are plotted in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\], which hold the unexpected property that the probability of tunneling through a barrier is larger than the probability of flying above a barrier. As it was clarified in Sec. \[Sec3\], this phenomenon occurs due to a specific symmetry of the potential \[Eq. (\[Condition\_forcing\_transitions\])\] that forces excitations of an interparticle degree of freedom, thus lowering the probability of tunneling. This effect is overlooked by the intuitive conclusion which uses the language of trajectories within the quasi classical approximation that the tunneling is an “exponentially harder” process than flying above a barrier. First and foremost, we note that the quasi classical approximation, being an elegant and insightful approach in 1D, is in fact very cumbersome and quite often impractical in 2D. Hence, in most situations of interest different modifications of the original quasi classical approximation that make additional assumptions on the wave function are employed (see, e.g., Ref. [@Razavy2003a] and references therein). From this point of view, we conclude that a quasiclassical model capable of explaining the reported “paradox” must not only rely on the language of trajectories but also include the quantum transitions that are at the core of the effect.
An important undiscussed issue is the dependence of the reported effect on the initial condition (\[InitialCondition\]). If we substitute $\phi_g(\rho)$ in Eq. (\[InitialCondition\]) by the wave function of the first excited state of the interparticle Hamiltonian in the cases of $N=2$ and $N=4$ (note that $E_{cm}$ must be appropriately decreased such that it would be possible to talk about tunneling), then one may expect that the “paradox” should disappear, and one would observe a conventional situation: the probability of tunneling through the barrier \[Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](e)\] would be smaller than the probability of flying above the barrier \[Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f)\]. Indeed, since the transition from the first excited state to the ground state is allowed because condition (\[Condition\_forcing\_transitions\]) is satisfied in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f), then after making such a jump, the center of mass gains the energy difference; hence, it can more easily tunnel in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f) than in Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](e) where this transition is forbidden.
As far as applications of the effect to quantum control are considered, consider a system of two neutral atoms that interact through the dipole-dipole interaction and are trapped, e.g., by a dipole trap. The magnitudes of the atomic dipoles depend on internal states occupied by the atoms. The internal states of the atoms can be changed for each atom independently by means of a laser with an appropriately tuned frequency, assuming that the atoms have different spectra. Performing such excitations, we may be able to switch between the cases where either condition (\[Condition\_not\_forcing\_transitions\]) or condition (\[Condition\_forcing\_transitions\]) is valid. Hence, we may allow or forbid the two atomic system to tunnel through the trap.
A generalization of Eq. (\[W\_equivalent\_particles\]) as well as Eqs. (\[SymmetryW\]), (\[Condition\_not\_forcing\_transitions\]), and (\[Condition\_forcing\_transitions\]) to the case of $n$ ($n\geqslant 3$) particles is a nontrivial question that should be addressed in the future. One might expect that such a generalization of the effect may reveal many new varieties of the phenomenon, which could be interesting from the point of view of quantum control of tunneling of complex systems.
The authors thank Michael Spanner for fruitful comments. D.I.B. acknowledges the Ontario Graduate Scholarship program for financial support. M.Yu.I. and W.K.L. acknowledge support of NSERC discovery grants.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we target the problem of the retrieval of colour patterns over surfaces. We generalize to surface tessellations the well known Local Binary Pattern (LBP) descriptor for images. The key concept of the LBP is to code the variability of the colour values around each pixel. In the case of a surface tessellation we adopt rings around vertices that are obtained with a sphere-mesh intersection driven by the edges of the mesh; for this reason, we name our method edgeLBP. Experimental results are provided to show how this description performs well for pattern retrieval, also when patterns come from degraded and corrupted archaeological fragments.'
author:
- 'E. Moscoso Thompson and S. Biasotti'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Edge-based LBP description of surfaces with colorimetric patterns'
---
Introduction
============
Thanks to advances in the modeling techniques and to the availability of cheaper yet effective 3D acquisition devices, we see a remarkable increase of the amount of 3D data available. Many sensors are able to acquire not only the 3D shape but also its *texture*; this is the case, for instance, of the Microsoft Kinect device. The creation of an increasing number of 3D models has opened new opportunities to study the past, by giving access to plenty of representations of artifacts close to their original form. At the same time, Cultural Heritage owns a growing mass of non-interpreted 3D data, which call for innovative solutions for the analysis of data. In this context, local descriptors, feature recognition and similarity measures become indexes to the informative content of 3D models, and are essential to categorize objects and to recognize a style, e.g. to attribute objects to a given society or to a given author. A typical problem the archaeologists face when dealing with collections of fragments is to determine their compatibility. Compatibility is generally determined by multiple factors: geometric correspondence, same material and, possibly, if there are not evidently matching fragments, continuity consideration on the fragment skin (colour, texture) [@gravitate_proc].
Within the large scenario of Cultural Heritage, we focus on the analysis and description of color patterns. The idea is to recognize the same decoration, for instance a repeated lotus leaf, independently of the support (e. g., the surface bending) on which it is depicted. Therefore, this work will contribute to the definition of a compatibility measure among artifacts based on skin decorations. To approach this problem, we consider a novel extension of the Local Binary Pattern description to surface tessellations based on the evolution of the color over concentric circles around a vertex. To determine these circles we adopt a sphere - edge intersection strategy and for this reason we name our approach edgeLBP. As application of the edgeLBP description, we propose the retrieval and classification of color patterns over surfaces.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:star\] briefly reviews the literature on the retrieval of textured images and surfaces. Section \[sec:method\] introduces the elements of our method, i.e. the edgeLBP operator and how we store it in a descriptor. Section \[sec:results\] presents and analyses the retrieval and classification performances of the method over two datasets, while conclusive remarks end the paper, Section \[sec:conclusions\].
State of art {#sec:star}
============
A typical strategy to detect textures on images is to consider local patches that describe the behavior of the texture around a group of pixels. Examples of these descriptions are the Local Binary Patterns (LBP) [@ojala; @ojala02], the Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) [@Lowe2004] and the Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) [@DaTr05].The generalization of these descriptions to (even textured) surfaces has been explored in several works, such as the PANORAMA views of the 3D objects [@Papadakis2010], the meshHOG [@meshHOG] and the meshLBP [@WerghiTBB16; @WerghiTBB15]. In general, the methods for matching textured 3D shapes adopt a combination of geometric and colorimetric descriptors. Possible choices of the colorimetric descriptors are: feature-vectors, where the color is treated as a general property of the shape, [@Suzuki01], or its subparts in [@garro16]; local or global views of the objects [@WuCLFP08; @Pasqualotto2013]; point-to-point correspondences among sets of feature points (e.g., the CSHOT descriptor [@TombariSS11]); the evolution of the sub-level sets according to the persistent homology settings [@PHOG]. These methods mainly address the shape matching problem without focusing on the surface details and local colorimetric variations. On the contrary, when looking for patterns, locality and scale are the two key aspects. A detailed evaluation and comparison of methods for 3D texture retrieval and comparison can be found in [@Biasotti2016] and several SHREC contests [@Cerri13; @Cerri14; @Giachetti15]. However, all these contests focused on the joint comparison of geometry and texture, without considering the comparison of the purely colorimetric information that characterizes the surface decorations.
At the best of our knowledge, the Mesh Local Binary Pattern (meshLBP) approach [@WerghiTBB16; @WerghiTBB15; @WerghiBB15] is the unique approach that explicitly addresses pattern analysis over surfaces. The meshLBP extends the LBP [@ojala] to triangle meshes. The main idea behind the meshLBP is that triangles play the role of pixels and the 8-neighbor connectivity in an image is ideally substituted by a 6-neighbor connectivity around triangles. Rings on the mesh are computed using a uniform, region growing, triangle-based expansion. From the practical point of view, the meshLBP encodes a pattern efficiently, providing a compact representation of it.
The edgeLBP {#sec:method}
===========
We extend the LBP to surfaces using rings defined on the basis of a sphere-mesh intersection. In Section \[ss:LBP\_imagesc\] we briefly sum up the definition of the LBP definition. Our extension to surface tessellations is described in Section \[ss:edgeLBP\_def\], while Section \[ss:descriptor\] details the edgeLBP descriptor and the distance adopted to compare two descriptors.
Local Binary Pattern for gray-scale images {#ss:LBP_imagesc}
------------------------------------------
The *Local binary pattern (LBP)* and its variants prove to be a good solution for the classification of patterns in images [@LIU2017]. Given a gray-scale image $I$, the LBP describes the pattern in $I$ coding the local variation of the gray-scale values (encoded with a function $h:I\rightarrow [0,255]$) around each pixel of $I$. More extensively, for each pixel $i\in I$, a *ring* of pixels around $i$ (called $ring_i$) is considered (see Figure \[fig:LBP\_ring\]) and a 8-digit binary array $str_i$ defined as follow: $$str_i(j)=\Bigl\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & if \quad h(i)<h(i_j)\\
0 & otherwise \\
\end{array}$$ where $i_j$ is the $j-th$ pixel of the ring around $i$, sorted clockwise and starting from the top-left pixel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![In (a) the $ring$ of the pixel $i$ is shown; while (b) and (c) show two examples of concentric $ring$s.[]{data-label="fig:LBP_ring"}](pic/multiring_1.jpg "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![In (a) the $ring$ of the pixel $i$ is shown; while (b) and (c) show two examples of concentric $ring$s.[]{data-label="fig:LBP_ring"}](pic/multiring_2.jpg "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![In (a) the $ring$ of the pixel $i$ is shown; while (b) and (c) show two examples of concentric $ring$s.[]{data-label="fig:LBP_ring"}](pic/multiring_3.jpg "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
(a) (b) (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LBP operator of a pixel $i$ is defined by: $$LBP(i)=\sum_j str_i(j)\alpha(j),$$ where $\alpha$ is a weight function. Throughout this paper we consider $\alpha_1(j)=1, \forall j$. Notice that in this case, the $LBP(i)$ value is independent of the ordering of $ring_i$. Finally, the LBP descriptor of the pattern in $I$ is defined as the histogram of the values $LBP(i)$.
The LBP operator was extended to multiple rings around each pixel in $I$, see Figure \[fig:LBP\_ring\](b-c). The descriptor of the LBP multi-ring is the concatenation of the histograms of the LBP values of each single ring, e.g., an array or a matrix.
Definition and implementation of the edgeLBP operator {#ss:edgeLBP_def}
-----------------------------------------------------
We extend the multi-ring LBP operator to deal with surface tessellations through a sphere-mesh intersection technique, called the *edge Local Binary Pattern (edgeLBP)*. By a surface tessellation, we mean a polygonal mesh $T=(V,E,F)$, which is a collection of vertices $V$, edges $E$ and faces $F$ defining the surface of an object. In our settings, we assume that the faces of the tessellation are convex polygons; examples of admissible surface representations are triangle and quad meshes, [@BLPPSTZ13a].
We assume that the surface property can be stored as a scalar function $h$ defined on the vertices of the tessellations, formally, $h:V\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. In our settings, we consider two choices for the function $h$: (i) the *L-channel* from the CIELab color space [@CIELAB_1; @CIELAB_2]; (ii) the gray-scale value defined as $0.21R+0.72G+0.07B$ ($R$, $G$ and $B$ are the channels of the RGB color space).
The concept of ring is crucial for the LBP operator: while a pixel grid has the same connectivity everywhere, surface tessellations can be widely *irregular*, thus the $ring$ definition over them is not obvious. By irregular we mean that the vertices can be non uniformly distributed over the surface and the faces of the tessellation may have different area, shape and number of edges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![(a): in blue, two rings defined on the basis of triangles; (b): the ring around the vertex $v$ is defined by mesh vertices (red dots).[]{data-label="fig:bad_rings"}](pic/bad_ring1.png "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![(a): in blue, two rings defined on the basis of triangles; (b): the ring around the vertex $v$ is defined by mesh vertices (red dots).[]{data-label="fig:bad_rings"}](pic/bad_ring2.png "fig:"){width="5.5cm"}
(a) (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:bad\_rings\] depicts two possible $ring$ definitions exclusively made of mesh elements (triangles in Figure \[fig:bad\_rings\](a) and vertices in Figure \[fig:bad\_rings\](b), resp.): in both cases, the irregularity of the mesh elements strongly influences these of rings.
We define the $ring$ of a vertex $v \in V$ as the intersection of the surface tessellation with a sphere of radius $R$ centered in $v$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![(a): in black, multiple closed curves defined by the set of points $P_i \in \mathcal{R}$; (b): the black dots correspond to the elements $p_i$ of the three central curves in (a).[]{data-label="fig:ring_construction"}](pic/ring_int.png "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![(a): in black, multiple closed curves defined by the set of points $P_i \in \mathcal{R}$; (b): the black dots correspond to the elements $p_i$ of the three central curves in (a).[]{data-label="fig:ring_construction"}](pic/ring_pi.png "fig:"){width="5.5cm"}
(a) (b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such an intersection is represented by the set of points $\mathcal{R}=\{p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_k\}$ that approximate the intersection between the sphere and the surface. Figure \[fig:ring\_construction\] shows a number of concentric rings over a triangle mesh. To determine a $ring$ around a vertex $v$, we follow a mesh expansion approach driven by the Euclidean distance from the vertex $v$, as summarized in the following steps:
1. All the edges that are incident in $v$ are added to a list $L$.
2. Starting from an edge $e=(v,v_1) \in L$, the intersection between $e$ and the sphere centered in $v$ with radius $R$ is evaluated. If there actually is an intersection, it is stored as a new point $p_i$, otherwise, if $e$ completely falls inside the sphere, we add to $L$ all the edges that are incident to $v_1$. The edge $e$ is removed from $L$ and labeled as visited.The value $h(p_i)$ on $p_i$ is given by the linear interpolation of the values that $h$ assumes in $v$ and $v_1$.
3. The step $2$ is repeated $\forall e \in L$, until the list is empty.
To achieve a multi-ring representation, for any vertex $v \in V$ we consider $N_r$ rings, $\{ring_1^v, \ldots, ring_{N_r}^v\}$. Let $S^v_{l}$ be the surface portion of $T$ that contains $v$ and has the $ring^v_k$ as its boundary, $l=1\ldots N_r-1$, then the relation $S^v_{l} \subset S^v_{l+1}$ holds for each $l$. When extending the edgeLBP evaluation to multiple rings, the algorithm takes advantage of the nested nature of the rings and extracts $S^v_l$ with respect to increasing values of the radius $R$. In general, the sphere-surface intersection can produce multiple, closed curves that bound either a multiple connected or a dis-connected portion of the surface, as detailed in [@blowing_bubbles]. Using a region growing approach, we dynamically consider only the $S^v_l$ components.Therefore, $S^v_l$ is always a connected region that contains $v$; however, it can become multiply connected. If all the $N_r$ components of $S^v_l$ are simply connected and all the $N_r$ rings do not intersect the surface boundary (if any), the $v$ is considered an *admissible* vertex for the edgeLBP, otherwise it is *non-admissible*.
### Ring re-ordering and sampling
Each $ring$ is represented as the piecewise, linear curve $C$ determined by the segments $(p_i,p_{i+1})$, $p_i \in \mathcal{R}$. Then, the curve $C$ is oriented *counter-clockwise* with respect to the vector in $v$ normal to $T$. We select As the starting point for ordering $C$, we select the point $\tilde{p}$ such that: $$\tilde{p}=\operatorname*{argmax}\limits_{p_i\in\mathcal{R}} h(p_i).$$ In case of symmetries around a vertex, multiple choices of the starting point are possible: we select the candidate point that is the farthest from the other elements of $\mathcal{R}$. The stability of the starting point of a $ring$ is confirmed in numerous experiments we performed on meshes of different resolution, where by mesh resolution we mean the number of vertices of the mesh. Figure \[fig:ring\_stab\] shows the vector field generated by the difference between $\tilde{p}$ and $v$ ($\overrightarrow{{\tilde{p}-v}}$) all over the mesh. The orientation of the field indicates the position of $\tilde{p}$. The pictures show a detail of the field over a mesh with $40K$ vertices and two mesh sub-samplings with $16K$ and $8K$ vertices: the overall orientation of the field (and therefore the choice of $\tilde{p}$) is robust to different mesh samplings.
![Arrows represent the starting point of the rings in meshes representing the same surface but sampled with a different number of vertices (40K, 16K and 8K vertices, resp.).[]{data-label="fig:ring_stab"}](pic/unique_quiv.png){width="12cm"}
In case of multiple rings, $\tilde{p}$ is selected only on the biggest ring $ring_{N_r}$; for each concentric ring, the starting point is the point $p_i$, which is the closest one to $\tilde{p}$. Generally the number of elements $p_i \in \mathcal{R}$ varies from one ring to another, because of the increasing radius of the sphere and the irregularity of the tessellation, see Figure \[fig:ring\_construction\](b). To have the same number of elements on every ring, we sample $C$ with $P$ points, where $P$ is a fixed number, called the *spatial resolution*. The results of this sampling is $S$, a set of equidistant samples of $C$, $s_j$ with $j=1, \ldots, P$. In details, the equidistant re-sampling is performed as follows:
- we set the expected distance $\delta r$ between two successive points in $S$ as $\delta r= \dfrac{2\pi R}{P}$;
- we set $s_0=\tilde{p}$ and extract the points $s_j$ on $C$ such that $$|s_{j-1}-s_j|\approx \delta r, \qquad j=\{1, \ldots, P\}.$$
The value $h(s_j)$ is linearly approximated from the values the function $h$ assumes on the extrema of the corresponding segment in $C$.
### Choice of the ring radii
With the edgeLBP we are interested to code local variations on the surface, therefore the radius $R$ should be kept small with respect to the overall dimension of the surface. This implies that the choice of the radius $R$ is crucial for the type (and the size) of the patterns we are going to identify; indeed it must be not too large to avoid to mix global and local surface information and not too small to become insignificant. In practice, the multiply connected regions appear in case of topological noise, like small handles and mesh self-intersections; in our experiments over thousands of tessellations we never met meaningful admissibility problems.
We opt for a uniform distribution of the ring radii values. Denoting $R_{max}$ the maximum radius and $N_r$ the number of rings, the value of the ring radii will be $\frac{R_{max}}{N_r}, 2\frac{R_{max}}{N_r}, \ldots, R_{max}$.
Base models Textured models
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4
{width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"}
Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8
{width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"} {width="1.4cm"}
Similarity assessment {#ss:descriptor}
---------------------
Once the function $h$ is evaluated over the sample sets of the rings around $v$, the edgeLBP value on $v$ straightforwardly follows from the classic LBP definition, see Section \[ss:LBP\_imagesc\].
Given the surface tessellation $T$, its *edgeLBP descriptor* is labeled $D_T$. The entry $D_T(n,m)$ is defined as the histogram that counts how many vertices have an edgeLBP value equal to $m$ on the $ring_n$. Since in the experiments we are mostly interested in the distribution of the edgeLBP values, we adopt $\frac{D_T}{n_v}$ as the edgeLBP descriptor, where $n_v$ is the number of the admissible vertices. Through this normalization of $T$ we achieve robustness to the number of vertices of the surface representation.
We define the dissimilarity between two tessellations $A$ and $B$ as the distance between their corresponding edgeLBP descriptors $D_A$ and $D_B$. Since the edgeLBP can be thought as a matrix, any feature vector distance is suitable to evaluate the similarity between two edgeLBP descriptors. We analysed the Euclidean distance between matrices, the *Earth Mover’s Distance* as defined in [@Rubner:2000] and the *Bhattacharyya distance*. The Bhattacharyya distance $d_{Bha}$ between two distributions $\phi$ and $\psi$ of a scalar random variable $X$ has the following definition: $$d_{Bha}(\phi,\psi)=\sqrt{1-BC(\phi,\psi)}, \qquad BC(\phi,\psi)=\sum\limits_{x\in X} \sqrt{\phi(x)\psi(x)},$$ where $BC$ is called the *Bhattacharyya coefficient*. Then, for a set of surface tessellations, the dissimilarity values are stored in a *distance matrix* $DM(i,j)=d(D_i,D_j)$, where $d$ is the distance between the descriptors of the tessellation $i$ and $j$. Diagonal values of $Dist(i,i)$ are zero.
Experimental results {#sec:results}
====================
In this Section we introduce the datasets and the evaluation measures adopted to analyse the retrieval performance of the edgeLBP. We present the edgeLBP performances and discuss its robustness to different tessellations of the same surface.
Dataset
-------
To evaluate the edgeLBP ability of effectively discriminating pattern variations, we used two datasets:
- the *Cups, Pots and Pans* dataset (or *CPP* for short) is created from triangle meshes in the SHREC’07 Watertight model contest [@SHREC07] and the COSEG [@COSEG:2012] datasets (see Figure \[fig:CCP\_origin\](Left)). The original meshes do not have any texture or colorimetric information. From 20 base models and 10 black and white textures representing a pattern (see Figure \[fig:CCP\_origin\](Center)) we derived 200 models, applying each texture to every model with a semi-automatic algorithm. The proper RGB value was added to the mesh vertices discarding any other colorimetric information (see Figure \[fig:CCP\_origin\](Right)). At the end of this process, each model is covered by one of the 10 patterns for at least the 30% of its surfaces while the rest of the surface is only black or only white. The number of vertices of the $200$ models ranges from $95K$ to $107K$.
- the *Artifacts* dataset is derived from the laser scans of CH artifacts stored in the STARC repository [@Starck07] and selected as test-beds in the Gravitate EU project [@GRAVITATE_prog]. The colorimetric information comes as a RGB value associated to each mesh vertex. Differently from the CPP dataset, this second dataset contains full-color information, with a predominance of red, yellow and brown nuances. From these fragments we identified 10 classes of different patterns (see Figure \[fig:GRAV\_col\]); then, for each type of pattern, we tailored 4 representative patches coming from different fragments, for a total of 40 patches. Every patch is made of approximately $40K$ vertices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5
![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptI.png "fig:"){width="2cm"} ![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptII.png "fig:"){width="2cm"} ![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptIII.png "fig:"){width="2cm"} ![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptIV.png "fig:"){width="2cm"} ![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptV.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10
![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptVI.png "fig:"){width="2cm"} ![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptVII.png "fig:"){width="2cm"} ![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptVIII.png "fig:"){width="2cm"} ![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptIX.png "fig:"){width="2cm"} ![Representatives of the 10 classes considered in the Artifacts dataset.[]{data-label="fig:GRAV_col"}](pic/cptXb.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The edgeLBP algorithm is used to perform colorimetric pattern retrieval on the CCP and Artifact datasets, separately.
Evaluation measures {#ss:eval_mes}
-------------------
The evaluation tests have been performed using a number of classical information retrieval measures, namely the Nearest Neighbor, First Tier, Second Tier, Discounted Cumulative Gain, e-measure, Precision-Recall plot, confusion matrices and tier images.
#### Nearest Neighbor, First Tier, Second Tier {#nearest-neighbor-first-tier-second-tier .unnumbered}
These measures aim at checking the fraction of models in the query’s class also appearing within the top $k$ retrievals. In detail, for a class with $|C|$ members, $k=1$ for the Nearest Neighbor (NN), $k =|C|-1$ for the first tier (FT), and $k = 2(|C| - 1)$ for the second tier (ST). Note that all these values range from 0 to 1.
#### Discounted cumulative gain {#discounted-cumulative-gain .unnumbered}
The Discounted Cumulative Gain (DCG) is an enhanced variation of the Cumulative Gain, which is the sum of the graded relevance values of all results in the list of retrieved objects of a given query. The definition of DCG adopted in this paper can be found in [@Jarvelin2002].
#### Precision-Recall, mAP and e-measure {#precision-recall-map-and-e-measure .unnumbered}
The *Precision* and *Recall* are common measures for retrieval evaluation. Recall is the ratio of the number of relevant records retrieved to the total number of relevant records, while precision is the ratio of the number of relevant records retrieved to the size of the return vector [@salton_evaluation]. Precision and recall always range from 0 to 1. Often, precision and recall are plot as a curve in the reference frame recall vs. precision [@Baeza-Yates:1999]: the larger the area below such a curve, the better the performance under examination. As an additional index, we consider the mean Average Precision (mAP), which is the portion of area under a precision-recall curve. Finally, we consider the *e-measure* $e$ [@Rijsbergen1979], which is a quality measure of the first models retrieved for every query. The e-measure depends on the *Precision* and *Recall* values by the relation: $e=\frac{2}{Precision^{-1}+Recall^{-1}}.$
#### Confusion matrices and Tier images {#confusion-matrices-and-tier-images .unnumbered}
Each classification performance can be associated with a confusion matrix $CM$, that is, a square matrix whose dimension is equal to the number of classes in the dataset. For the row $i$ in $CM$, the element $CM(i,i)$ gives the number of items which have been correctly classified as elements of the class $i$; similarly, elements $CM(i,j)$, with $j\neq i$, count the items which have been misclassified, resulting as elements of the class $j$ rather than elements of the class $i$. Similarly, the tier image $TI$ visualizes the matches of the NN, FT and ST. The value of the element $TI(i,j)$ is: *black* if $j$ is the NN of $i$, *red* if $j$ is among the $(|C|-1)$ top matches (FT) and *blue* if $j$ is among the $2(|C|-1)$ top matches (ST). For an ideal classification matrix, $CM$ becomes the diagonal matrix while the $TI$ clusters the black/red square pixels on the diagonal.
Results {#ss:ris_eval}
-------
In this Section we discuss the retrieval and classification performance of the edgeLBP. For simplicity, we report only the results obtained with the Bhattacharyya distance because in our experiments it performs better than the other distances considered. We performed multiple runs with different settings, changing the number ($N_r$) of rings and the number of samples ($P$) on them, together with different $R$ associated to the $N_r$-th ring (called $R_{max}$). The value of $R$ is based on the size of the patterns in it: we randomly picked 3 models of that dataset and choose one or more $R_{max}$ values that were properly scaled for the dataset. The parameters $N_r$ and $P$ are initially set with what we consider the default settings: $P=15$, $N_r=5$. Similarly we consider $h=L-channel$ of the CIELAB color space as the default setting of the function $h$. Different choices of $h$, $P$ and $N_r$ are discussed for the Artifacts dataset.
#### CPP dataset {#cpp-dataset .unnumbered}
We tested the edgeLBP on this dataset using the default settings and adapting the $R_{max}$ to the size of the wanted pattern ($R_{max}=0.04mm$), in what in this paper is called *Run1*. As baseline methods to compare against the edgeLBP descriptor we consider two variations of the color histograms. *Hist1* outputs descriptors based on a 16-bin histogram normalized on his minimal and maximal $L$ values. *Hist2* is similar, but no normalization is applied to the values of $L$. In addition, we also consider the meshLBP descriptor as implemented in the Matlab toolbox [@meshLBP]. Figure \[fig:ccp\_res\](Top) reports the numerical evaluation measures. Figure \[fig:ccp\_res\](Middle) compares the recall vs precision curves of all the methods. Figure \[fig:ccp\_res\](Bottom) reports the confusion matrix and the tier image of edgeLBP and the meshLBP runs.
[c]{}
[c]{}
NN FT ST e mAP nDCG
----------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
*edgeLBP* **0.985** **0.801** **0.97** **0.66** **0.859** **0.94**
*meshLBP* 0.94 0.615 0.805 0.54 0.691 0.87
Hist1 0.3 0.301 0.415 0.27 0.354 0.58
Hist2 0.61 0.522 0.774 0.51 0.57 0.76
\
\
![Performance evaluation on the CCP dataset. Top: the NN, FT, ST, e-measure, mAP and nDGC evaluation measures. Middle: the Precision-Recall curves. Bottom: the confusion matrix and tier image of the edgeLBP and the meshLBP runs.[]{data-label="fig:ccp_res"}](pic/PR_ccp.png "fig:"){width="10cm"}
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confusion Matrix Tier Image Confusion Matrix Tier Image
![Performance evaluation on the CCP dataset. Top: the NN, FT, ST, e-measure, mAP and nDGC evaluation measures. Middle: the Precision-Recall curves. Bottom: the confusion matrix and tier image of the edgeLBP and the meshLBP runs.[]{data-label="fig:ccp_res"}](pic/ccp_cm.png "fig:"){width="3cm"} ![Performance evaluation on the CCP dataset. Top: the NN, FT, ST, e-measure, mAP and nDGC evaluation measures. Middle: the Precision-Recall curves. Bottom: the confusion matrix and tier image of the edgeLBP and the meshLBP runs.[]{data-label="fig:ccp_res"}](pic/ccp_ti.png "fig:"){width="3cm"} ![Performance evaluation on the CCP dataset. Top: the NN, FT, ST, e-measure, mAP and nDGC evaluation measures. Middle: the Precision-Recall curves. Bottom: the confusion matrix and tier image of the edgeLBP and the meshLBP runs.[]{data-label="fig:ccp_res"}](pic/ccp_cm_meshLBP.png "fig:"){width="3cm"} ![Performance evaluation on the CCP dataset. Top: the NN, FT, ST, e-measure, mAP and nDGC evaluation measures. Middle: the Precision-Recall curves. Bottom: the confusion matrix and tier image of the edgeLBP and the meshLBP runs.[]{data-label="fig:ccp_res"}](pic/ccp_ti_meshLBP.png "fig:"){width="3cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The classification and retrieval results obtained over this dataset are very promising and highlight how the edgeLBP encoding captures the pattern distribution over the surface. The edgeLBP overcome simple histogram-based descriptions that, in practice, measure the percentage of color distribution without any control around vertices and also the meshLBP description that bases the ring definition on mesh elements. The positive edgeLBP perfomance is confirmed in the recent SHREC’18 track for gray color patterns [@shrec18].
Artifacts dataset {#artifacts-dataset .unnumbered}
-----------------
This dataset is challenging because of the quality of the original fragments, as their colorimetric patterns are degraded and damaged. Table \[tb:GRA\_res\] reports the NN, FT and ST evaluations for different parameter settings of the edgeLBP. Confusion matrices for the two best radius values are reported in Figure \[fig:ar\_cmti\], along with the relative Tier Images. The number of models in this dataset is too small to consider meaningful the other evaluation measures.
The edgeLBP achieves good retrieval and classification results for most classes. We observed, as expected, that the correctness of the classification is mainly driven by the size of $R$, rather then $P$ and $N_r$. As a final note, we tested our algorithm using gray scale values as $h$ function: the results obtained with it were pretty much the same as those obtained with $h=L$. We think that this is due to which information both $L$ of CieLAB color space and the gray scale encodes.
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
{width="3cm"} {width="3cm"} {width="3cm"} {width="3cm"}
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
Parameter Settings NN FT ST
----------------------------- ------- ------- -------
$P:15, N_r:5, R_{max}:0,2$ 0.775 0.789 1
$P:15, N_r:5, R_{max}:0,3$ 0.75 0.811 0.989
$P:15, N_r:5, R_{max}:0,5$ 0.75 0.711 0.889
$P:15, N_r:5, R_{max}:0,7*$ 0.725 0.667 0.756
$P:12, N_r:7, R_{max}:0,5$ 0.75 0.789 0.9
$P:12, N_r:7, R_{max}:0,2$ 0.775 0.856 0.978
$P:18, N_r:5, R_{max}:0,7$ 0.7 0.667 0.744
: The NN, FT and ST scores for some runs of the edgeLBP on the Artifacts dataset. The $*$ in the fourth row means that in these settings we adopt $h^3$ instead of $h$ (here, $h$ corresponds to the L-channel). $R$ is expressed in $mm$.
\[tb:GRA\_res\]
Robustness over different surface tessellations {#ss:robustness_part}
-----------------------------------------------
The strength of the edgeLBP is its ring definition, which is robust to different surface tessellations: in this Section we experimentally discuss this robustness. To this aim we re-sample the triangles meshes with a decreasing number of vertices. The triangle mesh re-sampling with $x$ vertices is done with the MeshLAB tool [@meshlab] that approximates the original mesh preserving its geometry as much as possible with the given number of vertices (for instance, $x=40K$ vertices). This process generally modifies the mesh connectivity and the area of the triangles, discards the smallest details and keeps the overall shape, unless the number of vertices drastically diminishes and the new vertices are too few to preserve it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$40K$ $24K$ $8K$
![The degradation of one of the model used to test the robustness of the descriptor of both edgeLBP and meshLBP. The number on each image is the respective vertex resolution.[]{data-label="fig:comparison_model"}](pic/deg_ori.png "fig:"){width="2.45cm"} ![The degradation of one of the model used to test the robustness of the descriptor of both edgeLBP and meshLBP. The number on each image is the respective vertex resolution.[]{data-label="fig:comparison_model"}](pic/deg1.png "fig:"){width="2.45cm"} ![The degradation of one of the model used to test the robustness of the descriptor of both edgeLBP and meshLBP. The number on each image is the respective vertex resolution.[]{data-label="fig:comparison_model"}](pic/deg2.png "fig:"){width="2.45cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we re-sampled the meshes in the CCP dataset with $40K$ vertices. On this dataset, we compare the outcome of the edgeLBP with the default settings with the meshLBP, see Table \[tb:downgrades\]. If compared with the performances on the original CPP dataset in Figure \[fig:ccp\_res\], the edgeLBP degrades less than the meshLBP, demonstrating of being more robust to mesh degradation and re-sampling.
NN FT ST e mAP nDCG
--------- ------ ------- ------- ------ ------- ------
edgeLBP 0.95 0.688 0.857 0.59 0.761 0.9
meshLBP 0.77 0.517 0.703 0.47 0.58 0.79
: Evaluation measures of the performances on the CPP dataset resampled with 40K vertices.
\[tb:downgrades\]
Second, we selected 3 patches from the Artifacts dataset and sub-sampled them with $32K$, $24K$, $16K$ and $8K$ vertices (see Figure \[fig:comparison\_model\]).These four meshes are compared against the original patch (that has $40K$ vertices).These four distance values provide an estimate of the error the descriptors do when working with the simplified meshes.
We performed two runs for both the edgeLBP and meshLBP:
- *Run1: $P=12$, $N_r=7$*. These settings are the setting used by the meshLBP as default. Both meshLBP and edgeLBP are run with these settings. For the edgeLBP we set $R_{max}=0.5mm$.
- *Run2: $P=15$, $N_r=5$*. These settings are those that we consider default for the edgeLBP. Both the algorithms are run with these settings. As in $run1$, we set $R_{max}=0.5mm$.
Figure \[fig:mesh\_edge\_results\] represents the distance between the original model and its four approximations with respect to both edgeLBP and meshLBP, for all the three original meshes. Since the scale of the distances adopted by the meshLBP and edgeLBP is different, we normalize them with respect the range of the distance values among these patches.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Run1*
![The plots represent the distance of the four simplified meshes from the original ones, with respect to the meshLBP and the edgeLBP descriptors. The labels in the horizontal axis highlight to the number of vertices of the mesh.[]{data-label="fig:mesh_edge_results"}](pic/error_plot_1.png "fig:")
*Run2*
![The plots represent the distance of the four simplified meshes from the original ones, with respect to the meshLBP and the edgeLBP descriptors. The labels in the horizontal axis highlight to the number of vertices of the mesh.[]{data-label="fig:mesh_edge_results"}](pic/error_plot_2.png "fig:")
![The plots represent the distance of the four simplified meshes from the original ones, with respect to the meshLBP and the edgeLBP descriptors. The labels in the horizontal axis highlight to the number of vertices of the mesh.[]{data-label="fig:mesh_edge_results"}](pic/legend_meshedge.png "fig:")
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Figure \[fig:mesh\_edge\_results\], we can see that in both runs the edgeLBP produces more stable descriptors, as the errors are lower than those of the meshLBP (except in one case, the model 1 in *Run2*). In our opinion the nature of the ring definition of the two methods is crucial being both methods based on the LBP concept. Indeed, the meshLBP creates rings of different size when the vertex density decreases becoming quite sparse when the number of vertices of the mesh is significantly reduced. This is not the case of the edgeLBP, as the radius of each ring is always the same ($R$), for each mesh.
Discussions and conclusive remarks {#sec:conclusions}
==================================
We defined an extension of the LBP on surfaces, whose strength is the robustness to the surface tessellation. In this paper we used this technique to successfully retrieve and classify colorimetric patterns on mesh surfaces. The edgeLBP also performed the best to the SHREC’18 track on retrieval of colorimetric patterns [@shrec18]. Besides synthetic datasets, we tested our algorithm on samples coming from a challenging dataset made of corrupted and degraded artifacts of the EU GRAVITATE project test beds [@GRAVITATE_prog], achievingpromising results. Further extensions are planned and possible. For instance, it is possible to adopt this approach for the description of geometric patterns, encoding the geometric variations with scalar properties of the mesh, like mean curvature or shape index. Moreover, we think that for full color patterns better results could be achieved using all the colorimetric information, for instance the L, a, and b channels of the CIELab space. In this direction, we are currently working on the extension of the edgeLBP to multidimensional properties. Finally, we think it is worth investigating the automatic recognition and localization of multiple patterns on surfaces. Current experiments are performed on surfaces fully characterized by a single pattern at a time and the similarity distance is defined on the global fragment skin. Next plans include the combination of the shape description step with segmentation techniques and the aggregation of parts made of vertices with similar local descriptions.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work is developed within the research program of the “H2020” European project “GRAVITATE”, contract n. 665155, (2015-2018).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We measured missing mass spectrum of the $^{12}{\rm C}(\gamma,p)$ reaction for the first time in coincidence with potential decay products from $\eta''$ bound nuclei. We tagged an ($\eta+p$) pair associated with the $\eta''N\to\eta N$ process in a nucleus. After applying kinematical selections to reduce backgrounds, no signal events were observed in the bound-state region. An upper limit of the signal cross section in the opening angle $\cos\theta^{\eta p}_{lab}<-0.9$ was obtained to be 2.2 nb/sr at the 90$\%$ confidence level. It is compared with theoretical cross sections, whose normalization ambiguity is suppressed by measuring a quasifree $\eta''$ production rate. Our results indicate a small branching fraction of the $\eta''N\to\eta N$ process and/or a shallow $\eta''$-nucleus potential.'
author:
- 'N. Tomida'
- 'N. Muramatsu'
- 'M. Niiyama'
- 'J.K. Ahn'
- 'W.C. Chang'
- 'J.Y. Chen'
- 'M.L. Chu'
- 'S. Daté'
- 'T. Gogami'
- 'H. Goto'
- 'H. Hamano'
- 'T. Hashimoto'
- 'Q.H. He'
- 'K. Hicks'
- 'T. Hiraiwa'
- 'Y. Honda'
- 'T. Hotta'
- 'H. Ikuno'
- 'Y. Inoue'
- 'T. Ishikawa'
- 'I. Jaegle'
- 'J.M. Jo'
- 'Y. Kasamatsu'
- 'H. Katsuragawa'
- 'S. Kido'
- 'Y. Kon'
- 'T. Maruyama'
- 'S. Masumoto'
- 'Y. Matsumura'
- 'M. Miyabe'
- 'K. Mizutani'
- 'H. Nagahiro'
- 'T. Nakamura'
- 'T. Nakano'
- 'T. Nam'
- 'T.N.T. Ngan'
- 'Y. Nozawa'
- 'Y. Ohashi'
- 'H. Ohnishi'
- 'T. Ohta'
- 'K. Ozawa'
- 'C. Rangacharyulu'
- 'S.Y. Ryu'
- 'Y. Sada'
- 'M. Sasagawa'
- 'T. Shibukawa'
- 'H. Shimizu'
- 'R. Shirai'
- 'K. Shiraishi'
- 'E.A. Strokovsky'
- 'Y. Sugaya'
- 'M. Sumihama'
- 'S. Suzuki'
- 'S. Tanaka'
- 'A. Tokiyasu'
- 'Y. Tsuchikawa'
- 'T. Ueda'
- 'H. Yamazaki'
- 'R. Yamazaki'
- 'Y. Yanai'
- 'T. Yorita'
- 'C. Yoshida'
- 'M. Yosoi'
bibliography:
- 'arXiv4.bib'
title: |
Search for $\eta'$ Bound Nuclei in the $^{12}{\rm C}(\gamma,p)$ Reaction\
with Simultaneous Detection of Decay Products
---
[**Introduction.—**]{} To understand the origin of mass has been a long-standing and profound query for human beings. The Yukawa coupling with the recently discovered Higgs particles [@atlas; @cms] accounts for the bare masses of fundamental fermions such as quarks and leptons. Nevertheless, the majority of the mass of hadrons, the visible part of our Universe, is generated by the strong interaction in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) [@mass1; @mass2]. The breaking of chiral symmetry particularly plays a key role to explain mass spectra of light hadrons [@nambu]. Among other light pseudoscalar mesons, the $\eta'(958)$ meson has exceptionally large mass, which is attributed to the breaking of U$_A (1)$ symmetry [@ua1; @ua1_2; @ua1_3]. As described in Ref.[@jido; @jido2], the mass gap between $\eta'$ and $\eta$ owing to U$_A (1)$ anomaly is manifest under the breaking of chiral symmetry. Thereby, there have been interest to probe the $\eta'$ mass in a nucleus where partial restoration of chiral symmetry and thus weakening of the anomaly effect are expected. A large mass reduction of 150 and 80 MeV at the normal nuclear density are respectively expected by the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio and linear sigma models containing an U$_A (1)$ symmetry breaking term [@NJL2; @NJL; @linearsigma]. The mass reduction can be described as an attractive potential for an $\eta'$ meson in a nucleus [@potential]. The real and imaginary part of the $\eta'$-nucleus potential at the normal saturation density are defined as $V_0$ and $W_0$, respectively. If $V_0$ is deep and $W_0$ is small enough, $\eta'$-nucleus bound states can be formed.
A straightforward method of accessing ($V_0, W_0$) is missing-mass spectroscopy. However, around $\eta'$ mass, this method suffers from numerous backgrounds arising from multiple light-meson productions. The $\eta$-PRiME/Super-FRS Collaboration conducted the pioneering measurement of the excitation spectra of $^{11}$C near the $\eta'$ production threshold in $^{12}{\rm C}(p,d)$ reactions [@gsi; @gsi2]. The excellent experimental resolution and statistics were achieved to observe distinct peaks of deeply bound $\eta'$ states above backgrounds, but no signals indicating a bound state were observed. An upper limit of ($V_0, W_0$) was estimated depending on the theoretically expected cross sections [@greens; @gsi_feas]. The CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration deduced ($V_0$, $W_0$) in an unique way. They precisely measured $\eta'$ escaping from C and Nb nuclei [@ELSA1; @ELSA2; @ELSA_coin; @ELSA_etap_trans; @ELSA_etap_trans2]. Comparing the beam energy dependence of the total cross sections and $\eta'$ momentum distributions with those given by a collision model [@paryev], they deduced $V_0=-[39\pm7{\rm (stat)}\pm15{\rm (syst)}]$ MeV. The imaginary potential, $W_0=-[13\pm3{\rm (stat)}\pm3{\rm (syst)}]$ MeV, evaluated from a transparency measurement, is small enough to form a bound state [@NJL]. The real part of the $\eta'$-proton scattering length was estimated as $0.00\pm0.43$ fm from the measurement of $pp\to pp\eta'$ reactions at COSY [@cosy].
[**Strategy.—**]{} To search for $\eta'$-nucleus bound states, we used missing-mass spectroscopy of the $^{12}{\rm C}(\gamma,p)$ reaction detecting decay products in coincidence. By using multi-GeV photon beam and detecting protons in extremely forward angles, we investigated the following process in a small momentum transfer kinematics:
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + \eta' \otimes {\rm ^{11}B}\hspace{52pt} \label{1a} \\
\reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{180}{$\Rsh$}} \: \eta'+p \to \eta+p_s. \hspace{8pt} \label{1b} \end{aligned}$$
The forward-going proton, $p_f$, is used for the missing-mass spectroscopy. The side-going proton, $p_s$, is emitted in the $\eta'N\to\eta N$ reaction, which is one of the most promising absorption processes for an $\eta'$ meson bound to a nucleus [@naga; @oset]. By tagging an ($\eta+p_s$) pair, multipion backgrounds were strongly suppressed. Remaining background events accompanying ($\eta+p_s$) were removed by selecting the kinematical region which was characteristic for signal events. We evaluated an experimental cross section of the $\eta'$-bound states emitting an ($\eta+p_s$) pair, $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$, independent from any model assumption.
The obtained $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$ was compared with theoretical cross sections, $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{theory}$, expected in different $V_0$ cases. For this purpose, we calculated the expected excitation energy of the $\eta'+^{11}$B system $E_{\rm ex}$, relative to the production threshold $E_0$, in the framework of a distorted wave impulse approximation (DWIA) [@greens; @nagahiro]. The DWIA is the standard technique used for describing bound states such as in hypernuclei and pionic atoms [@scale; @scale2; @scale3; @scale4; @scale5; @pionic]. In general, DWIA calculations nicely represent spectral shapes of bound states but hardly reproduce their absolute cross sections [@scale; @scale2; @scale3; @scale4; @scale5; @pionic]. We decomposed our DWIA calculation into the $\eta'$ absorption and escape processes, and obtained a normalization factor $F$ of the DWIA cross section by measuring $\eta'$ escaping from a nucleus:
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + \eta' + {\rm ^{11}B}\hspace{52pt} \label{2a} \\
\reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{180}{$\Rsh$}} \: \eta'\to2\gamma. \hspace{41pt} \label{2b}\end{aligned}$$
We calculated the excitation spectra for $\eta'$ angular momenta up to 7, which is large enough to have convergence for $E_{\rm ex}-E_0\lesssim50$ MeV [@greens; @nagahiro]. Because the $\eta'$ escape process contributes only in $E_{\rm ex}-E_0>0$ MeV, we evaluate $F$ from experimental and theoretical cross sections of the $\eta'$ escape process, $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{exp}$ and $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{theory}$, integrated over $0<E_{\rm ex}-E_0<50$ MeV. After normalizing the theoretical cross sections with $F$, we compare $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$ and $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{theory}$, in $-50<E_{\rm ex}-E_0<50$ MeV. We discuss $V_0$ as a function of the branching fraction of the $\eta'N\to\eta N$ absorption process, ${\rm Br}_{\eta'N\to\eta N}$. In this Letter, angles, energies and cross sections are given in the laboratory frame if not directly specified.
[**Experimental set up.—**]{} The experiment was carried out in the LEPS2 beam line at SPring-8, by using a photon beam whose tagged energy range was 1.3-2.4 GeV [@laser]. About 6.1$\times$10$^{12}$ photons hit a carbon target with a thickness of 3.46 g/cm$^2$. The momentum of $p_f$ was measured by the time-of-flight method using resistive plate chambers, located 12.5 m downstream from the target, with a polar angle coverage of $0.9^{\circ}$–$6.8^{\circ}$ [@RPC0; @RPC]. The time-of-flight resolution of 60–90 ps, depending on the hit position, results in the missing mass resolution of 12–30 MeV as a function of the momentum of $p_f$. The $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons were identified from their 2$\gamma$ decay processes, using an electromagnetic calorimeter, BGOegg, which covers the polar angle range from 24$^\circ$ to 144$^\circ$ [@bgoegg]. The particle identification of $p_s$ was carried out from the correlation of the energy deposit in BGOegg and 5 mm thick inner plastic scintillators, located inside BGOegg. A drift chamber, located 1.6 m downstream from the target, was used to ensure that there was no charged particle other than $p_f$ in the forward region not covered by BGOegg. Details of the experimental set up are described in Ref.[@mura].
![(a) The 2$\gamma$ invariant mass distribution around the $\eta$ mass and (b) the excitation function of the $(\eta+p_s)$ coincidence data. The region in $\pm2.5\sigma$ from the invariant mass peak is indicated by the blue-dashed lines. []{data-label="eta"}](drawing_eta12)
$E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}$ region \[MeV\] $[-300, -200]$ $[-200, -100]$ expected signal $[-50, 50]$ \[100, 200\] \[200, 300\]
------------------------------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------- --------------
no cuts 67 188 $(58.4\pm14.7)\times{\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$ 507 438
(a):$\cos\theta^{\eta p_s}_{lab}<-0.9$ 11 26 $(43.8\pm11.0)\times{\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$ 24 18
(a), (b):$|E_{miss}^{\eta p_s p_f}|<150$ MeV 11 24 $(43.8\pm11.0)\times{\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$ 9 4
(a), (b), (c):$\cos\theta^{p_s}_{lab}<0.5$ 9 18 $(35.7\pm9.0)\times{\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$ 9 4
(a), (b), (c), (d):$\cos\theta^{\eta}_{lab}<0$ 4 1 $(13.1\pm3.3)\times{\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$ 0 0
[**Analysis.—**]{} The $\eta'$ bound states were searched for from the $\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + (\eta+p_s) + {\rm X}$ reaction, in which two photons and one proton were detected with BGOegg. The $p_s$ kinetic energy was required to be less than 250 MeV, which is the expected maximum energy in the reaction (1b). Figure \[eta\](a) shows the 2$\gamma$ invariant mass distribution, $M_{\gamma\gamma}$. We selected the $\pm2.5\sigma$ region of the $\eta$ mass peak. Figure \[eta\](b) shows the excitation spectrum defined as $E_{\rm ex}-E_{0}^{\eta'}=MM[^{12}\text{C}(\gamma,p_f)]-M_{^{11}\text{B}}-M_{\eta'}$, where $MM[^{12}$C$(\gamma,p_f)]$ is the missing mass in the $^{12}$C$(\gamma,p_f)$ reaction, and $M_{^{11}\text{B}}$ and $M_{\eta'}$ represent a mass of $^{11}$B and $\eta'$, respectively. No enhancement is observed in $-50<E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}<50$ MeV, which is the region to search for signals.
The background events in Fig. 1(b) mainly come from the $\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + \eta + {\rm ^{11}B}$ and $\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + (\eta+\pi^0) + {\rm ^{11}B}$ reactions. In these events, an $\eta$ is produced in the primary reaction, and another proton, $p_s$ is kicked out by either a primary $\eta$, $\pi^0$ or $p_f$. We introduced kinematical selection cuts to suppress those background events. A bound $\eta'$ is almost at rest, and thus, an ($\eta+p_s$) pair is emitted in a close back-to-back relation, with an isotropic polar angle distribution. In contrast, most of the $\eta$ and $p_s$ from the background reactions are produced at forward angles. In addition, most of the $(\eta+\pi^0)$ events can be removed by requiring the absence of missing energy due to the undetected $\pi^0$. We defined the missing energy as $E_{miss}^{\eta p_s p_f} = E_{\gamma} + M_{^{12}\text{C}} - M_{^{11}\text{B}} - E_{\gamma_1} - E_{\gamma_2} - E_{p_s} - E_{p_f}$, where $E_{\gamma}, E_{\gamma_1}, E_{\gamma_2}, E_{p_s}$ and $E_{p_f}$ represent the energies of an incident photon and each detected particle, respectively.
The kinematical selection cuts were optimized by using the experimental data of the $(\eta+p_s)$ coincidence reaction masking the region satisfying both $-100<E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}<100$ MeV and the opening angle between the $\eta$ and $p_s$, $\cos\theta^{\eta p_s}_{lab}<-0.9$. We also used data sets of the $\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + \eta + {\rm X}$ and $\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + (\eta+\pi^0) + {\rm X}$ reactions, in which only an $\eta$ meson or the $\eta\pi^0$ mesons were detected in BGOegg, respectively. The kinematical selection cuts were determined as (a) $\cos\theta^{\eta p_s}_{lab}<-0.9$, (b) $|E_{miss}^{\eta p_s p_f}|<150$ MeV, (c) the $p_s$ polar angle $\cos\theta^{p_s}_{lab}<0.5$, and (d) the $\eta$ polar angle $\cos\theta^{\eta}_{lab}<0$.
In Table \[bg\], we summarize the number of background events in the unmasked region of the $(\eta+p_s)$ coincidence data for each selection criteria. The expected number of signal events was also evaluated from $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{theory}$. After all cuts, the background events are reduced to 0.4$\%$, while 23$\%$ of the signal events is preserved. Some background events remain in $E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}<-100$ MeV, where both $\eta$ and $p_s$ from background reactions have low kinetic energies. They are hard to be removed by kinematical cuts. The background level in $-300<E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}<-100$ MeV is 2.5$\pm$1.1 events per 100 MeV. An identical or smaller background level is expected in $-50<E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}<50$ MeV according to the background studies using the single $\eta$ and $(\eta+\pi^0)$ coincidence data.
[**Experimental results.—**]{}The two dimensional plot of $\cos\theta^{\eta}_{lab}$ vs $E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}$ after cuts (a)–(c) is shown in Fig.\[cose\]. There is no event satisfying cut(d) in $-50<E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}<50$ MeV, thus, we observe no $(\eta+p_s)$ events from $\eta'$ absorption via the $\eta'N\to\eta N$ process.
![The two dimensional plot of $\cos\theta^\eta_{lab}$ vs $E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}$ of the $(\eta+p_s)$ coincidence data after applying the kinematical cuts (a)–(c). The region to search for signals is shown by red hatching.[]{data-label="cose"}](drawing_mm_cose12)
We deduced an experimental upper limit of $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$. The detector acceptance and reconstruction efficiencies were obtained from a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation based on [geant]{}[4]{} [@geant]. We generated an N$^*$ state decaying into an $\eta$ and a proton isotropically. The N$^*$ mass was changed around the sum of $\eta'$ and proton masses to reproduce the kinematics of the reaction (1b) in different $E_{\rm ex}-E_0$. The typical value of the acceptance and reconstruction efficiency in $\cos\theta^{p_s}_{lab}<0.5$ and $\cos\theta^\eta_{lab}<0$ is 10.8$\%$. The systematic uncertainty for the cross section measurement was evaluated to be 5.4$\%$, which includes the uncertainties of the detector reconstruction efficiencies (5.2$\%$), the luminosity (1.6$\%$) and the pion misidentification as a $p_f$ (1.4$\%$). Although we do not perform a particle identification of forward-going particles, the contamination ratio of pions is small in the interesting kinematical region. Assuming a Poisson distribution for the number of observed events, the upper limit of $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$ in $\cos\theta^{\eta p_s}_{lab}<-0.9$ was obtained to be 2.2 nb/sr at the 90$\%$ confidence level.
[**Theoretical calculations.—**]{} We compare the obtained upper limit of $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$ with $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{theory}$ in $V_0=-20\;{\rm and}\;-100$ MeV cases. The expected excitation spectrum of the $^{12}$C$(\gamma,p_f)$ reaction was calculated within the DWIA as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fave}
\left(\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE} \right)^{\gamma+{\rm ^{12}C} \to p+\eta' \otimes {\rm ^{11}B}}_{theory}
&=& \overline{\left( \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)}_{lab}^{\gamma+p\to p+\eta'} \!\!\!\!\!\!\times R(E),\end{aligned}$$ at $\theta^{p_f}_{lab}$=6$^\circ$. We chose $W_0=-12$ MeV, which is close to the measured value [@ELSA_etap_trans2]. Here, $E$ is the excitation energy, $R(E)$ the nuclear response function, and $\overline{\left( \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)}_{lab}^{\gamma+p\to p+\eta'}$ the Fermi-averaged cross section of the elementary $\gamma+p\to p+\eta'$ reaction [@harada]. We used the center-of-mass elementary cross section, $\left( \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)_{c.m.}^{\gamma+p\to p+\eta'}$= 40 nb/sr in $\cos\theta^{\eta'}_{c.m.}<-0.9$ and $\sqrt{s}<2.4$ GeV, measured by the LEPS [@etapLEPS] and CBELSA/TAPS [@etapELSA] Collaborations, as an input to calculate $\overline{\left( \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)}_{lab}^{\gamma+p\to p+\eta'}$. In our experimental set up, almost all events are in this kinematical region even taking into account the Fermi motion. We calculated $R(E)$ by Green’s function as in Ref.[@nagahiro]. The calculation is decomposed into the $\eta'$ escape and absorption processes as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{decom}
\left(\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE} \right)^{\gamma+{\rm ^{12}C} \to p+\eta' \otimes {\rm ^{11}B}}_{theory}\!\!\!\!\!\! =
\left(\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{theory} \!\!\!\! +
\left(\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE} \right)^{\eta' abs}_{theory}.\end{aligned}$$ For comparison with experimental cross sections, we integrate the theoretical cross sections up to $E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}=50$ MeV, taking into account the experimental detector resolutions. The cross sections are averaged over $E_{\gamma}$=1.3–2.4 GeV, with the weight of experimental $E_\gamma$ distribution. The normalization factor $F$ is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f}
F = \left. \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{exp} \middle/ \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{theory} \right..\end{aligned}$$
[**Evaluation of ${\bf \textit{F}}$.—**]{} To evaluate $F$, we measured $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{exp}$ from the $\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + \eta' + {\rm X}$ reaction. We selected events with two photons and no other particles detected with BGOegg. The distributions of $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ and the excitation energy, defined as $E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\gamma\gamma}=MM[^{12}$C$(\gamma,p_f)]-M_{^{11}\text{B}}-M_{\gamma\gamma}$, are shown in Ref.[@qnp]. The resolution of $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ for $\eta'$ is about 18 MeV. The events within $\pm$70 MeV of the $\eta'$ invariant mass peak were selected as a signal sample, and the side-band events within $\pm$(70–140) MeV were subtracted in the cross section measurement. To ensure the quasifree $\eta'$ production process, we selected events satisfying $|E_{miss}^{\eta' p_f}| = |E_{\gamma} + M_{^{12}\text{C}} - M_{^{11}\text{B}} - E_{\gamma_1} - E_{\gamma_2} - E_{p_f}|<150$ MeV. We observed about 265 quasifree $\eta'$ events and the fraction of events in $0<E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\gamma\gamma}<50$ MeV was 6$\%$. The acceptance and reconstruction efficiencies were evaluated by generating a $\gamma p \to p_f \eta'$ reaction in a MC simulation taking into account the Fermi motion. The systematic uncertainty for the cross section was estimated to be 6.7$\%$. Most of the uncertainties are common to the measurement of the $(\eta+p_s)$ coincidence reaction except for the uncertainty of the $\eta'\to 2\gamma$ branching fraction (3.6$\%$).
![ The $E_\gamma$ dependence of $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{exp}$ (black circles) and $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{theory}$ (red lines) in $0<E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\gamma\gamma}<50$ MeV. The original $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' esc}_{theory}$ based on Ref.[@nagahiro] without using the Fermi averaging method is shown by the blue line. The theoretical calculations after the normalization are shown by green lines. []{data-label="0kara50"}](17_2_drawing20)
Because we use the average cross section over $E_\gamma=1.3-2.4$ GeV, we examined the $E_\gamma$ dependence of $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{exp}^{\eta' esc}$ and $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{theory}^{\eta' esc}$. Their shapes agree as shown in Fig.\[0kara50\] with black-circles and red lines, respectively. We note that, in Ref.[@nagahiro], the elementary cross section for a proton at rest is used in Eq.(\[fave\]) instead of the Fermi-averaged cross section. As shown by the blue line in Fig.\[0kara50\], the calculation without Fermi motion is divergent near the production threshold because of a large CM-to-laboratory transformation factor of the cross section. It is clearly unsuitable to use the calculation result without Fermi motion for describing the observed $E_\gamma$ dependence, and therefore we adopted the Fermi averaged cross section in Eq.(\[fave\]). By substituting $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{exp}^{\eta' esc}$ and $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{theory}^{\eta' esc}$ averaged over $E_\gamma$ to Eq.(\[f\]), we derived $F = 0.38\pm0.10{\rm (stat)}\pm0.03{\rm (syst)}$ and $0.35\pm0.09{\rm (stat)}\pm0.02{\rm (syst)}$ for $V_0=-20$ and $-100$ MeV, respectively. The green lines in Fig.\[0kara50\] show the calculated cross sections after the normalization. The difference between two $V_0$ cases is small; thus, they cannot be distinguished.
[**Comparisons.—**]{} The theoretical production cross section of the $\eta'$ bound states with $(\eta+p_s)$ emission can be described as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_etap}
\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{theory}\!\!\!= F \times
\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta' abs}_{theory}\!\!\!\times
{\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}\times P^{\eta p_s}_{srv}.\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs.(\[fave\]) and (\[decom\]), $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{theory}^{\eta' abs}$ in $-50<E_{\rm ex}-E_0^{\eta'}<50$ MeV were obtained to be 79.7 and 292.2 nb/sr for $V_0=-20\;{\rm and}\;-100$ MeV, respectively. ${\rm Br}_{\eta'N\to\eta N}$ is the unknown branching fraction to an $(\eta+N)$ pair in all $\eta'$ absorption processes. An $\eta'$ is mainly absorbed through either single-nucleon absorption ($\eta'N\to MB$) or two-nucleon absorption ($\eta'NN\to NN$) processes [@naga]. Here, $M$ and $B$ denote a meson and a baryon, respectively. For example, if the proportion of single-nucleon absorptions is 50$\%$ of all absorption processes and the $\eta'N\to\eta N$ process accounts for 80$\%$ of the single-nucleon absorption processes, ${\rm Br}_{\eta'N\to\eta N}$ is given by 50$\%\times$80$\%$=40$\%$ [@naga; @oset]. $P^{\eta p_s}_{srv}$ is the probability that an $(\eta+p_s)$ pair is emitted from a nucleus after final interactions of the $(\eta+N)$ pair in the residual nucleus. $P^{\eta p_s}_{srv}$ for $\cos\theta^{\eta p_s}_{lab}<-0.9$ was obtained by the quantum molecular dynamics transport model calculation [@QMD]. We used the same parameters as in Ref.[@kinoshita], which well reproduce the angular and momentum dependence of differential cross sections of $\eta$ photoproduction from carbon. In the case of the $\eta'p\to\eta p$ reaction, $P^{\eta p_s}_{srv}$ is 25.2$\%$, which is consistent with the measured transparency of carbon nuclei for $\eta$ ($\sim44\%$ [@ELSA_trans]) and protons ($\sim60\%$ [@p_trans1; @p_trans2; @p_trans3]). In the case of the $\eta'n\to\eta n$ reaction, $P^{\eta p_s}_{srv}$ is 1.2$\%$. By taking a weighted average with the ratio of $p/n$ in a residual $^{11}$B nucleus, $P^{\eta p_s}_{srv}$ for the $\eta'N\to\eta N$ reaction was deduced to be 12.1$\%$.
In Fig.\[upper\], the experimental upper limit of $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$ is compared with $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)^{\eta+p_s}_{theory}$ given in Eq.(\[eq\_etap\]) as a function of ${\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$. Here, only the statistical errors of $F$ are displayed with hatched patterns because most of the systematic uncertainties are common to the $\eta'$ and $(\eta+p_s)$ coincidence measurements. The uncertainties of the DWIA calculation itself and $P^{\eta p_s}_{srv}$ are small compared to the statistical uncertainty of $F$. We exclude $V_0=-100$ MeV in ${\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}>24\%$ at the 90$\%$ confidence level. The upper limit of ${\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$ in the case of $V_0=-20$ MeV is 80$\%$ at the 90$\%$ confidence level.
![ The experimental upper limit of $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$ at the 90$\%$ confidence level, and $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{theory}$ as a function of ${\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$. []{data-label="upper"}](upperlimitgraph20)
[**Conclusions.—**]{} We measured the $\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + (\eta+p_s) + {\rm X}$ reaction to search for $\eta'$-nucleus bound states. By selecting a kinematical region of the $(\eta+p_s)$ pairs, we derived the conditions almost free from other multimeson backgrounds. No signal events were observed after the kinematical selection, and the upper limit of $\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} \right)^{\eta+p_s}_{exp}$ from the $\eta'$ absorption process was found to be 2.2 nb/sr in $\cos\theta^{\eta p_s}_{lab}<-0.9$. From the measurement of the $\gamma + {\rm ^{12}C} \to p_f + \eta' + {\rm X}$ reaction, we found that the normalization factor, $F$, for the DWIA calculation is in the range of 0.23–0.50. The upper limit of ($V_0, W_0$), determined by the $\eta$-PRiME/Super-FRS Collaboration, depends on the cross section calculated within the same DWIA framework, but they have not evaluated $F$ [@gsi; @gsi2]. Our results indicate that their upper limit for $V_0$ is possibly influenced by the large ambiguity from $F$ as well as the unknown elementary $pn\to\eta'd$ cross section. While theories based on the U$_A$(1) anomaly predict a deep $V_0$, the present work indicates small ${\rm Br}_{\eta' N\to\eta N}$ and/or a shallow $V_0$. The measurement of other absorption processes such as $\eta'NN\to NN$ will help to differentiate these two possibilities.
[**Acknowledgements.—**]{} The experiment was performed at the BL31LEP beam line of SPring-8 with the approval of the Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute (JASRI) as a contract beam line (Proposal No. BL31LEP/6101). This research was supported in part by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT) Scientific Research on Innovative Areas Grants No. JP21105003, No. JP24105711 and No. JP18H05402, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted Research Grant No. JP19002003, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) Grant No. JP24244022, Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A) Grant No. JP16H06007, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) Grant No. JP19K03833, Grants-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows No. JP24608, the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant No. 2017R1A2B2011334, and the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan. We thank Professor T. Harada and Professor H. Noumi for discussions on the Fermi averaging method.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Observations of disk galaxies at $z\sim 2$ have demonstrated that turbulence driven by gravitational instability can dominate the energetics of the disk. We present a 1D simulation code, which we have made publicly available, that economically evolves these galaxies from $z\sim 2$ to $z\sim 0$ on a single CPU in a matter of minutes, tracking column density, metallicity, and velocity dispersions of gaseous and multiple stellar components. We include an H$_2$ regulated star formation law and the effects of stellar heating by transient spiral structure. We use this code to demonstrate a possible explanation for the existence of a thin and thick disk stellar population and the age-velocity dispersion correlation of stars in the solar neighborhood: the high velocity dispersion of gas in disks at $z\sim 2$ decreases along with the cosmological accretion rate, while at lower redshift, the dynamically colder gas forms the low velocity dispersion stars of the thin disk.'
author:
- 'John Forbes, Mark Krumholz'
- Andreas Burkert
bibliography:
- 'libJul3.bib'
title: 'Evolving Gravitationally Unstable Disks Over Cosmic Time: Implications For Thick Disk Formation'
---
Introduction
============
In the past decade, observations of galaxies near $z \sim 2$ have revealed compelling evidence for the importance of gravitational instability in their dynamics and evolution. A whole class of galaxies has been observed whose images are dominated by large luminous clumps of gas [@Elmegreen:2004gs; @Elmegreen:2005km; @Forster-Schreiber:2009gd], while measurements of the velocity dispersion of such massive star-forming galaxies have found values near 50 km/s spread across the entire disk [@Cresci:2009ta; @Genzel:2011dd]. This is difficult to reproduce with supernova feedback, which is strongest near the centers of galaxies where the star formation rate peaks, and which is only strong enough to drive velocity dispersions of $\sim 10$ km/s [@Joung:2009ec]. Other forms of stellar feedback may drive turbulence [@Thompson:2005vy; @Elmegreen:2010iw], but we will concentrate on the case where turbulence is driven by gravitational instability in the disk.
To a first approximation, the gravitational stability of a thin disk to axisymmetric perturbations is described by Toomre’s Q parameter $Q=\kappa \sigma/(\pi G \Sigma)$, where $\kappa$ is the epicyclic frequency, $\sigma$ is the 1d velocity dispersion, and $\Sigma$ is the gas surface density. The disk is unstable when $Q\lesssim 1$. The importance of gravitational instability in high redshift galaxies arises from the high cosmological accretion rates they experience, which drive up the value of $\Sigma$ [@Dekel:2009xh]. This instability gives rise to clumps of the sort observed at high redshift. The inhomogenous and time-varying gravitational field drives turbulence throughout the disk, regardless of the stellar density or supernova rate. The energy source for these random motions must ultimately be the gravitational potential of the galaxy, so gas is transported inwards.
Cosmological simulations with sufficiently high resolution [@Bournaud:2009jb; @Ceverino:2010mq] successfully reproduce disks in which gravitational instability forms clumps and causes the inward migration of material through galactic disks. Simulations of isolated galaxies [@Bournaud:2011fb; @2011MNRAS.417.1318D; @2011MNRAS.413.2935D] with initial conditions set such that $Q < 1$ provide a higher resolution view of such galaxies over a few outer orbits of the disk. These studies, while illuminating, are expensive, since they must solve the equations of hydrodynamics in three dimensions over cosmological times. The model we present here solves the hydrodynamical equations in the limit of a thin axisymmetric disk. Since quantities vary only in the radial direction, the problem is computationally much cheaper to solve, allowing us to explore parameter space efficiently, while still solving the full 1D equations of fluid dynamics instead of relying entirely on semi-analytic models [@Dekel:2009xh; @Cacciato:2011ab]
Past 1D models of gravitational instability in disks have a number of shortcomings. The rate at which mass and angular momentum are transported inwards is often parameterized and fit to the results of hydrodynamical simulations, rather than being derived from first principles. The rotation curves are only allowed to be either Keplerian or flat. Energy is frequently assumed to be instantaneously equilibrated, which neglects the possibility that it might be advected through the disk. The pressure support of the disk is often treated as coming from thermal pressure rather than supersonic turbulence. Few models take into account the stellar component of the disk, which becomes increasingly important as the galaxy evolves towards the present day, and can ultimately provide a variety of observable predictions.
In particular, the age-velocity dispersion-metallicity correlation of stars in the solar neighborhood [@Nordstrom:2004av], might well be explained by means of gravitational instability in high redshift disks [@2009ApJ...707L...1B]. The high velocity dispersion in these disks means that the population of stars formed in that epoch will start with a high velocity dispersion [@Burkert:1992th]. The gas disk cools as a result of slowing cosmological accretion rates, so younger stars are formed in a thinner, more metal-rich disk. This mechanism of thick and thin disk formation contrasts with the more common story that various secular processes and minor mergers heat thin disk stars into a thick disk [e.g. @1987gady.book.....B].
@Krumholz:2010kc (hereafter KB10) found an analytic steady-state solution to the full equations of fluid dynamics in the thin disk limit under the assumption that the disk self-regulates to maintain $Q=1$. To make the problem tractable analytically, however, they required a handful of simplifying assumptions: they use an analytic approximation to Q, which becomes progressively worse at lower redshift as the ratio of gas to stellar velocity dispersion deviates from unity. They also assume that the velocity dispersion of stars and gas are equal, and the gas fraction at all points in the disk remains constant in radius and time. In this paper, we relax these assumptions and include treatments of stellar migration, metallicity, the non-zero thermal temperature of the gas, and evolution of individual stellar populations. These improvements along with an efficient simulation code allow us to realistically evolve disks from high redshift to the present day at minimal computational expense.
In section 2 we derive the equations governing the evolution of the gas over time. Section 3 presents the derivation of the equations governing the stellar dynamics. In section 4, we derive the evolution of metallicity in the gas and stars. In section 5 we discuss how these differential equations are solved numerically, and in section 6 we present the results for fiducial parameters chosen to be similar to the Milky Way. We conclude in section 7. The code we describe, named GIDGET for Gravitational Instability-Dominated Galaxy Evolution Tool, is available at <http://www.ucolick.org/~jforbes/gidget.html>
Gas Evolution Equations
=======================
Basic Equations
---------------
We first give a brief overview of the derivation of the evolution equations for the gas column density $\Sigma$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma$. For more details see KB10. The equations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation for a viscous star-forming fluid in a gravitational field are
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} &=& -\nabla \cdot (\rho {\bf v}) - (f_R+\mu)\dot{\rho}_* , \\
\label{navierstokes}
\rho \frac{D{\bf v}}{D t} &=& -\nabla P - \rho \nabla \psi + \nabla \cdot {\bf T}, \\
\rho \frac{D e}{D t} &=& -P \nabla \cdot {\bf v} + \Phi + \Gamma - \Lambda, \end{aligned}$$
where $\rho$, ${\bf v}$, $e$, and $P$ are the gas density, velocity, specific internal energy, and pressure respectively. The star-formation rate per unit volume at an Eulerian point is $\dot{\rho}_*$, with a mass loading factor $\mu$ equal to the ratio of gas ejected in winds to the star formation rate. We will be employing the instantaneous recycling approximation (see section \[sec:metallicity\]), which approximates all stellar evolution as occurring immediately. Of the mass which forms stars, the gas will only lose the so-called remnant fraction, $f_R$, to stars, while the remaining $(1-f_R)$ will be immediately recycled into the ISM. The gravitational potential is $\psi$, ${\bf T}$ is the viscous stress tensor, $\Phi = T^{ik} (\partial v_i/\partial x_k)$ is the rate of viscous dissipation, and $\Gamma$ and $\Lambda$ are the rates of radiative energy gain and loss per unit volume.
For a thin disk, we formally have $\rho=\Sigma \delta(z)$ . By expanding the fluid equations in cylindrical coordinates, assuming axisymmetry and $v_r \ll v_\phi$, and dropping time derivatives of the potential and the circular velocity, we can obtain evolution equations for the gas column density and gas velocity dispersion. The evolution of column density is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial t} &=& \frac{1}{2\pi r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \dot{M} - (f_R+\mu)\dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF} \nonumber \\
\label{eq:dcoldt}
&=& \frac{1}{2 \pi (\beta + 1) r v_\phi}\left[ \frac{\beta(\beta+1) + r (\partial\beta/\partial r)}{(\beta+1) r} \left( \frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r} \right) - \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{T}}{\partial r^2} \right] \nonumber \\
& & - (f_R+\mu)\dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta = \partial \ln v_\phi / \partial \ln r$ is the power law index of the rotation curve, $\mathcal{T} = \int 2\pi r^2 T_{r\phi} dz$ is the viscous torque, $\dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF}$ is the star formation rate per unit area, and $$\label{mdot}
\dot{M} = -2\pi r\Sigma v_r = -\frac{1}{v_\phi(1+\beta)} \frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r}$$ is the mass flux. The second equality follows from the angular momentum equation, which is in turn derived from the $\phi$ component of the Navier-Stokes equation (equation \[navierstokes\]).
The derivation of the velocity dispersion evolution equation requires an equation of state, which we take to be $P=\rho \sigma^2$. The velocity dispersion has a thermal and a turbulent component. It is a reasonable approximation to treat both as contributing to the pressure so long as we average over scales much larger than the characteristic size of the turbulent eddies, which will be of order the disk scale height.
Taking the dot product of the velocity with the Navier-Stokes equation and adding it to the internal energy equation yields an equation for the total energy, i.e. internal energy, kinetic energy, and gravitational potential energy. By decomposing the velocity as $v^2 = v_r^2 + v_\phi^2 + 3\sigma_{nt}^2$, the kinetic plus thermal energy may be rewritten $$\frac{1}{2} v^2 + e = \frac{1}{2}(v_r^2 + v_\phi^2) + \frac{3}{2} \sigma^2$$ where the velocity dispersion is taken to be the quadrature sum of a thermal and non-thermal component, $\sigma^2 = \sigma_t^2+ \sigma_{nt}^2$. Neglecting the $v_r^2$ term as small compared to both $\sigma^2$ and $v_\phi^2$ in a thin, rotation-dominated, $Q\sim 1$ disk, employing radial force balance to set $\partial \psi/\partial r = v_\phi^2/r$, assuming a constant potential to set $\partial v_\phi / \partial t = 0$, and integrating over $z$ yields the evolution equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dsigdt}
\frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial t} &= &\frac{\mathcal{G}-\mathcal{L}}{3\sigma \Sigma} + \frac{1}{6\pi r \Sigma} \Bigg[ (\beta-1)\frac{v_\phi}{r^2\sigma} \mathcal{T} \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{\beta^2\sigma + \sigma (r \frac{d\beta}{d r}+\beta) - 5(\beta+1)r\frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial r}}{(\beta+1)^2 r v_\phi} \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r} \right) \nonumber \\
& & - \frac{\sigma}{(\beta+1)v_\phi}\left(\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{T}}{\partial r^2} \right) \Bigg] \end{aligned}$$ To fully specify the evolution of the gas, we need to set a rotation curve, a prescription for radiative energy gain and loss per unit area, and a procedure for finding the viscous torque. This will allow us to specify $v_\phi$, $\beta$, $\mathcal{G}=\int\Gamma dz$, $\mathcal{L}=\int\Lambda dz$, and $\mathcal{T}$. The rotation curve is specified at run-time, and $\mathcal{T}$ is set by our treatment of gravitational instability (see section \[torque\]). We set $\mathcal{G}=0$, which is equivalent to requiring that the energy balance in the gas is completely determined by the effects of the viscous torque and radiative loss. We assume that the loss rate, meanwhile, is proportional to the kinetic energy density per disk scale height crossing time, in agreement with the decay rate of turbulence observed in full 3D MHD simulations of supersonic turbulence [@Mac-Low:1998mk; @Stone:1998on]. $$\mathcal{L} \equiv \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{3}{2}\Sigma\sigma^2\right)^{rad} = \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{3}{2}\Sigma\sigma_{nt}^2\right)^{rad} = \eta \frac{\Sigma\sigma_{nt}^2}{H/\sigma_{nt}}$$ where $\eta$ is a free parameter of order unity. If the decay time is exactly the crossing time, $\eta=1.5$, since the kinetic energy surface density is $(3/2)\Sigma\sigma^2$. In dropping the time derivative of $\sigma_t$, we have assumed that the thermal velocity dispersion is unaffected by radiative dissipation, i.e. that the gas is isothermal.
$$\mathcal{L} = \eta \Sigma \sigma^2 \textcolor{black}{\kappa Q_g^{-1} \left(1 + \frac{\Sigma_*\sigma}{\Sigma\sigma_*} \right)} \left(1 - \frac{\sigma_{t}^2}{\sigma^2} \right)^{3/2}%\eta \Sigma \sigma^2 \Omega \left(1 - \frac{\sigma_t^2}{\sigma^2} \right)^{3/2}.$$ As the gas velocity dispersion falls towards the constant thermal velocity dispersion, non-thermal motions die away, the gas no longer dissipates its energy via shocks, and $\mathcal{L}\rightarrow 0$. The gas temperature used to calculate $\sigma_t$ is a free parameter of the model, but fiducially we assume $T_g=7000 K$, appropriate for the warm neutral medium of the Milky Way. At high redshift when the gas is virtually all molecular, $T\ll 7000 K$, but in that regime $\sigma_t/\sigma \ll 1$ anyway, even if we use the higher-than-appropriate gas temperature. The choice of $\sigma_t$ therefore has virtually no effect on the high-redshift evolution of the disk.
Gravitational Instability {#torque}
-------------------------
The stability against gravitational collapse of a self-gravitating disk is given by a Toomre Q-like parameter. Several such fragmentation conditions exist in the literature. We adopt the condition determined by @Rafikov:2001vp, wherein the stability of a multi-component disk is considered with the stars treated realistically as a collisionless fluid. $$% Q(q)^{-1} = Q^{-1} \frac{2}{q}\left(1 - e^{-q^2} I_0(q^2) \right) + Q_g^{-1} \frac{2 R q}{1+q^2 R^2}
Q(q)^{-1} = Q_g^{-1} \frac{2q}{1+q^2} + \sum_{i}\left[Q_{*,i}^{-1} \frac{2}{q \phi_i}\left( 1- e^{-q^2 \phi_i^2} I_0(q^2 \phi_i^2 \right) \right]$$ where $i$ indexes an arbitrary number of stellar populations, $\phi_i$ is the ratio of the ith stellar population’s velocity dispersion to the gas velocity dispersion, $I_0(x)$ is a modified Bessel function of the first kind, and the Q parameter for each component is defined by $$Q_j = \frac{\kappa \sigma_j}{\pi G \Sigma_j}.$$ The epicyclic frequency is $\kappa = \sqrt{2(\beta+1)} \Omega $, and $q= k\sigma/\kappa$ is the dimensionless wavenumber, where k is the dimensional wavenumber of the perturbation. Values of q, or equivalently k, for which $Q(q) < 1$ are unstable , and the q which minimizes $Q(q)$ corresponds to the least stable mode. It follows that if $Q\textcolor{black}{_{Raf}}=\mbox{min}(Q(q)) < 1$, the disk is unstable, while if $Q\textcolor{black}{_{Raf}}>1$, the disk is stable.
Computing the value of $Q$ requires a minimization with respect to $q$. Since $Q$ and its partial derivatives must be calculated frequently (see equation \[eq:torque1\] below), it is computationally expedient to use an approximate formula which does not require such a minimization. KB10 used $Q^{-1}\approx Q_{WS}^{-1} \equiv Q_g^{-1} + Q_*^{-1}$, as proposed by @Wang:1994ar, but this approximation becomes inaccurate when $\sigma_g/\sigma_* \lesssim 0.5$. @Romeo:2011re have proposed a more accurate approximation
$$\begin{aligned}
&Q_{RW}^{\textcolor{black}{-1}} = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\textcolor{black}{\frac{W}{Q_* T_*} + \frac{1}{Q_g T_g}} & \mbox{ if \textcolor{black}{$Q_* T_*\ge Q_g T_g$ }}, \\
\textcolor{black}{\frac{1}{Q_* T_*} + \frac{W}{Q_g T_g}} & \mbox{ if \textcolor{black}{$Q_* T_*\le Q_g T_g$ }};
\end{array} \right. \\
&W = & \frac{2\sigma_*\sigma}{\sigma_*^2 + \sigma^2}.\end{aligned}$$
$Q_{RW}$ and its partial derivatives are straightforward to compute and accurate over a wide range of $\sigma_g/\sigma_*$ and $Q_g/Q_*$.
Disks where gravitational instability dominates the dynamics are expected to be self-regulated near $Q=1$ [@Burkert:2010kr]. A disk with $Q\lesssim 1$ develops inhomogeneities in the gravitational field, which exert random forces on gas in the disk, driving turbulence. The ultimate source of this energy is the gravitational potential of the galaxy, so mass must move inwards. If the disk had $Q\textcolor{black}{\lesssim}1$, more mass would gather into inhomogeneities, thereby increasing the driving of turbulence, which stabilizes the disk, driving Q upwards. Meanwhile if $Q\textcolor{black}{\gtrsim}1$, mass transport slows even if the accretion rate does not, which tends to add mass and destabilize the disk. We therefore take as a hypothesis that $Q$ at all points in the disk at all times. Thus we can set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:torque1}
\frac{dQ}{dt} &=&\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \Sigma} \frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \sigma} \frac{\partial\sigma}{\partial t} \nonumber \\
& &+ \sum_i \left( \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \Sigma_{*,i}} \frac{\partial\Sigma_{*,i}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \sigma_{*,i}} \frac{\partial\sigma_{*,i}}{\partial t} \right) = 0. \end{aligned}$$ The evolution of the gas state variables $\Sigma$ and $\sigma$, derived in the previous section, depends on the viscous torque and its radial derivatives, so we can recast equation in the form $$\label{torqueeq2}
\frac{dQ}{dt} = f_2 \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{T}}{\partial r^2} + f_1 \frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r} + f_0 \mathcal{T} - F = 0,$$ where the $f_i$ are coefficients which can be read off from the gas evolution equations, and F encompasses all terms which do not depend on the viscous torque, including all stellar processes, discussed in the following section, and the rate of radiative dissipation. In particular,
$$\begin{aligned}
f_2 & = & -\frac{\sigma}{6\pi r\Sigma v_\phi (\beta+1)} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \sigma} - \frac{1}{2\pi(\beta+1) r v_\phi} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \Sigma}, \\
f_1 & = & \frac{\beta^2\sigma + \sigma (r \frac{\partial\beta}{\partial r}+\beta) - 5(\beta+1)r\frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial r}}{6\pi(\beta+1)^2 r^2 v_\phi \Sigma} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \sigma} \nonumber \\
& &+ \frac{\beta(\beta+1) + r (\partial\beta/\partial r)}{2 \pi (\beta + 1)^2 r^2 v_\phi} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \Sigma}, \\
f_0 & = & \frac{1}{6\pi r \Sigma} (\beta-1)\frac{v_\phi}{r^2\sigma} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \sigma}, \\
\label{forcing}
F & = & \textcolor{black}{\frac{\eta \pi}{3} G\Sigma\left(1 + \frac{\Sigma_*\sigma}{\Sigma\sigma_*} \right)\left(1 - \frac{\sigma_t^2}{\sigma^2}\right)^{3/2}} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \sigma} \nonumber \\ % \frac{\eta \sigma v_\phi \left(1 - (\sigma_t^2/\sigma^2) \right)^{3/2}}{3r } \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \sigma} \nonumber \\
& &+ (f_R+\mu)\dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \Sigma} \nonumber \\
& &- \sum_i\left( \dot{\Sigma}_{*,i}\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \Sigma_{*,i}} + \dot{\sigma}_{*,i} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial \sigma_{*,i}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Usually F will be dominated by the first term, the radiative dissipation of energy, which tends to destabilize the disk by “cooling” the gas, making $F>0$. In this case, one can interpret equation as requiring the torques to move gas such that it stabilizes the disk to counter the effects of this cooling.
Equation is a second order ODE requiring two boundary conditions. At the outer edge of the disk, we specify the accretion rate of gas onto the disk, $\dot{M}_{ext}$ according to a pre-calculated accretion history, typically a fit to average accretion histories from cosmological simulations [@Bouche:2010xz]. The torque is related to $\dot{M}$ through equation , so by rearranging that equation, evaluating quantities at the outer radius, and requiring a particular $\dot{M}_{ext}$, we obtain the outer boundary condition $$\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r}\right)_{r=R} = -\dot{M}_{ext} v_\phi(R) (1+\beta(R)).$$ Here $R$ is a fixed outer radius of the disk. This condition implicitly assumes that all gas is accreted at the outer edge of the disk, which is not an unreasonable approximation as long as gas accretes mostly through cold streams
At the inner boundary, we require that the disk and bulge exert no torques on each other, $$\label{eq:IBC}
\left(\mathcal{T}\right)_{r=r_0}=0$$ The inner edge of the computational domain is $r_0$, chosen for numerical reasons to be non-zero. Note that this boundary condition is somewhat different than the one used in KB10, namely $(\mathcal{T})_{r=r_0} = -\dot{M}_{ext} v_\phi(R)(1+\beta(R)) r_0$ for a flat rotation curve. This will approach the physically motivated value of equation in the limit that $r_0\rightarrow 0$, and was chosen to satisfy a regularity condition at the inner boundary. However, since our goal here is not to obtain an analytic solution, there is no need to impose such a condition. In practice we have experimented with both choices in our numerical calculations, and we find that the choice of inner boundary condition has negligible effects at radii $r \gg r_0$, which is the great majority of the disk.
Stellar Evolution Equations
===========================
In addition to the gas, we would like to know how stellar populations in the disk evolve with time. The stars will provide most of the observable consequences of the model, in addition to determining, along with the gas, whether the disk is gravitationally unstable. Among the questions we are interested in investigating is the cause of the age-velocity dispersion correlation, namely that older stars have higher velocity dispersions. Therefore it is useful to not only keep track of the stars as a single population with a single column density $\Sigma_*$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma_*$ (each a function of radius and time), but also to bin the stars by age, so that $\Sigma_{*,i}$ and $\sigma_{*,i}$ describe the ith age bin.
The overall stellar population, along with each sub-population, will be directly affected by two processes - star formation and stellar migration. The two effects may be added together, recalling that of the gas which forms stars, only a fraction $f_R$ will remain in stars after stellar evolution has taken its course, $$\dot{\Sigma}_{*,i} = f_R \dot{\Sigma}_{*,i}^{SF} + \dot{\Sigma}_{*,i}^{Mig}.$$ Evolution equations for each process will be derived separately below.
Star Formation
--------------
The rate of star formation will depend on the properties of the gas from which stars form. In particular, in a sufficiently large region of the disk, the star formation rate will be proportional to the molecular gas mass divided by the free fall time, defined to be $\sqrt{\textcolor{black}{3\pi/(32} G\rho)}$. In deriving the gas evolution equations, we assumed that formally the density was given by $\Sigma \delta(z)$, but this is of course an approximation. The disk will have a finite thickness of order the scale height (defined by equation \[eq:scaleheight\]), so we take the density to be $\rho = \Sigma /H$. Thus we can write the star formation rate density $$\label{sfr}
\dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF} = \epsilon_{\mbox{ff}} f_{H_2}\Sigma \sqrt{\textcolor{black}{32}G\rho\textcolor{black}{/(3\pi)}} =\textcolor{black}{\epsilon_{\mbox{ff}} f_{H_2} \Sigma\kappa \sqrt{32/3}\left(1+\frac{\Sigma_*}{\Sigma}\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_*}\right)^{1/2}}% \epsilon_{\mbox{ff}} f_{H_2} \left( \frac{G\Sigma^3\Omega}{\sigma} \right)^{1/2}$$ For molecular gas, the efficiency of star formation per free-fall time is $\epsilon_{\mbox{ff}} \textcolor{black}{\sim} 0.01$ [@Krumholz:2005vz; @Krumholz:2007qw; @Krumholz:2011dm], though this may be significantly higher or lower given observational uncertainties. Following progress made by @Krumholz:2008mj [@Krumholz:2009mj], @2010ApJ...709..308M have analytically approximated the molecular fraction of the gas, $f_{H_2}$ as a function of metallicity and surface density. We adopt this prescription with a slight alteration:
$$\begin{aligned}
f_{H_2} &=&\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
1 - \left(\frac{3}{4} \right)\frac{s}{1 + 0.25 s} &\mbox{ if $s < 388/203$} \\
0.03 &\mbox{ otherwise} \\
\end{array} \right. \\
%f_{H_2} & = &1 - \left(\frac{3}{4}\right) \frac{s}{1 + 0.25 s} \\
s & = & \frac{\ln(1 + 0.6\chi + 0.01\chi^2)}{0.6 \tau_c} \\
\chi & = & 3.1\ \frac{1 + 3.1 (Z/Z_\odot)^{0.365}}{4.1} \\
\tau_c & = & 320\ c\ (Z/Z_\odot) (\Sigma / 1\mbox{ g cm}^{-2}),\end{aligned}$$
where Z is the gas metallicity. We take the solar metallicity to be $Z_\odot = 0.02$, and $c$ encapsulates the effects of clumping in the gas when averaging over large regions. Since the model presented in this paper takes averages over large areas of the disk, we take $c\sim 5$, as determined in @Krumholz:2009lt. The modification from @2010ApJ...709..308M is that we impose a lower limit on $f_{H_2}$ of $3\%$, motivated by the observation that even extremely low total gas surface density regions form stars at a rate consistent with a constant H$_2$ depletion time [@2011ApJ...730L..13B].
Equation is used to update the stellar column density, and it also enters into the gas column density equation (equation \[eq:dcoldt\]) through the conservation of mass. At any particular time in a simulation, all but one of the $\dot{\Sigma}_{*,i}^{SF} = 0$. Formally we can write this as $$\dot{\Sigma}_{*,i}^{SF} = \dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF}\ \Theta(A(t) - A_{young,i})\ \Theta(A_{old,i} - A(t))$$ where $\Theta(x)$ is a step function, one for $x>0$ and zero for $x<0$, $A(t)$ is the age that a star will be at redshift zero if it forms at time t after the beginning of the simulation, and $A_{young,i}$ and $A_{old,i}$ are the boundaries of the ith age bin.
To update the stellar velocity dispersion of a stellar population, we require that the new kinetic energy of the population be equal to the old kinetic energy plus the energy of the newly formed stars, $$\label{energycons}
(\Sigma_{*,i} \sigma_{*,i}^2)_{new} = (\Sigma_{*,i}\sigma_{*,i}^2)_{old} + f_R (d\Sigma_{*,i}^{SF})\sigma^2$$ where we have assumed that the newly formed stars have the same velocity dispersion as the gas from which they form. Setting $\Sigma_{*,new}= \Sigma_{*,old} + f_R(d\Sigma_*^{SF})$, we can rearrange, solve for $\sigma_{*,new}$, and expand to first order in the small quantity $d\Sigma_*^{SF}/\Sigma_{*,old}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{*,i,new} & = & \sqrt{ \frac{(\Sigma_{*,i}\sigma_{*,i}^2)_{old} + f_R(d\Sigma_{*,i}^{SF})\sigma^2}{\Sigma_{*,i,old} + f_R (d\Sigma_{*,i}^{SF}) } } \nonumber \\
& \approx & \sigma_{*,i,old} + \frac{f_R (d\Sigma_{*,i}^{SF})}{2 \Sigma_{*,i,old}\sigma_{*,i,old}} (\sigma^2 - \sigma_{*,i,old}^2)\end{aligned}$$ Thus in the limit that the time step and therefore the density of new stars produced is small, we may use the definition of a derivative to write $$\label{eq:dsigstdt}
\left(\frac{\partial \sigma_{*,i}}{\partial t}\right)^{SF} \approx f_R\ \frac{1}{2\Sigma_{*,i}\sigma_{*,i}}(\sigma^2 - \sigma_{*,i}^2) \dot{\Sigma}_{*,i}^{SF}\ \ \ \ \mbox{for } \Sigma_{*,i}>0$$ We only need this derivative for its contribution to the torque equation (equation \[eq:torque1\]), in which it will always be multiplied by the term $\partial Q/\partial\sigma_{*,i}$. To actually update the quantity $\sigma_{*,i}$, we use the exact relation of equation , which holds even if $\Sigma_{*,i}=0$. Note that when $\Sigma_{*,i}=0$, this new population of stars will have no effect on the torque equation, since $\partial Q/\partial\sigma_{*,i} = 0$, i.e. non-existent stars do not affect the stability of the disk. Thus equation need only be employed when $\Sigma_{*,i}>0$.
Radial Migration {#sec:stmig}
----------------
In addition to star formation, stars are subject to radial migration. In particular, when $Q_* \lesssim 2$, transient spiral arms form which attempt to stabilize the disk [@Sellwood:1984mb; @Carlberg:1985ri; @Sellwood:2002kk]. N-body simulations [@Sellwood:1984mb] suggest that this heating is such that $$\label{eq:heating}
{\frac{\partial Q_*}{\partial t}}^{Mig} = \mbox{max} \left( \frac{Q_{lim} - Q_*}{T_{mig} (2\pi \Omega^{-1})}, 0 \right)$$ where $T_{mig}$ is the time scale in local orbital times over which this heating occurs, typically a few orbits, and $Q_{lim}$ is the value of $Q_*$ above which the stars are stable to spiral perturbations.
The time derivative may be re-expressed using the definition of $Q_*$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{product}
{\frac{\partial Q_*}{\partial t}}^{Mig} & = & \frac{\kappa }{\pi G} \left(\frac{1}{\Sigma_*} {\frac{\partial \sigma_*}{\partial t}}^{Mig} -\frac{\sigma_*}{\Sigma_*^2}{\frac{\partial \Sigma_*}{\partial t}}^{Mig} \right) \nonumber \\
& = & Q_* \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_*}{\frac{\partial \sigma_*}{\partial t}}^{Mig} - \frac{1}{\Sigma_*} {\frac{\partial \Sigma_*}{\partial t}}^{Mig} \right)\end{aligned}$$ time derivatives will depend on the mean velocity of stars in the radial direction, $v_{*,r}$, and so the imposed by equation will yield an ordinary differential equation for $v_{*,r}$
$$\label{eq:stMassCont}
{\frac{\partial \Sigma_{*,i}}{\partial t}}^{Mig} + \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r\Sigma_{*,i} v_{*,r}) = 0$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left[\Sigma_{*,i}\left(v_\phi^2+3\sigma_{*,i}^2+2\psi\right)\right]^{Mig} + & &\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left[r\Sigma_{*,i} v_{*,r}\left(v_\phi^2+3\sigma_{*,i}^2+2\psi\right)\right] &=& 0\end{aligned}$$
Expanding the energy equation using the product rule and employing the mass equation to cancel terms leaves $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{*,i}\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left[\left(v_\phi^2+3\sigma_{*,i}^2+2\psi\right)\right] + & &\nonumber \\
\Sigma_{*,i} v_{*,r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left[\left(v_\phi^2+3\sigma_{*,i}^2+2\psi\right)\right]&=& 0\end{aligned}$$ The time derivatives of $v_\phi$ and $\psi$ are zero by assumption, so expanding the surviving derivatives, setting $\partial \psi/\partial r = v_\phi^2/r$ and $\partial v_\phi / \partial r = \beta v_\phi / r$, and rearranging yields $${\frac{\partial \sigma_{*,i}}{\partial t}}^{Mig} = - v_{*,r} \left(\frac{(1+\beta)v_\phi^2}{3r\sigma_{*,i}} + \frac{\partial \sigma_{*,i}}{\partial r} \right)$$ The corresponding equation for stellar column density follows immediately from the continuity equation: $${\frac{\partial \Sigma_{*,i}}{\partial t}}^{Mig} =-\Sigma_{*,i} \frac{\partial v_{*,r}}{\partial r} - v_{*,r}\frac{\partial \Sigma_{*,i}}{\partial r} - \Sigma_{*,i} v_{*,r}/r$$ Substituting the transport equations into equation and imposing equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stmig}
2\pi r \frac{v_{*,r}}{v_\phi} \left( -\frac{v_\phi^2}{\sigma_*^2}\frac{(1+\beta)}{3r} - \frac{1}{\sigma_*}\frac{\partial \sigma_*}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{\Sigma_*}\frac{\partial \Sigma_*}{\partial r} + 1/r \right) \nonumber \\
+ \frac{2\pi r}{v_\phi}\frac{\partial v_{*,r}}{\partial r} =\frac{\mbox{max}(Q_{lim}-Q_*,0)}{T_{Mig} Q_*} \end{aligned}$$ This is a first order ordinary differential equation (since at any particular time we treat all variables as functions of radius only), requiring a single boundary condition which we take to be $v_{*,r} (r=R) = 0$, which means that no stars are allowed to migrate between the outer edge of the disk and the IGM.
Metallicity Evolution {#sec:metallicity}
=====================
To describe the evolution of the metal content, we begin by defining $\Sigma_Z$, the surface density of metals, so locally the metallicity of the gas is $Z=\Sigma_Z/\Sigma$. The continuity equation for $\Sigma_Z$ is $$\label{metalcontinuity}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Sigma_Z = \frac{1}{2\pi r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\dot{M}_Z -\dot{\Sigma}_{Z}^{SF} + S_Z$$ where $\dot{\Sigma}_{Z}^{SF} = \dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF} Z$ is the rate at which metals are incorporated into newly formed stars, and $S_Z$ is a source term for metals injected into the gas by supernovae and AGB stars. Note that, in writing this equation, we neglect transport of metals through the disk by either turbulent diffusion or galactic fountains. The inward flux of metallic mass is $$\dot{M}_Z = \dot{M} Z = -\frac{Z}{v_\phi (1+\beta)} \frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r},$$ which follows from equation \[mdot\]. The left hand side of equation \[metalcontinuity\] can be reexpressed in terms of Z by noting $\partial \Sigma_Z/\partial t = Z \partial \Sigma/\partial t + \Sigma \partial Z / \partial t$. Equation \[metalcontinuity\] then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
Z\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial t} +\Sigma \frac{\partial Z}{\partial t} &=& \nonumber \\
\frac{Z}{2 \pi r (1+\beta)^2 v_\phi} &\Bigg(& (1+\beta) \frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r} \beta /r - (1+\beta) \frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r} \frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial r} \nonumber \\
+ \frac{d\beta}{dr} &\frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r}&-(1+\beta) \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{T}}{\partial r^2}\Bigg) - \dot{\Sigma}_Z^{SF} + S_Z\end{aligned}$$ Comparing this with the previously derived gas surface density evolution equation, we can cancel most of the terms on the right hand side with $Z \partial \Sigma/\partial t$, leaving only $$\label{eq:zadvec}
\frac{\partial Z}{\partial t} = -\frac{1}{(\beta+1) r\Sigma v_\phi} \frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial r}\frac{\partial \mathcal{T}}{\partial r} + \frac{S_Z}{\Sigma}.$$ Inflowing gas has some metallicity $Z_{IGM}$, which we fix at $Z_{IGM}=0.1Z_\odot$ for the entire simulation. Simulations [@Shen:2011er] and observations [@Adelberger:2005zl] suggest that the circum-galactic medium is enriched to this degree as early as $z=3$.
For simplicity, we adopt the instantaneous recycling approximation, proposed by @1980FCPh....5..287T, to specify $S_Z$, the production rate of metals. First we recognize that metals are produced in supernovae and AGB stars. To a first approximation, we can assume that the lifetimes of stars that dominate metal production are much smaller than the timescales with which we are concerned in this paper, so metals enter the ISM at a rate proportional to the star formation rate. Not all gas which forms stars is returned to the ISM, since low-mass stars do not leave the main sequence in a Hubble time and even high-mass stars form remnants. Defining the remnant fraction $f_R$ as the fraction of gas forming stars which will end up not being returned to the ISM, the surface density of recycled gas appearing in the ISM is $(1-f_R)\dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF}$. Supernovae and normal stellar evolution will enrich a small fraction of this gas, namely $y_M$, the yield. The surface density of metal production is therefore $$S_Z = y_M \textcolor{black}{\zeta}(1-f_R)\dot{\Sigma}_*^{SF}.$$ Assuming a @Chabrier:2005wm initial mass function and a coarse approximation for the ultimate fates of stars as a function of mass, @2011arXiv1106.0301K compute $f_R=0.46$. Assuming in addition a production function, the fraction of a star’s initial mass converted to a given element, from , they compute a yield of $y_M=0.054$ for Solar metallicity stars. The effective yield may be somewhat smaller than this, since galactic winds driven by supernovae tend to eject material which is richer than average in metals.
The metallicity of a given stellar population can be updated The new metallicity is just an average of the old metallicity and the metallicity of the gas, weighted by the surface density of $$\label{eq:stzform}
Z_{*,i,new} = \frac{Z_{*,i,old} \Sigma_{*,i} + f_R Z (d\Sigma_{*,i}^{SF}) }{\Sigma_{*,i} + f_R (d\Sigma_{*,i}^{SF})}$$
Since the stars migrate through the disk with a mean velocity set by equation , the metallicity profile of a given population of stars evolves under a continuity equation for the metal mass, $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( \Sigma_{*,i} Z_{*,i} \right)^{Mig} + \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(r\Sigma_{*,i}Z_{*,i} v_{*,r} \right) = 0$$ Subtracting the continuity equation for total stellar mass , we obtain $$\label{eq:stzmig}
\frac{\partial Z_{*,i}}{\partial t}^{Mig} = -v_{*,r} \frac{\partial Z_{*,i}}{\partial r},$$ for the evolution of stellar metallicity. Note that radial diffusion of stars, only taking into account the mean velocity $v_{*,r}$. Radial mixing [@Sellwood:2002kk; @Roskar:2011rm] is required to explain the spread of metallicities in stars at a fixed age and radius, and undoubtedly leads to a shallower stellar metallicity gradient than what we obtain.
Numerical Method
================
Computational Domain
--------------------
In deriving the gas evolution equations, we assumed the disk to be thin and axisymmetric. Thus the disk is described by variables which change only in radius and time. We therefore define a mesh of radial positions $r_i$ with a fixed number of points, $n_x$, logarithmically spaced between the outer edge of the disk at a fixed radius R and a fixed inner cutoff $r_{min}$, usually chosen to be $r_{min}= 0.01 R$. Explicitly, $$r_i = R \left(\frac{r_{min}}{R}\right)^{1-(i-1)/(n_x-1)}$$ The highest spatial resolution is therefore given to the region with the shortest dynamical times.
Time, tracked in units of the orbital period at radius R, begins at zero when the simulations are started, typically at $z=2$, and reach a few tens of orbits at $z=0$, depending on the assumed radius and circular velocity. The size of the time steps are calculated by first determining all timescales defined by dividing each state variable at each position by its time derivative, picking out the minimum timescale, and multiplying it by a small number TOL, usually taken to be $10^{-4}$. Larger values of TOL lead to numerical instabilities near the inner boundary, which is especially susceptible to such issues because the local dynamical timescale in the disk is $\Omega^{-1} \propto r$ for a flat rotation curve. $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta t &=& \mbox{TOL} \times \mbox{min}_{i} \ \Big[ \frac{\Sigma}{\partial \Sigma / \partial t} (r_i), \frac{\sigma}{\partial \sigma / \partial t} (r_i), \nonumber \\
& & \frac{\Sigma_*}{\partial \Sigma_* / \partial t} (r_i) , \frac{\sigma_*}{\partial \sigma_* / \partial t} (r_i), \frac{0.01}{\mbox{TOL}} \Big]\end{aligned}$$ A maximum time step of $0.01$ outer orbits is imposed to prevent systems extremely close to equilibrium from advancing too quickly.
PDEs
----
At each time step, the code solves the equations in non-dimensionalized form (see appendix) in the following order. First, we solve equation to determine $v_{*,r}$ at all radii. The equation is of the form $\mathcal{H} = h_0 v_{*,r} + \partial v_{*,r}/\partial r$ with
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} & = & \frac{\mbox{max}(Q_{lim}-Q_*,0) v_\phi}{2\pi r T_{Mig} Q_*}\\
h_0 & = & -\frac{v_\phi^2}{\sigma_*^2} \frac{(1+\beta)}{3 r} - \frac{1}{\sigma_*}\frac{\partial \sigma_*}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{\Sigma_*}\frac{\partial \Sigma_*}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{r},\end{aligned}$$
The boundary condition specifies $v_{*,r}$ at the outer edge of the disk. Thus rewriting the radial derivative as a finite difference and employing a backwards Euler step, we can write an explicit update equation, $$v_{*,r}(r_{i-1}) \approx \frac{v_{*,r}(r_i) - (r_i - r_{i-1})\mathcal{H}(r_{i-1})}{1 - (r_i-r_{i-1}) h_0(r_{i-1})} ,$$ which we solve iteratively by starting with the specified value of $v_{*,r}(r_{nx}) = 0$ and moving inwards.
Using the value of $v_{*,r}$ along with the current values of the state variables, we calculate the coefficients of the torque equation (equation \[torqueeq2\]). To solve the resultant linear PDE, we employ a similar finite difference method, which approximates $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial\mathcal{T}_i}{\partial r} &\approx& \frac{\mathcal{T}_{i+1}-\mathcal{T}_{i-1}}{r_{i+1}-r_{i-1}} \\
\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{T}_i}{\partial r^2} &\approx& \frac{1}{r_{i+1/2}-r_{i-1/2}}\left(\frac{\mathcal{T}_{i+1}-\mathcal{T}_{i}}{r_{i+1}-r_{i}} - \frac{\mathcal{T}_{i}-\mathcal{T}_{i-1}}{r_{i}-r_{i-1}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Since we are using a logarithmically spaced grid, $r_{i+1/2} = \sqrt{r_ir_{i+1}}$. By plugging these approximations into the torque equation, the problem reduces to the inversion of a tridiagonal matrix.
The forcing term in the torque equation, generally acts to destabilize the disk, since its largest term comes from radiative cooling of the gas and cooler gas is more prone to gravitational collapse. The torque equation requires that the gravitational torques exactly counteract this effect to maintain $dQ/dt=0$. However, in the event that the forcing term in the torque equation becomes negative as a result of stellar migration and a reduced rate of cosmological infall leading to $\mathcal{L} \rightarrow 0$, we set it to zero so that the gas is not forced to destabilize the disk. This in turn allows positive values of $dQ/dt$. We do not allow the forcing term to return to the value given by until that value is again positive and Q has been allowed to rise and then fall back down to $Q=\textcolor{black}{Q_f}$. This allows the simulation to follow disks which stabilize at least temporarily, for example because of a lull in the cosmological accretion rate, and then return to a marginally unstable state. For the smoothed average cosmological accretion history used in our fiducial run, parts of the disk which stabilize remain that way because the accretion rate is monotonically decreasing.
With $\mathcal{T}$, $\partial \mathcal{T}/\partial r$, $\partial^2\mathcal{T}/\partial r^2$, and $v_{*,r}$, we can now evaluate the derivatives of the state variables. Where radial derivatives of the state variables or other quantities appear in the evolution equations or the coefficients of the above differential equations, a minmod slope limiter is used to evaluate them. In particular, if $L = (A(r_i) - A(r_{i-1})) / (r_i - r_{i-1})$ and $R = (A(r_{i+1}) - A(r_i))/(r_{i+1}-r_i)$ $$\frac{\partial A}{\partial r} (r_i) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
L &\mbox{ if $| L | < | R |$ and $LR>0$} \\
R &\mbox{ if $| L | > | R |$ and $LR>0$} \\
0 &\mbox {otherwise}
\end{array} \right.$$ where A is a stand-in for any quantity. This strongly suppresses noise on the scale of the mesh separation by zeroing out rapid variations in the derivatives.
With the time derivatives calculated at each point, we simply take a forward Euler step to update the state variables, namely $\Sigma$, $\sigma$, $Z$, $\Sigma_*$, $\sigma_*$, and for each age-binned stellar population, $\Sigma_{*,i}$, $\sigma_{*,i}$, and $Z_{*,i}$. Typical runs have time steps limited by the rate of change of the gas state variables near the inner boundary of the disk where the dynamical timescale is shortest. On a single processor, runs take about one day to complete if we numerically evaluate $Q(q)$ and its derivatives using the full @Rafikov:2001vp formalism. We can shorten this by an order of magnitude by using the approximation to $Q$ suggested by @Romeo:2011re. This approximation is much more efficient because $Q_{RW}$ and its partial derivatives may be calculated as functions of the state variables alone, without the need to minimize over a wavenumber or compute the partial derivatives $\partial Q/\partial \{\Sigma,\sigma,\Sigma_{*,i},\sigma_{*,i} \}$ numerically as required by the full Rafikov Q.
Initial Conditions {#sec:ic}
------------------
By assuming a flat rotation curve, fixed gas fraction, equal stellar and gas velocity dispersions, a simple analytic approximation to Q, and ignoring stellar processes (formation and migration), KB10 were able to compute an equilibrium solution to the evolution equations. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:equilibrium_sig}
\sigma &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \frac{G\dot{M}_{ext,0}}{\eta f_g} \right) ^{1/3} \\
\label{eq:equilibrium_col}
\Sigma &=& \frac{v_\phi}{\pi G r} \left( \frac{f_g^2 G\dot{M}_{ext,0}}{\eta} \right) ^{1/3}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\dot{M}_{ext,0}$ is the accretion rate of gas onto the outer edge of the disk at the start of the simulation, and $f_g$ is the gas fraction, assumed to be constant in radius. By assumption, $\sigma_* = \sigma$ and $\Sigma_* = \Sigma(1-f_g)/f_g$.
If we relax the assumption that the velocity dispersions of both components are identical and , $Q^{-1}\approx Q_g^{-1}+Q_*^{-1}$, we obtain a modified version of the equilibrium column density, $$\label{eq:initialize}
%\Sigma =\textcolor{black}{\frac{T}{Q_f}} \frac{v_\phi \phi_0 (1+\beta)^{\textcolor{black}{1/2}}}{\pi G r (\phi_0 + (1-f_g)/f_g)} \left( \frac{G\dot{M}_{ext,0}}{f_g\eta} \right) ^{1/3}
\Sigma = \textcolor{black}{\frac{T}{Q_f}} \frac{v_\phi}{\pi G r}\frac{\phi_0 f_g}{f_g(\phi_0 - 1)+ 1 }\left( \frac{G \dot{M}_{ext,0}}{\eta f_g} \right)^{1/3}$$ where $\phi_0 = \sigma_*/\sigma$ is a free parameter . To initialize the simulations, we use equations and . We then adjust $\sigma_*=\phi_0\sigma$ keeping $\phi_0$ fixed until $Q=\textcolor{black}{Q_f}$ exactly at each cell of the grid. Finally, we run the simulation with stellar processes turned off, i.e. $\epsilon_{ff}=Q_{lim}=0$, and with $\dot{M}_{ext}$ fixed to its initial value, $\dot{M}_{ext,0}$, to allow the gas to adjust to an equilibrium configuration. The greatest effect of this adjustment occurs at the inner edge of the disk, since these relations were derived using a different inner boundary condition and under a more stringent set of assumptions. Once the state variables are changing sufficiently slowly, we have found our initial conditions and therefore return $\epsilon_{ff}$, $Q_{lim}$, and $\dot{M}_{ext}(t)$ to their user-specified values.
Fiducial Model {#sec:fid}
==============
While our code is quite general, here we describe a simple model run using it in order to demonstrate its capabilities. In future work we will explore a much wider part of parameter space, using more realistic cosmological accretion histories.
Setup
-----
The formalism presented here requires a rotation curve, accretion history, and fixed inner and outer radii to be specified before the simulation is run. Since we employ a logarithmic computational grid, there is little cost to extending the outer radius out to $20$ (as opposed to $10$) kpc. This allows us to follow the transition of the outer disk from somewhat molecular at high redshift to atomic at low redshift. For the inner truncation radius, we take $r_0=0.01 R = 200 pc$. The exact value will affect the quantitative results within a few kpc of the center of the disk, but the exact results of the simulation in this region should be taken with a grain of salt anyway. Here $\sigma_*$ reaches a similar order of magnitude as the circular velocity, which we take to be independent of radius, $v_\phi(r)=220$ km/s, so our treatment of this region as a thin disk is not valid. Moreover, the inner boundary value for the torque equation, which we take to be zero - no torque is exerted by the region within the truncation radius on the disk - could easily be some small but non-zero value.
The accretion history employs the fitting formula from @Bouche:2010xz, namely $$\label{eq:cosmoAcc}
\dot{M}(t) = 7\ \epsilon_{in}\ f_{b,0.18}\ M_{h,12}^{1.1}\ (1+z)^{2.2}\ M_\odot/yr$$ where $M_{h,12}$ is the halo mass in $10^{12} M_\odot$, $f_{b,0.18}$ is the baryon fraction of the accreting matter normalized to $18\%$, and $\epsilon_{in}$ is zero for $M_{h,12}>1.5$ but varies linearly in time from $0.7$ down to $0.35$ between redshift $2.2$ and $1$. Before redshift $2.2$, $\epsilon_{in}=0.7$, and after redshift $1$, $\epsilon_{in}=0.35$. We choose $f_{b,0.18}=1$, and an initial halo mass which will grow to be about $10^{12} M_\odot$ at redshift zero. The formula governing the growth of the halo mass is given in the same paper, $$\dot{M}_h = 34.0\ M_{h,12}^{1.14}\ (1+z)^{2.4}\ M_\odot/yr,$$ so an initial halo mass of $M_{h,12}=0.27$ at $z=2$ produces a Milky Way-analogue galaxy with $M_{h,12}\approx1$ at $z=0$.
In addition to these functions, there are several free parameters controlling various physical processes in the disk. The star formation efficiency freefall time is $\epsilon_{ff}=\textcolor{black}{0.01}$. he mass loading factor of winds ejected from the galaxy in proportion to the star formation rate is $\mu=1$. The fraction of turbulent energy in the gas which will decay in a scale height crossing time is $\eta/1.5 = 1$. The time scale for a $Q_*=Q_{lim}-1$ population to approach $Q_*=Q_{lim}$ is $T_{mig}=2$ local orbital periods, and the value of $Q_*$ below which the stars are subject to transient spiral instabilities is $Q_{lim}=\textcolor{black}{2.5}$. For computational convenience, we use $Q\approx Q_{RW}$ to evaluate the disk’s stability. We will explore the sensitivity of the results to these parameter choices in future work. Here our goal is merely to demonstrate the method and its results.
Finally, to specify the initial conditions fully, one must choose an initial gas fraction and a ratio of stellar to gas velocity dispersion. Since the only way the stellar velocity dispersion can decrease is by mixing it with a lower-velocity dispersion population, it is reasonable to expect this ratio to be greater than unity. The simplified models of gravitationally unstable galaxies evolving from $z \gg 1$ discussed in @Cacciato:2011ab suggest that by $z\sim 2$, this ratio $\phi_0$ is a few, so we adopt $\phi_0=2$.
Before considering the radial structure of the disk, let us consider the evolution of the galaxy as a whole between $z=2$ and $z=0$. Our model does not allow the rotation curve or outer radius of the disk to evolve in time. However, over this redshift range, the circular velocity (assuming a constant spin parameter) will evolve by less than about $10\%$ [e.g. @Cacciato:2011ab]. Meanwhile, the position of the outer edge of the disk has a minimal effect on its evolution, so long as the outer edge of the star-forming disk is resolved. At larger radii than this, there is so little star formation that the gas is free to flow inwards at a constant rate and arrive at the edge of the star-forming disk unaltered by its passage through the HI disk.
![Time evolution from the beginning to the end of the fiducial simulation of the radially-integrated gas fraction, 2D Jeans mass at $r=8$ kpc, and the radially-integrated star formation rate.[]{data-label="fig:ts"}](ri32babe_pub_ts.eps){width="8.89"}
The primary changes in the disk are the steady decline in the accretion rate, and the steady formation of stars. For the fiducial model, $\dot{M}_{ext}(t)$ drops smoothly from about 13 M$_\odot/yr$ at $z=2$ to 2 M$_\odot/yr$ at $z=0$. This falloff is mirrored in the drop in total gas fraction, two-dimensional Jeans mass, and total star formation rate (figure \[fig:ts\]). The star formation rate in particular has almost the same numerical value as $\dot{M}_{ext}(t)$, starting off slightly higher and converging to the accretion rate. This is a reflection of the fact that the formed stars can only come from gas that started in the simulation or accreted at a later time, and the initial gas reservoir is depleted in about $1$ Gyr.
Stars, once formed, remain in the disk, while the mass of gas in the disk falls with the cosmological accretion rate. This drives a steady decrease in the gas fraction from its initial value, down to $20\%$. Referring to the equilibrium solution for constant gas fraction (equations \[eq:equilibrium\_sig\] and \[eq:equilibrium\_col\]), and noting that $f_g$ has dropped by a factor of a few, while the accretion rate has dropped by a factor of about $6$, we might expect $\sigma$ to decrease by maybe a factor of $2$, while $\Sigma$ might decrease by more than a factor of $3$.
The two-dimensional Jeans mass [@Kim:2002jm] is defined by $$M_{J}=\frac{\sigma^4}{G^2\Sigma}$$ Physically this represents the characteristic mass of a clump of gas which collapses under gravitational instability to form a cluster of stars. Its steady decrease with time reflects the cooling of the disk, which allows smaller regions to collapse. This is the phenomenon that explains why $z\sim 2$ galaxies contain giant clumps far larger than the biggest GMCs in present-day Milky Way-like galaxies. As a practical matter, this means that the typical size of star clusters steadily decreases, so, coupled with the fact that a clump of gas can form stars with at most tens of percent effiency, clusters with $M>10^6 M_\odot$ are unable to form in today’s quiescent spirals. In the fiducial model, $M_J \sim 2 \cdot 10^7 M_\odot$ at $r=8$ kpc. The decrease in the upper envelope of cluster mass with time is consistent with the arguments made by @Escala:2008cl.
![A direct comparison of the gas and stellar components as a function of radius at redshifts 2 (orange dotted), 1.5 (blue dot-dash), 1 (red dashed), and 0 (black solid). The gas cools and depletes, while the stars accumulate and heat. The expanding stabilized region of the disk is evident in the dramatic decrease in gas transport velocity, large $Q_g$, and $\sigma\rightarrow\sigma_t$. The outward movement of the region where stars form and migrate follows the peak in gas column density - $Q_*$ approaches $Q_{lim}=\textcolor{black}{2.5}$, the stellar metallicity gradient steepens, and the stellar scale height flattens. []{data-label="fig:rtsc"}](ri32babe_pub_rtsc.eps){width="8.89"}
Radial Structure of the Disk
----------------------------
We show the radial structure of our fiducial disk in figures \[fig:rtsc\], \[fig:rtsg1\] and \[fig:rtsg2\]. We can understand the qualitative behavior shown in these plots by considering the processes that drive the evolution. The two most important drivers are that $Q=1$ almost everywhere at all times, and that stellar migration tends to self-regulate the stars such that $Q_* = Q_{lim}$ - recall that $Q_{lim}$ is a free parameter, below which stars are subject to transient spiral instabilities. If $Q_*>Q_{lim}$, stars will form and drive up $\Sigma_*$, decreasing $Q_*$, while if $Q_*<Q_{lim}$, the stars will migrate inwards increasing $\sigma_*$ and hence $Q_*$. These two restrictions set $Q_g$ to a value somewhat less than $Q_{lim}$, depending on the local ratio $\sigma_g/\sigma_*$. These forces lead the simulations to form three qualitatively distinct regions: a stabilized stellar-dominated region, a star-forming region, and an HI disk.
![Radial profiles of quantities at redshift 2 (dotted), 1.5 (dot-dashed), 1 (dashed), and 0 (solid). The peak of $f_{H_2}$ and hence the star formation rate move outwards as the simulation evolves, as the gas further in has been depleted and cannot be replenished.[]{data-label="fig:rtsg1"}](ri32babe_pub_rtsg1.eps){width="8.89"}
The radial extent of the star-forming region is more or less set by where the gas is molecular, i.e. $f_{H_2} \approx 1$. This in turn corresponds to where the gas column density is larger than some metallicity-dependent critical value. For our fiducial initial conditions, the disk is molecular out to $r\approx 15$ kpc at $z=2$. Within this radius, almost the entire disk is vigorously star-forming. As time passes, a stellar-dominated central region begins to appear. This occurs because, towards the center of the disk, the gas has short local dynamical times and hence undergoes rapid star formation. In contrast, the inward mass flux of gas required to maintain $Q\approx \textcolor{black}{Q_f}$ is nearly independent of radius. Star formation depletes this gas as it moves inwards, so by the time it reaches the inner region of the disk, not only is there less gas than there would have been neglecting star formation, but it is being consumed faster. In order to maintain a constant $Q$, given that $Q_*\approx Q_{lim}$, the gas must maintain $Q_g$ close to constant. Star formation decreases the gas column density, so to keep $Q_g$ roughly unchanged, the gas velocity dispersion must fall proportionally. Thus the gas velocity dispersion drops fastest in the center of the disk.
By assuming a fixed gas temperature, we essentially set a floor on the value of $\sigma$. When $\sigma$ hits this floor, which happens first at the inner edge of the computational domain (see figure \[fig:rtsc\]), the radiative loss rate $\mathcal{L}$ approaches zero. The gas no longer loses energy through shocks, and therefore ceases to move inwards. In this situation that region of the disk ceases to become gravitationally unstable, and $Q$ is allowed to rise. Without any means of mass transport, the gas simply depletes as it forms stars. As the gas column density drops off, the stars dominate the local stability of the disk. Since they are constrained to $Q_* \approx Q_{lim}$ by our assumptions about stellar migration, the overall $Q \textcolor{black}{/T}$ of the disk in this region approaches $Q_{lim}$ as well.
The third qualitatively distinct region of the disk may be thought of as the HI disk wherein $f_{H_2}$ is low enough that stars form at a relatively slow rate, and gas flows in adhering even more closely to the equilibrium conditions of equations and , which were derived by neglecting star formation in KB10, than in the star-forming region. In essence, the gas is allowed to flow in with a constant mass flux at each radius, since star formation is not depleting the gas significantly. Depending on the initial conditions of the simulation, the column density of stars may be low enough or the velocity dispersion of the stars high enough that $Q_* > Q_{lim}$ for the duration of the simulation. In this situation the overall stability of the disk is almost exclusively determined by the stability of the gas, therefore the gas properties will correspond more closely to the equilibrium values with the gas fraction set to unity.
![Radial profiles of quantities at redshift 2 (dotted), 1.5 (dot-dashed), 1 (dashed), and 0 (solid). Within the star-forming region, the size of the Jeans mass decreases steadily, but increases at the center of the disk owing to the extremely low gas column densities. The two-component $Q$ value transitions from unity in the gas (both $H_2$ and HI) dominated regions to $Q=Q_{lim}\textcolor{black}{T=15/4}$ in the stellar-dominated component. []{data-label="fig:rtsg2"}](ri32babe_pub_rtsg2.eps){width="8.89"}
Looking at the values for $\Sigma$ and $\sigma$ near the solar circle (see figure \[fig:rtsc\]), we see that they are too high relative to their observed values of approximately $13 M_\odot/pc^2$ and $8$ km/s respectively, though not by more than a factor of two. Moreover, the column density of gas near the center of the disk is lower than observed in the Milky Way. Both of these problems stem from the fact that when $\mathcal{L}\rightarrow 0$, mass transport due to gravitational instability shuts off, whereas the real Milky Way has a number of mechanisms to transport gas into its central regions even when $\sigma\rightarrow \sigma_t$. The gas could be transported by a bar instability from larger radii, or the gas which we assume accretes at the edge of the disk could be accreting directly into the central region of the galaxy. Gas can also be recycled back to the ISM from stars. We assume this occurs instantaneously, so we neglect gas from stars which form farther out in the disk and migrate inwards. Nonetheless, our model qualitatively reproduces the structure of $z=0$ disk galaxies: a central stellar-dominated bulge, an extended star-forming disk, and an outer HI-dominated disk with very little star formation.
Stellar Populations
-------------------
As the stars form in the fiducial simulation, one can treat them as adding together into a single population for the purposes of evaluating the torque equation, while at the same time evolving a number of passive populations, binned by age, alongside the single population. Only the active population affects the stability of the disk, while the passive populations simply serve as tracers of the stars formed during a particular epoch. This in turn is a reflection of the state of the gas at that time, with the added effect of gradual stellar heating through radial migration.
Stellar migration occurs locally as the result of star formation, since it is star formation which drives $Q_*$ below $Q_{lim}$. It is therefore unsurprising that the stellar populations seem to have very similar column density profiles (see figure \[fig:rstpop\]) to the star formation rate profile shown in figure \[fig:rtsg1\]. The primary effect of migration is thus not mass transport inwards, so much as an increase in the velocity dispersion. This can be quite significant - the oldest stars near the center of the disk reach nearly $\sigma_{*,i} = 100$ km/s, which is significantly larger than the gas velocity dispersion at any time in the simulation.
The state of these populations near the solar neighborhood at $z=0$ is of particular interest, since these populations are well-observed and display well-known correlations. The velocity dispersions of stars in the solar neighborhood vary from about $17$ km/s for $1$ Gyr-old stars to $\sim 10$ Gyr-old stars with $\sigma_*\approx 37$ km/s [@Nordstrom:2004av; @Holmberg:2009gc]. The theoretical explanations for this correlation go back to @Spitzer:1953he and generally center around the scattering of stars by molecular clouds and spiral structure, which gradually heats the disk. Other explanations have included minor or major mergers [e.g. @Dierickx:2010jm; @Bekki:2011mm; @Qu:2011nm] and popping star clusters [@Assmann:2011pc]. All of these explanations are conceptually trying to do the same thing - form a thick disk from a thin disk. However, a gravitationally unstable disk subject to star formation and a decreasing accretion rate will start with a high gas velocity dispersion that will decrease with time. This will also naturally generate an age-velocity dispersion correlation.
The age-velocity dispersion produced in our fiducial model may be explained as the combination of physical effects.
![All stellar populations produced in the fiducial model at redshift zero, colored by their age with redder stars older. The ages are linearly spaced in time, so each population is about $1$ Gyr of star formation. The dotted lines represent the initial population of stars, which has only evolved via stellar migration over the whole course of the simulation. Each newer population is less massive, dynamically colder, and has a steeper metallicity gradient than its older analogues.[]{data-label="fig:rstpop"}](ri32babe_pub_rst.eps){width="8.89"}
![Properties of stellar populations as a function of their age at a radius of 8 kpc at redshift zero. Note that the stars comprising the initial condition of the disk are not plotted here. Each line shows the result of a different model: the fiducial model (black), stellar migration off (red), high constant accretion (orange), low constant accretion (blue), stellar migration off and low constant accretion (purple). The models with constant accretion history are dashed. Every simulation produces an age-velocity dispersion correlation via some combination of increasing $\sigma_{*,i}$ of existing stars or decreasing $\sigma$, which makes the younger stars dynamically cooler.[]{data-label="fig:stpop_sol"}](ri32_stpop_sol.eps){width="8.89"}
To better discern the importance of each of these effects, we can compare the stars produced by the fiducial model to runs with certain effects artificially turned off. The high and low constant accretion rate models shown in figure \[fig:stpop\_sol\] have $\dot{M}_{ext}(t)= 12.3 M_\odot/yr$ and $\dot{M}_{ext}(t) = 2.34 M_\odot/yr$ respectively, corresponding to the accretion rates at the beginning and end of the fiducial simulation. For simulations where migration is turned off, we plot the properties of the stars at their epoch of formation, rather than their properties at $z=0$. Thus the dynamical effects of migration as it affects the stability of the disk remain unchanged as compared with the fiducial simulation. Figure \[fig:stpop\_sol\] shows explicitly that the age-velocity dispersion correlation is strongly affected by the accretion history and the presence of stellar heating. All of the scenarios are able to generate some age-velocity dispersion correlation. Even the case with no stellar heating and a constant accretion rate produces one as the result of a fall in $\Sigma$, and hence $\sigma$, as a result of star formation.
Discussion
==========
Starting from conservation laws and simple assumptions about the gravitational stability of the disk, we have derived evolution equations for the radial profile of a two-component disk. Compared to semi-analytic models, this approach has the advantage that the vast variation in the state variables as a function of radius is resolved rather than averaged over the whole disk. This improvement comes with additional computational costs; however, these are not severe - even using the full Rafikov $Q$ and multiple stellar populations, the code can evolve a disk from $z=2$ to $z=0$ on a single processor in a few days, and using the @Romeo:2011re approximation to $Q$ reduces the computation time to under an hour.
This paper is primarily meant to introduce our methodology. However, the fiducial model demonstrates a key point which is often overlooked in galaxy evolution and studies of the thick disk, namely that thick disks need not be formed from thin disks. An age-velocity dispersion correlation appears in our simulation, not because of external perturbers, mergers, or , but because $\sigma$ decreases with time and newly formed stars induce transient instabilities in the disk [see also @Burkert:1992th]. Both of these processes are strongly dependent on the cosmological situation in which the disk finds itself, that is, its accretion history. Simulations of isolated thin disks which are gradually heated are therefore unrealistic, in the sense that they are missing the most important drivers of thick disk formation.
This approach has several further applications which we intend to explore in future work. For Milky Way-like galaxies, even modern chemodynamical models with sophisticated treatments of stellar migration and evolution rely on highly parameterized treatments of gas inflow in the disk [@Schonrich:2009dg; @Spitoni:2011rf]. If the gas evolves to keep the disk marginally gravitationally unstable, its movement in the disk is not this simple - it depends on the evolution of the full non-linear set of equations we have derived here. By accounting for the diffusion of stars in radius as the result of scattering across corotation resonances [@Sellwood:2002kk], our model could be extended to model the Milky Way in detail and compare directly observations of the metallicity gradient as a function of height above the disk [@Cheng:2011fe], the age-velocity dispersion correlation [@Holmberg:2009gc], the age-metallicity relation or lack thereof [@Edvardsson:1993am],.
Galaxy bimodality - the separation of galaxies into a blue cloud of star-forming galaxies and a red sequence of ellipticals - is often viewed as an evolutionary sequence. Blue cloud galaxies gradually accrete gas and smaller galaxies, which fuel star formation. Some of these galaxies will undergo major mergers, leaving red and dead elliptical galaxies. These early-type galaxies can subsequently undergo dry mergers, which extend the red sequence to include extremely massive galaxies. Beyond this canonical view, @SanchezAlmeida:2011cl have noted the existence of a significant population of red spirals.
By taking more realistic accretion histories from cosmological simulations, we expect that a certain fraction of disks in the course of their lifetimes will experience a period of low accretion during which they will exhaust their gas supply and become redder, only to return to the blue cloud with the resumption of higher accretion rates. Given a set of realistic non-smooth accretion histories, we may therefore be able to reproduce aspects of phenomenology from the local universe out to $z=2$ as semi-analytic models do, but with the added benefit of a physical treatment of the disk dynamics.
We thank M. Cacciato and A. Dekel for stimulating conversations, JF is supported by a Graduate Research Fellowship from the National Science Foundation. MRK acknowledges support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, from the NSF through grant CAREER-0955300, and NASA through Astrophysics Theory and Fundamental Physics Grant NNX09AK31G and a Chandra Space Telescope Grant. AB thanks his colleagues at the astronomy department at UCSC for their hospitality and support.
Non-dimensional Equations
=========================
For the purposes of implementing the governing equations in a numerical code, it is useful to non-dimensionalize the equations. To do so is straightforward, and basically amounts to rescaling lengths to the radius of the disk, velocities to the circular velocity, and mass fluxes to the initial accretion rate of gas from the IGM. We can make the following substitutions, following KB10: $r=x R$, $t=T[2\pi R/v_\phi(R)]$, $\mathcal{T} = \tau \dot{M}_{ext,0} v_\phi(R) R $, $\sigma_j = s_j v_\phi(R)$, and $\Sigma_j= S_j \dot{M}_{ext,0}/(v_\phi(R) R)$. Here the subscript $j$ may refer to gas or one of possibly many stellar populations. With these substitutions, the gas evolution equations and become $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial S}{\partial T} &=& \frac{(\beta^2 + \beta + x\beta')\tau' - x(\beta+1)\tau''}{(\beta+1)^2 u x^2} - (f_R + \mu)\frac{\partial S_*}{\partial T}^{SF} \\
\frac{\partial s}{\partial T} &=& -\frac{s}{3(\beta+1)S u x} \tau'' + \frac{(\beta+\beta^2+x\beta') s - 5 s' x (\beta+1)}{3(\beta+1)^2S u x^2}\tau' \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{u(\beta-1)}{3 s S x^3}\tau - \textcolor{black}{\frac{2\pi^2}{3} \eta S K_0 \left(1 + \frac{S_*}{S}\frac{s}{s_*} \right)\left(1 - \frac{s_t^2}{s^2}\right)^{3/2} }% - \frac{2\pi\eta s u ( 1 - s_t^2/s^2)^{3/2}}{3x}\end{aligned}$$ Primes denote partial derivatives with respect to $x$, and as with dimensional quantities, $S$ and $s$ with no subscript refer to properties of the gas. The dimensionless thermal gas velocity dispersion is $s_t$.
Employing the same procedure for the evolution equations of each stellar population’s column density, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial S_{*,i}}{\partial T} &=& f_R \left({\frac{\partial S_{*,i}}{\partial T}}\right)^{SF} + {\frac{\partial S_{*,i}}{\partial T}}^{Mig}, \\
\frac{\partial S_{*,i}}{\partial T}^{SF} &=&\textcolor{black}{ 8\pi \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} f_{H_2} \epsilon_{ff} K_0 \frac{S^2}{s} \sqrt{1+\frac{S_*}{S}\frac{s}{s_*}}}, \\ %2\pi f_{H_2} \epsilon_{ff} \sqrt{\frac{u S^3 K_0}{s x}}, \\
\frac{\partial S_{*,i}}{\partial T}^{Mig} &=& -2\pi y \left( S_{*,i} \frac{y'}{y} + S_{*,i}' + \frac{S_{*,i}}{x} \right) \end{aligned}$$ where we have explicitly separated the effects of stellar migration and star formation. The dimensionless radial component of the bulk stellar velocity is $y = v_{r*}/v_\phi(R)$.
Similarly, the velocity dispersion evolution equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial s_{*,i}}{\partial T} &=& \frac{\partial s_{*,i}}{\partial T}^{SF} + \frac{\partial s_{*,i}}{\partial T}^{Mig},\\
\frac{\partial s_{*,i}}{\partial T}^{SF} &\approx & f_R \frac{1}{ 2 S_* s_*} (s^2 - s_*^2) \frac{\partial S_*}{\partial T}^{SF}, \\
\frac{\partial s_{*,i}}{\partial T}^{Mig} &= &-2\pi y \left( \frac{(1+\beta) u^2}{3 x s_*} + s_*' \right)\end{aligned}$$ The change in velocity dispersion as a result of star formation is only an approximate relation, since it relies on a first order Taylor series expansion of the exact change in $s_{*,i}$, which in turn requires that $S_{*,i} \gg (\partial S_{*,i}/\partial T)^{Mig} dT$. This condition cannot be satisfied when a completely new population of stars is formed as the simulation crosses into a new age bin, at which time $S_{*,i} = 0$. Therefore we use the exact relation, $$s_{*,i,new} = \sqrt{\frac{(S_{*,i}s_{*,i}^2)_{old} + f_R (dS_{*,i}^{SF})s^2}{S_{*,i,old} + f_R (dS_{*,i}^{SF})}}$$ where $dS_{*,i}^{SF} = dT (dS/dT)^{SF}$
Finally we have the equations describing the transport of metals in the gas, $$\frac{\partial Z}{\partial T} = - \frac{2\pi}{(\beta+1)x S u} \frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial x}\tau' + \frac{y_M(1-f_R)}{S}\frac{\partial S_*}{\partial T}^{SF}$$ and in a stellar population, $$\frac{\partial Z_{*,i}}{\partial T}^{Mig}= -2\pi y S_{*,i}'.$$ The stellar metallicity change owing to the formation of new stars can be computed exactly as $$Z_{*,i,new} = \frac{(S_{*,i} Z_{*,i})_{old} + f_R(dS_{*,i}^{SF}) Z}{S_{*,i,old} + dS_{*,i}^{SF}}$$
These equations, given a torque $\tau$ and a radial stellar velocity $y$, fully describe the evolution of the system. To obtain these two quantities, we imposed conditions on the evolution of $Q$ and $Q_*$ (equations \[eq:torque1\] and \[eq:heating\]). In dimensionless form these partial differential equations are
$$\begin{aligned}
y' + y \left( - \frac{u^2}{s_*^2}\frac{(1+\beta)}{3x} - \frac{s_*'}{s_*} + \frac{S_*'}{S_*} + \frac{1}{x} \right) &=& \frac{\mbox{max}(Q_{lim}-Q_*,0)u}{2\pi x T_{mig} Q_* } \\
g_2\ \tau'' + g_1\ \tau' + g_0\ \tau &=& g_F\end{aligned}$$
where the coefficients of the dimensionless torque equation are
$$\begin{aligned}
g_2 &=& - \frac{s}{3 x S u (\beta+1)} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial s} - \frac{1}{(\beta+1) x u}\frac{\partial Q}{\partial S} \\
g_1 &=& \frac{\beta^2 s + s(x\beta' + \beta) - 5(\beta+1)x s'}{3(\beta+1)^2 x^2 u S}\frac{\partial Q}{\partial s} + \frac{\beta(\beta+1) + x\beta'}{(\beta+1)^2 x^2 u}\frac{\partial Q}{\partial S} \\
g_0 &=& \frac{u(\beta-1)}{3 x^3 s S} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial s} \\
g_F &=& \textcolor{black}{\frac{2\pi^2}{3} \eta S K_0 \left(1 + \frac{S_*}{S}\frac{s}{s_*} \right)\left(1 - \frac{s_t^2}{s^2}\right)^{3/2} } \frac{\partial Q}{\partial s} + (f_R + \mu) \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} ^{SF} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial S} \\
\nonumber
& &- \sum_i \left(\frac{\partial S_{*,i}}{\partial T} \frac{\partial Q}{\partial S_{*,i}} + \frac{\partial s_{*,i}}{\partial T}\frac{\partial Q}{\partial s_{*,i}} \right)\end{aligned}$$
Both partial differential equations require an outer boundary condition, which essentially specifies the flux of each type of material at the edge of the disk. The mass flux of the gas is specified by some accretion history $\dot{M}_{ext}(t)$, $$\tau ' (x=1) = - \left(\frac{\dot{M}_{ext}(t)}{\dot{M}_{ext,0}}\right) (1+\beta(x=1)),$$ while the flux of stars is set to zero via $y(x=1) = 0$. The torque equation also requires an inner boundary condition, which we take to be $\tau(x=x_0)=0$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Some fluids exhibit anomalously low friction when flowing against a certain solid wall. To recover the viscosity of a bulk fluid, slip at the wall is usually postulated. On a macroscopic level, a large slip length can be explained as a formation of a film of gas or phase-separated ‘lubricant’ with lower viscosity between the fluid and the solid wall. Here we justify such an assumption in terms of a prewetting transition. In our model the thin-thick film transition together with the viscosity contrast gives rise to a large boundary slip. The calculated value of the slip length has a jump at the prewetting transition temperature which depends on the strength of the fluid-surface interaction (contact angle). Furthermore, the temperature dependence of the slip length is non-monotonous.'
author:
- Denis Andrienko
- Burkhard Dünweg
- 'Olga I. Vinogradova'
title: Boundary Slip as a Result of a Prewetting Transition
---
Introduction
============
It is accepted in hydrodynamics that the velocity of a liquid immediately adjacent to a solid is equal to that of the solid [@batchelor.gk:1967.a]. Such an absence of a jump in the velocity of a simple liquid at a surface seems to be a confirmed fact in [*macroscopic*]{} experiments. However, it is difficult to obtain the same conclusion using [*microscopic*]{} models. It has been noticed that, even in case of simple liquids, the no-slip boundary condition is not justified on a microscopic level.
Therefore, the conventional condition of continuity of the velocity, or the [*no-slip*]{} boundary condition, is not an exact law but a statement of what may be expected to happen in normal circumstances. While the normal component of the liquid velocity must vanish at an impermeable wall for kinematic reasons, the requirement of no-slip can be relaxed. In other words, instead of imposing a zero tangential component of the liquid velocity at the solid, it is possible to allow for an amount of slippage, described by a slip length $b$. The slip length for a simple shear flow is the distance behind the interface at which the liquid velocity extrapolates to zero $$v_s = b \left[ \partial_z v(z) \right]_{\rm wall},
\label{eq:slip_length}$$ where $v_s$ is the tangential velocity at the wall, and the $z$ axis is perpendicular to the surface. The definition of $b$ is explained in Fig. \[fig:slip\]. It is clear that boundary slip is important only when the length-scale over which the liquid velocity changes approaches the slip length. Therefore, it is not surprising that the slippage effect has not been detected in macroscopic experiments. In microfluidic devices, however, where the liquid is highly confined, the boundary slip is important [@vinogradova.oi:1999.a].
![ \[fig:slip\] Definition of the slip length $b$ for a simple shear flow. ](slip_definition.eps){width="5cm"}
Indeed, water flow in capillaries of small diameter with smooth hydrophobic walls has been investigated and slip at the wall had to be postulated to recover the viscosity of water [@churaev.nv:1984.a; @watanabe.k:1999.a]. These results were confirmed by directly probing the fluid velocity at a solid surface using total internal reflection-fluorescence spectroscopy [@pit.r:2000.a; @tretheway.dc:2002.a] as well as double focus confocal fluorescence cross-correlation [@lumma.d:2003.a]. Several indirect methods were also used: the quartz-crystal microbalance (QCM) [@krim.j:1996.a], the surface force apparatus (SFA) [@horn.rg:2000.a; @zhu.yx:2001.a; @zhu.yx:2002.a; @baudry.j:2001.a], and the atomic force microscope (AFM) [@craig.vsj:2001.a; @vinogradova.oi:2003.a]. The magnitude of the slip length $b$ was sometimes greater than $100 {\rm nm}$ for partially wetted walls [@pit.r:2000.a; @zhu.yx:2001.a]. In some cases the shear rate did not affect the amount of slip in the observed range [@pit.r:2000.a; @vinogradova.oi:2003.a]; in others a strong dependence on the velocity was found [@horn.rg:2000.a; @zhu.yx:2001.a]. It was also shown that both surface roughness and strength of the fluid-surface interactions affect the wall slip [@churaev.nv:1984.a; @zhu.yx:2002.a; @vinogradova.oi:2003.a].
The no-slip condition can also be violated in more complex systems. Boundary slip has been suggested for polymer melts [@brochard.f:1992.a; @ajdari.a:1994.a; @brochardwyart.f:1996.a] and liquid crystals [@francescangeli.o:1999.a] (for the rotational motion of molecules).
The origin of such large slippages remains unclear despite considerable theoretical effort. On the theoretical side, molecular dynamics simulations have shown that the molecules can slip directly over the solid due to the fact that the strength of attraction between the liquid molecules is greater than the competing solid-liquid interaction [@sun.m:1992.a; @sun.m:1992.b; @bocquet.l:1993.a; @thompson.pa:1997.a; @barrat.jl:1999.a; @barrat.jl:1999.b]. In general, wall slip was found on non-wetted surfaces, i.e. when the contact angle is large. However, the simulation results were not entirely consistent with the experimental data, by predicting a much lower slip length [@cieplak.m:2001.a; @sokhan.vp:2001.a] and substantial slippage only at large contact angles [@barrat.jl:1999.b]. It has also been demonstrated that the surface roughness may both reduce [@cottin_bizonne.c:2003.a] and increase [@hocking.lm:1976.a; @ponomarev.iv:2003.a] the friction of the fluid past the boundaries.
Other ideas invoke the formation of a new phase at the wall. The possible source of the surface layer could be a gas (lubricant) dissolved in the liquid, forming bubbles nucleating at the liquid/solid interface [@ruckenstein.e:1983.a; @degennes.pg:2002.a; @vinogradova.oi:1995.a]. Experimental evidence for the formation of a wetting layer under flow has been found by Tanaka [@tanaka.h:2001.a; @tanaka.h.1993.c]. The boundary layer can have a lower viscosity than the bulk value [@vinogradova.oi:1995.b]. Tuning the size and the properties of this layer one can obtain large values of the slip length (see Fig. \[fig:geom\_bin\]).
![ \[fig:geom\_bin\] Slip length $b$ for a binary mixture. ](geometry_binary.eps){width="5cm"}
Indeed, in a sharp interface limit, when the width of the interface is much smaller than the width of the slab and the thickness of the boundary layer, we can neglect the structure of the interface. Then the problem is reduced to the shear flow of two phases ($s$ for “surface”, $b$ for “bulk”) with viscosities $\eta_s$ and $\eta_b$, respectively, and thicknesses $\delta$ and $l$, respectively (see Fig. \[fig:geom\_bin\]). Denoting the velocity profiles in the surface layer and the bulk by $v_s (z)$ and $v_b (z)$, respectively, and using stick boundary conditions at $z = 0$ and $z = l + \delta$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
v_s (0) & = & 0 , \nonumber \\
v_s (\delta) & = & v_b (\delta) , \\
v_b (l + \delta) & = & v_0 , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the second equation is the condition for continuity of the flow field at the interface between the phases, and $v_0$ is the velocity at the top of the slab. Furthermore, we use the condition of zero divergence of the shear stress tensor at the interface, $$\partial_z \left( \eta(z) \partial_z v(z) \right) = 0,
\label{eq:zerodivergenceshearstress}$$ or $$\eta_s v'_s (\delta) = \eta_b v'_b (\delta) .
\label{eq:velocity}$$ The solution in the bulk $$v_b(z) = \kappa v_0
\left( \frac{\eta_b}{\eta_s} - 1 + \frac{z}{\delta} \right),
\label{eq:vbulk}$$ with $\kappa = \left( {\eta_b}/{\eta_s}+{l}/{\delta} \right)^{-1}$, results in a slip length [@vinogradova.oi:1995.b] $$b = \delta \left( \frac{\eta_b}{\eta_s} - 1 \right) .
\label{eq:b_sharp}$$ According to Eq. (\[eq:b\_sharp\]) the boundary slip can be observed if the viscosity depends on the composition ($\eta_b \ne \eta_s$) and the less viscous fraction of the liquid wets the walls better than the more viscous one ($\eta_b > \eta_s$). It is also clear that there are two ways to obtain a large slip length. First, by having a macroscopically thick boundary layer, since the slip length has the same order of magnitude as the thickness of this layer. Second, by providing large values of the viscosity contrast $\eta_b / \eta_s$, e.g. for a gas layer [^1].
A more realistic description should allow for a prewetting transition [@binder.k:1983.a; @bonn.d:2001.a] for the liquid/gas or liquid/lubricant mixture and take into account the structure and the finite width of the interface region.
The aim of this paper is to include these effects and relate the slip length to the wettability of the walls, composition of the mixture, and thermodynamic parameters of the system. We show that the prewetting transition can give rise to a large boundary slip of the fluid by generating a thick film of a phase-separated ‘lubricant’ at the wall which has a lower than the bulk fluid viscosity. Indeed, if we choose typical values, thickness of the wetting layer (thick film) $\delta \approx 10 \rm nm$, viscosity contrast $\eta_b~:~\eta_s =
3~:~1$, we find $b \approx 20 \rm nm$, i.e. the prewetting film can indeed give a large slip length. This value can be further increased. Indeed, if the phase separation occurs upon cooling (heating), the thickness of the wetting layer increases with the increase (decrease) of the temperature: for a system with short-range forces in the vicinity of the wetting temperature $T_w$, the thickness diverges as [@bonn.d:2001.a] $\delta \propto - \ln \left(
\left\vert T_w - T \right\vert \right)$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:model\] we outline the approach that allows us to calculate the phase diagram, order parameter profiles, and slip length. Section \[sec:results\] gives a summary of the results. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\], we present some brief conclusions.
Theoretical Model {#sec:model}
=================
Phase separation phenomena in binary and polymer mixtures have been intensively studied by theory, experiment, and simulation. While the most detailed information is available for the static bulk behavior, much more interesting phenomena occur when studying the dynamics [@gunton.jd:1983.a; @bray.aj:1994.a; @wagner.aj:1998.a; @kendon.vm:1999.a], or the behavior near surfaces and in confined geometries [@binder.k:1983.a; @dietrich.s:1988.a; @binder.k:2003.a; @duenweg.b:2003.a]. The theoretical understanding of phenomena which combine both aspects (i. e. dynamics near surfaces) is still at its infancy [@puri.s:1994.a], while there are many experiments [@tanaka.h:1993.a; @tanaka.h.1993.c; @vinogradova.oi:1995.b].
Our theoretical approach splits the problem of shear flow of a binary mixture near surfaces into several independent tasks. First, we calculate the [*equilibrium*]{} order parameter profiles, completely disregarding the flow. Restriction to equilibrium thermodynamics allows us to introduce a change of ensemble: we fix the chemical potential difference (semi-grand-canonical ensemble) instead of fixing the composition, which is conceptually and computationally easier. The order parameter profile then results in a viscosity profile, which in turn allows us to calculate the stationary velocity profile by solving Eq. (\[eq:zerodivergenceshearstress\]), again using stick boundary conditions at both surfaces. It is not immediately obvious that this split–up is justified. We discuss the restrictions and underlying assumptions of this approach in Appendix \[sec:model\_h\]. Finally, the slip length is calculated from the stationary velocity profile.
Free Energy of a Binary Mixture {#sec:phase}
-------------------------------
To describe the bulk phase as well as the interface structure, ‘phase-field’ models [@binder.k:1983.a] are often used. In this approach the order parameter $\phi$ is introduced. For a binary mixture $\phi$ is a composition variable, defined as $\phi =
(n_1 - n_2) / (n_1 + n_2)$, where the $n_i$ are the number densities of the two species. This order parameter varies slowly in the bulk regions and rapidly on length scales of the interfacial width. The unmixing thermodynamics is described via a free energy functional.
Since the material is confined in a container in any experiment, phase separation is always affected by surface effects . To include them, appropriate surface terms responsible for the interaction of the liquid with the container walls are added to the free energy .
In the phase-field approach the semi-grand potential of a binary mixture is written as [@bonn.d:2001.a] $${\Omega}\{\phi\} = \frac{1}{a^3}
\int d V \left[ \frac{k}{2} a^2 \left(\nabla \phi \right)^2
+ f(\phi) - \mu \phi \right] + \Psi_s ,
\label{eq:grand_pot}$$ where $a$ is a normalization length of the order of the size of a molecule, $f(\phi)$ is the Helmholtz free energy density of the mixture, while $\mu$ is the chemical potential thermodynamically conjugate to the order parameter $\phi$, and $\Psi_s$ is the surface energy.
The explicit form of the Helmholtz free energy $f(\phi)$ varies depending on the type of mixture. However, the simple observation that the two phases must coexist implies that there are two minima in the free energy at the respective values of the order parameter. We here adopt the mean-field model for a regular (symmetric) mixture [@reichl.le:1998.a; @rowlinson.js:1969.a] $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
f(\phi)
& = & \frac{\chi}{4} (1-\phi^2) + \\
&& k_B T \left[
\frac{1 + \phi}{2} \ln \frac{1 + \phi}{2} +
\frac{1 - \phi}{2} \ln \frac{1 - \phi}{2}
\right] ,
\label{eq:f_rm}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term on the right-hand side corresponds to the excess energy of mixing. Note that this is one of the simplest models to describe unmixing; a more realistic description would need a more sophisticated function, which also takes into account a dependence on the overall density, which can vary along the profile (see Appendix \[sec:model\_h\]).
The term $\left(\nabla \phi \right)^2$ is needed to provide spatial structure to the theory: at phase coexistence, there are two bulk equilibrium order parameter values $\phi_+$ and $\phi_-$ with the same free energy density, $f(\phi_+) = f(\phi_-)$. Without the gradient term, a structure with very many interfaces between the $\phi_+$ and $\phi_-$ phase would be entropically favored. The term $(k/2)
\left(\nabla \phi \right)^2$ is the simplest one which penalizes interfaces. While this is justified near the critical point, where interfaces are very wide and the order parameter varies smoothly, a more realistic description at strong segregation (where the interface becomes rather sharp) would require higher–order gradients, too.
Surface Free Energy
-------------------
To describe the interaction with the walls we used the quadratic approximation for the surface energy [@bonn.d:2001.a; @flebbe.t:1996.a] $$\Psi_s = \frac{1}{a^2} \int \left[ - h \phi_s -
\frac{1}{2} \gamma \phi_s^2 \right] dS,
\label{eq:surface_energy}$$ where $\phi_s$ is the surface value of the order parameter and the parameters $h$ and $\gamma$ are referred to as the short-range surface field and the surface enhancement, respectively. The short-range surface field, $h$, is a measure of the attractiveness (or repulsiveness, if negative) of the surface to the component $1$. In real systems it can be of either sign and of any magnitude. The surface coupling enhancement, $\gamma$, represents the effect that a molecule close to the substrate has fewer neighbors than a molecule in the bulk; $\gamma$ is estimated to be small and negative. We have implicitly assumed that all surface effects are of short range, thus $f_s$ depends on the local concentration at the walls only. Because of long range van der Waals forces this is not fully realistic. However, for large enough wall separations the differences to the short range case are rather minor.
We introduce dimensionless units by setting $a = 1$, $\chi = 1$, and $k_B = 1$. Hence, energies are given in units of $\chi$, temperatures in units of $\chi / k_B$, and lengths in units of $a$. Furthermore, a value of $k = 1$ has been used throughout the calculations of this paper.
Euler-Lagrange Equations
------------------------
In thermal equilibrium the grand potential (\[eq:grand\_pot\]) must be minimal. Variation of this functional yields an Euler-Lagrange equation together with two boundary conditions. Due to translational symmetry in $x$ and $y$ direction, the problem is one-dimensional. In contrast to the situation considered in Introduction, we now focus on the case of [*two*]{} identical walls separated by a distance $L$, which is chosen large enough such that the two wetting layers do not overlap, and bulk behavior is established in the center of the slab. It is then convenient to choose the origin of the coordinate system at the center of the film. In this coordinate system the Euler-Lagrange equation and boundary conditions read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:euler}
&&k\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial z^2} + \frac{1}{2} \phi
- \frac{1}{2} T \ln \frac{1+\phi}{1-\phi} + \mu = 0, \\
\label{eq:boundary}
&& \pm k\left. \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z} + h
+ \gamma \phi \right|_{z = -L/2, L/2} = 0 .\end{aligned}$$ This boundary-value problem was solved using the relaxation method [@press.wh:1992.a]. In general, it can have up to three different solutions: one stable, one metastable, and one unstable. The relaxation method yields only the metastable and the stable solution. The unstable solution with the highest free energy has negative response function $(\partial \phi / \partial
\mu)_T$ and is eliminated by the relaxation method automatically.
To select stable solutions, we calculated the grand potential of the mixture, $\Omega$, for both stable and metastable solutions and chose the solution with the lowest grand potential. This allows the accurate determination of the phase diagram.
Velocity Profiles and Slip Length
---------------------------------
To calculate the velocity profiles, we assumed that the viscosity of the system is simply a linear combination of that of the individual components $$\eta(z) = \eta_{s} \frac{1 + \phi(z)}{2} +
\eta_{b} \frac{1 - \phi(z)}{2},$$ where the viscosity contrast between the two components has been chosen as $\eta_{s}:\eta_{b} = 1:3$. Of course, a more realistic description would have to introduce a more complicated dependence on $\phi$, and also take into account the dependence on the overall density. The stationary velocity profile is the solution of Eq. (\[eq:velocity\]) $$v(z) = v_{\rm w} c^{-1} \int_{-L/2}^{z} \frac{dz}{\eta(z)},
\label{eq:vel_profile}$$ where $$c = \int_{-L/2}^{L/2} \frac{dz}{\eta(z)},$$ and we assumed stick boundary conditions at the walls, $v(-L/2) = 0$ and $v(+L/2) = v_{\rm w}$. The value of the slip length was obtained by fitting the bulk region of the velocity profile (\[eq:vel\_profile\]) with a linear regression.
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================
Order Parameter Profiles and Prewetting Phase Diagram
-----------------------------------------------------
Typical order parameter profiles at the same value of the chemical potential $\mu = -0.002$ and a set of temperatures are shown in Fig. \[fig:profile\]. Only the profiles corresponding to the stable thermodynamic state are shown. The profiles have a well-developed flat region in the center of the film, which indicates that there should not be finite size effects for the chosen thickness of the slab ($L=200$). This flat region is important for defining the slip length, see Eq. (\[eq:slip\_length\]). This requires a well-defined linear velocity profile in the bulk.
![ \[fig:profile\] Typical order parameter profiles. Only the part next to the wall is shown. Thickness of the slab $L=200$, $ \mu = -0.002$, $\gamma =
-0.01$, $h=0.2$. For this chemical potential the thin-thick film transition occurs at $T \approx 0.35$. ](profiles.eps){width="8cm"}
In order to understand these profiles, one should note that the very small value of $\mu$, combined with the low temperature, implies that the system is rather close to bulk coexistence. Bulk coexistence, however, is characterized by two equilibrium values of the order parameter with large absolute value and opposite sign. The small negative value of $\mu$ singles out the negative order parameter value, while the absolute value is only slightly changed. Introducing the surface with preference of the other phase, one obtains a profile which is slightly bent up near the surface. The prewetting transition (see Refs. [@cahn.jw:1977.a; @schick.m:1990.a]) occurs upon increasing the temperature, and results in a sudden increase of the surface excess coverage, i. e. it is a first-order transition between a thin-film and a thick-film state. This jump is directly observed at a temperature near $T=0.35$ in the profiles of Fig. \[fig:profile\]. Taking into account the remarks made in the introduction and Eq. (\[eq:b\_sharp\]), we can already anticipate small slip lengths for thin films and large slip lengths for thick films (above the prewetting transition temperature). Since the thin-thick film transition is a first-order transition, one can also expect a jump in the slip length at the prewetting transition temperature.
![ \[fig:wetting\] Prewetting phase diagram calculated for $h = 0.2$, $\gamma = -0.01$, $L=200$. The solid line is the prewetting transition line ending at the prewetting critical point. Metastability limits of thick and thin films (spinodals) are shown with dashed lines. $\rm A$, $\rm B$, $\rm
C$, $\rm I$, and $\rm II$ are thermodynamic paths used in the text. ](T_mu_wetting.eps){width="8cm"}
To calculate the thin-thick film transition temperature, we followed the metastable solution up to its stability limit (spinodal) calculating the grand potential for both stable and metastable solutions. The transition line was determined from the intersection of grand potentials of stable and metastable solutions (thick and thin films). Both spinodals as well as the transition line are shown in a prewetting transition phase diagram, Fig. \[fig:wetting\]. The solid curve is the prewetting curve ending at the prewetting critical point and the dashed curves are spinodals or metastability limits of the metastable states.
Slip Length
-----------
![ \[fig:slip\_T\] Slip length vs. temperature calculated for several values of the chemical potential. $h = 0.2$, $\gamma = -0.01$, $L=200$. ](slip_length.eps){width="8cm"}
![ \[fig:slip\_mu\] Slip length vs. chemical potential difference. $h = 0.2$, $\gamma =
-0.01$, $L=200$. ](slip_mu.eps){width="8cm"}
![ \[fig:slip\_h\] Slip length vs. short-range surface field. $ \mu = -0.001$. ](slip_h.eps){width="8cm"}
The temperature dependence of the slip length for several values of the chemical potential (or average volume fraction) is presented in Fig. \[fig:slip\_T\]. As we anticipated, $b(T)$ has a jump at the prewetting transition temperature, when the thick film is formed (path $\rm I$ in Fig. \[fig:wetting\]). Before the jump the slip length is small and practically does not depend on temperature. After the transition the slip length decreases with the temperature increasing, even though the prewetting film gets thicker. This is because the bulk volume fraction (order parameter $\phi$) increases, giving rise to a decrease in the bulk viscosity (or, equivalently, viscosity contrast) (see Fig. \[fig:profile\]).
If we are above the prewetting critical point (path $\rm II$ in Fig. \[fig:wetting\]) there is no jump-like transition, but rather a smooth increase of the slip length with the temperature.
The dependence of the slip length on the chemical potential is shown in Fig. \[fig:slip\_mu\]. If the temperature is below $T_{\rm c}^{\rm
w}$ then the thin film is always stable and the slip length is small (path A in Fig. \[fig:wetting\]). Once we intersect the prewetting transition line, the thick film forms with the increase of the average fraction of the more wettable phase (values of the chemical potential close to zero) and the slip length jumps abruptly to higher values (path B in Fig. \[fig:wetting\]). Above the prewetting critical point $T_{\rm c}^{\rm pw}$ the slip length increases monotonically with the increase of the chemical potential (see path $\rm C$ in Fig. \[fig:wetting\]).
Finally, the dependence of the slip length on the surface field $h$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:slip\_h\]. It is clear that there is a threshold value of the surface field (contact angle) when the thick film is formed. At this value of the surface field the slip length increases abruptly. Below the threshold the slip length is small and practically does not depend on the surface field.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
To summarize, when the prewetting transition occurs in a flow experiment, it may indeed generate a strong slippage. Prewetting provides a mechanism of generating a macroscopically thick film at the wall. If this film has a lower viscosity than the bulk value, a strong slippage can be observed above the prewetting transition temperature. The value of the slip length has a jump-like dependence on temperature, concentration of the phase-separated liquid, and surface field (contact angle).
The mean-field model of wetting is rather general and can be applied to liquid-gas systems, binary mixtures, as well as incompressible polymer mixtures in the long wavelength approximation [@flebbe.t:1996.a]. This implies that the large boundary slip due to prewetting can be observed in all these systems.
Another goal of this paper is to stimulate accurate quantitative measurements of the slip length combined with measurements of the fluid wetting properties. This will allow to study the underlying microscopic mechanisms of slippage, and choose an adequate model for every experimental situation. In particular, it would be very interesting to measure the slip length as a function of temperature while the system undergoes a prewetting transition, with the adsorbed species having a lower viscosity. Our results indicate that in such a case the slip length should undergo an abrupt change, and we believe that this will be true beyond the limitations of our idealized model.
Hydrodynamics of Slippage in Binary Fluids {#sec:model_h}
==========================================
We consider a binary fluid (species $1$ and $2$) confined between two infinite parallel planes to a thin slab of thickness $L$. The plane normal is in the $z$ direction. We denote the mass densities of the two species by $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$, respectively, and introduce the linear combinations $\rho = \rho_1 + \rho_2$ (total mass density) and $\Delta \rho = \rho_1 - \rho_2$.
Concerning the thermodynamics of the system, we notice that the pressure tensor $p_{\alpha \beta}$ (Greek letters denote Cartesian indices) is anisotropic as a result of the finite size effect and the interface contribution to the free energy [@allen.mp:2000.a]. Since the system is fluid, there is no elastic response to shear, and hence $p_{\alpha \beta} = 0$ for $\alpha \ne \beta$. Furthermore, $p_{xx} = p_{yy}$ for symmetry reasons. Apart from this anisotropy, we assume that there is no further inherent anisotropy. In particular, we assume that all transport coefficients (interdiffusion coefficient, thermodiffusion coefficient, viscosities, etc.) retain their simple scalar nature as in the isotropic macroscopic bulk fluid. The viscous stress tensor is hence written as $$\sigma_{\alpha \beta}
= \eta \left( \partial_\alpha v_\beta + \partial_\beta v_\alpha
- \frac{2}{3} \delta_{\alpha \beta} \partial_\gamma v_\gamma \right)
+ \zeta \delta_{\alpha \beta} \partial_\gamma v_\gamma ,$$ where the Einstein summation convention is implied, $\bm v$ denotes the fluid flow velocity, while $\eta$ and $\zeta$ are the shear and the bulk viscosity, respectively. We assume that these parameters depend on density and composition, i. e. $\eta = \eta( \rho, \Delta
\rho)$ and $\zeta = \zeta (\rho, \Delta \rho)$.
We consider the situation that the fluid is weakly driven such that a shear flow in $x$ direction develops, with shear gradient in $z$ direction. In this limit of weak driving, it is reasonable to assume that no symmetry is broken except translational invariance in $z$ direction. The system remains translationally invariant in $x$ and $y$ direction, and gradients (of any quantity) occur only in $z$ direction. We also assume that the system is kept at constant temperature throughout, i. e. that the heat production is negligibly small. This is reasonable for small shear rates (note that the heat production is proportional to the square of the shear rate). In addition, the heat conductivity is quite large for many real fluids.
Under these assumptions, we seek a stationary solution of the hydrodynamic equations of motion [@landau.ld:1995.a] for the outlined geometry and symmetry. Since the velocity flow field $\bm v
= (v_x, 0, 0)$ is defined as the center–of–mass velocity of a volume element, the dynamics of $\rho$ is governed by pure convection: $$\label{eq:continuity}
\partial_t \rho + \partial_\alpha \left( \rho v_\alpha \right) = 0.$$ A stationary solution implies $\partial_t \rho = 0$, while our geometry leads to $\partial_\alpha \left( \rho v_\alpha \right) =
\partial_z \left( \rho (z) v_z \right) = 0$. The continuity equation is therefore identically fulfilled, and a non–constant mass density profile $\rho(z)$ is permitted.
For the density difference there is also interdiffusion: $$\partial_t \Delta \rho +
\partial_\alpha \left( \Delta \rho v_\alpha \right) =
- \partial_\alpha j_\alpha ,$$ where $\bm j$ is the interdiffusion current. Again, the left hand side vanishes identically for our flow. Furthermore, the interdiffusion current vanishes in the stationary state: $$\bm j = 0.$$ The (full nonlinear) Navier–Stokes equation is written as $$\partial_t \left( \rho v_\alpha \right) +
\partial_\beta \left( \rho v_\alpha v_\beta \right) =
- \partial_\beta p_{\alpha \beta} +
\partial_\beta \sigma_{\alpha \beta} .$$ For our flow, the left hand side vanishes identically, and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:psigma}
\partial_z p_{zz} & = &
\partial_z \sigma_{zz} = 0 \label{eq:constpress}, \\
0 = \partial_z p_{xz} (z) & = &
\partial_z \sigma_{xz} =
\partial_z \left( \eta \partial_z v_x \right),
\label{eq:velocityprofile} \\
0 = \partial_z p_{yz} & = &
\partial_z \sigma_{yz} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[eq:constpress\]) one sees that the pressure profile $p_{zz}$ must be constant, while Eq. (\[eq:velocityprofile\]) allows to obtain the velocity profile via integration, as soon as the viscosity profile $\eta(z)$ is known from the profiles $\rho(z)$ and $\Delta \rho (z)$.
We now turn to the constitutive equation for the interdiffusion current $\bm j$. In non–equilibrium thermodynamics, the dissipative currents are assumed to be linear in the gradients of the intensive thermodynamic variables. A binary system has three independent thermodynamic variables, for which we can take any appropriate set. For our purposes it is particularly useful to choose the pressure $p$, the temperature $T$, and the chemical potential $\mu$, which is defined as the variable which is thermodynamically conjugate to the order parameter $\phi = (n_1 - n_2) / (n_1 + n_2)$, where the $n_i$ denote the particle number densities (see main text). Macroscopically, the constitutive equation would thus read $$j_\alpha = - \Gamma_1 \partial_\alpha \mu
- \Gamma_2 \partial_\alpha T
- \Gamma_3 \partial_\alpha p ,$$ where $\Gamma_i$ are suitable scalar Onsager coefficients. Note that the pressure gradient may appear since $\mu$ is not the variable conjugate to $\Delta \rho / \rho$ (which is often used in the literature [@landau.ld:1995.a]), but rather to $\phi$. We now generalize this equation to the case of an anisotropic pressure tensor, but retain the scalar nature of the Onsager coefficients in accordance with our assumptions (similar to what is done in model H [@kendon.vm:2001.a; @zhang.zh:2001.a]). We thus find $$j_\alpha = - \Gamma_1 \partial_\alpha \mu
- \Gamma_2 \partial_\alpha T
- \Gamma_3 \partial_\beta p_{\alpha \beta} ,$$ or, taking into account that there are only gradients in $z$ direction, and that $\bm j$ vanishes, $$0 = - \Gamma_1 \partial_z \mu
- \Gamma_2 \partial_z T
- \Gamma_3 \partial_z p_{zz} .$$ Now, $\partial_z T$ vanishes due to our assumption of an isothermal system, while $\partial_z p_{zz}$ vanishes as a consequence of the Navier–Stokes equation (see Eq. \[eq:constpress\]). For this reason, the profile of the chemical potential, $\mu (z)$, must be a constant, too.
In summary, we find that under the given assumptions (isothermal system, isotropic Onsager coefficients, weak driving) the conditions for the stationary state are identical to those in thermal equilibrium (all intensive variables must have constant profiles). This permits to first calculate the density profiles just as equilibrium profiles, completely disregarding the flow, and then, in a second step, to calculate the velocity profile by solving Eq. (\[eq:velocityprofile\]). This has been done in the main text for a simple model for the unmixing thermodynamics, and a linear dependence of the viscosity $\eta$ on the order parameter. Note also that the restriction to pure equilibrium thermodynamics allows us to introduce a change of ensemble: instead of considering the composition as fixed, we rather view $\mu$ as fixed (semi–grand ensemble), which is conceptually and computationally easier. Of course, a quantitative comparison with experiments is not possible for such simple models; one would have to use much more sophisticated free energy functionals, and a better model for the concentration dependence of $\eta$ as well. Furthermore, one should expect that at moderate shear rates only hydrodynamic instabilities (e. g. bubble formation near the surfaces) should occur which invalidate the assumption of translational invariance in $x$ and $y$ direction.
We are grateful to R. Evans, F. Feuillebois, K. Kremer, M. Müller, and J. Vollmer for useful discussions. DA acknowledges the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
[62]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****(), ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, in **, edited by (, ), vol. , pp. .
, ****, ().
, , , in **, edited by (, ), vol. , p. .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, in **, edited by (, ), vol. , p. .
, , , ****, ().
, , , eds., ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, in **, edited by (, ), p. .
, ** (, , ).
, ** (, , ), ed.
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ** (, , ), ed.
, ****, ().
, **, vol. of ** (, , ).
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
[^1]: when the gas is in the Knudsen regime, the slip length does not depend on the thickness of the boundary layer [@degennes.pg:2002.a].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Pierre-Henri Chavanis'
- Bruno Denet
- Martine Le Berre
- 'Yves Pomeau .'
title: 'Supernova implosion-explosion in the light of catastrophe theory'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In theoretical papers, the sudden death of massive stars is associated to at least two different processes, depending essentially on their mass (and secondarily on their composition, rotation speed...). Stars with masses in the range of $8-40\, M_{\odot}$ die by a supernova phenomenon, which means that they partially explode. This phenomenon is presently described as an initial collapse toward the center of the star, *followed by* a violent expulsion of the outer layers of the star, leading to the observed supernovae. The death of more massive stars, or hypernovae, is believed to be a total collapse of the star into a black hole, without explosion (or a very faint one) but accompanied by gamma ray bursts. Although those phenomena are the most spectacular ones displayed to us in the Universe, their understanding remains a challenge. Among the many unsolved problems, we focus here on core-collapsing supernovae which go with the emission of matter and radiation by explosion. The collapse, which is not directly observed, is a phenomenon which has been the subject of many theoretical studies since several decades, including more and more detailed physics, although the observed explosion is still a controversial topic because it requires to explain how to reverse the velocity field of the first stage collapse. Despite extensive hydrodynamical simulations, the reversal of the motion from inward (collapse or [*[im]{}*]{}plosion) to outward (the observed [*[ex]{}*]{}plosion of supernovae) is not yet explained because it requires very large outward directed forces to turn the tide. According to most works on core collapse supernovae, this reversal is due to a stiffening of the equation of state at the center, which stops the collapse and leads to a bounce. An outward propagating shock is created at this moment but, typically, in numerical studies this shock stalls at some definite radius except if it is revived by some mechanism (see [@Bethe] and more recently [@Burrows] with references herein). Neutrino heating is often invoked but numerical simulations have shown that this is not generally sufficient to produce an explosion. More recently, 3D hydrodynamic instabilities have been discussed but they are still highly controversial. In summary, the revival of the stalled accretion shock remains an unexplained process since $1980$ and, as written by Burrows [@Burrows], the understanding of these phenomena is “in an unsatisfactory state of affairs" and could remain so until the state of nuclear matter inside a star can be reproduced on Earth or a close enough (but not too close!) supernova is observed.
In the present work we use the same approach as in [@epje] (Paper I) where we definitely do not consider the immensely complex nuclear processes taking place in a star, but we propose to describe the star as a dynamical system subject to a loss of stability just before it dies. The starting point of our theory is the fact that stars die abruptly in a matter of seconds while they evolve on a very long time, in the billion years range. Similar stability losses with very different time scales occur in other dynamical systems in nature. The difference of time scales was recently proposed as a tool for predicting natural catastrophes before they happen, because it has been shown that one may define in certain cases a precursor time which stands in between the very short and very long time scales [@earthquake; @creep]. It was shown that this precursor time exists for systems loosing their stability via a *dynamical* saddle-node bifurcation, dynamical in the sense that the crossing of the bifurcation results from a slow sweeping of the bifurcation across a saddle-node, that requires a parameter changing slowly with time. This time dependence of the parameter can be hidden into the original equations as in the case of creeping of soft solids and sleep-wake transitions. The validity of this approach was confirmed [@precursor] by experiments and by mathematical models consisting in coupled ordinary differential equations (ODE)’s (the nature of the bifurcation in the case of earthquakes is still an open question [@chua1; @chua2]). In these studies, a universal equation was derived for the order parameter close to the bifurcation, which is first order in time because these systems are dissipative and reduce to the van der Pol equation in the relaxation limit. In the case of supernovae we may anticipate that they likely belong to the class of dynamical catastrophes because of the very different time scales involved, but we expect that the universal equation describing the slow-fast transition should be of second order in time because the system is non-dissipative (we consider compressible inviscid fluids, at least in the early stage of the dynamics). Therefore, the normal form should be associated to a saddle-center bifurcation [^1] in place of a saddle-node. Moreover, we expect to obtain spatial information like density and velocity profiles at the critical point, in addition to the time evolution of the amplitude, because our models consist in coupled partial differential equations (PDE)’s.
To describe the star, we use here, as in Paper I, simple fluid mechanical models based on the Euler-Poisson equations (with gravity) and a particular equation of state. We show first that the equilibrium state of such a star may undergo a saddle-center bifurcation. Then, we study the dynamical solution close to the critical point in the weakly nonlinear regime where we derive the normal form. Finally, we describe the strongly nonlinear regime where we show that the solution displays a self-similar behavior. What differs here from Paper I concerns the choice of the time dependent parameter. While in Paper I we considered a fluid with temperature $T(t)$ slowly decreasing with time, here we consider that the control parameter is the energy $E(t)$. This amounts to going from a canonical description (given temperature) to a microcanonical one (given energy). The interesting result is that this simple change of thermodynamical ensemble leads to very different dynamics, as pointed out in previous studies concerning phase transitions in self-gravitating $N$-body systems (see the review in [@can-microcan]). These studies were launched in view of applications to astrophysics where galaxies, globular clusters, self-gravitating dust gas (supposed to be at the origin of planet formation), and fermions gases (like electrons in white dwarfs, neutrons in neutrons stars, or massive neutrinos in dark matter models) are examples of self-gravitating systems. Using tools of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, it was found that very different dynamics characterize canonical and microcanonical ensembles, especially in the vicinity of phase transitions. In general, a single collapsed core is formed in the canonical case, whereas a collapsed core surrounded by a halo is formed in the microcanonical case. Therefore, a question naturally arises: what should be obtained with the fluid model of Paper I when passing from the canonical description which leads to a total collapse of the star with a growing singularity at its core, to the microcanonical one?
Following the same procedure as in Paper I, we show that the microcanonical Euler-Poisson (MEP) model provides some generic properties that are identical to those of the canonical Euler-Poisson (CEP) model, but there also exist very important differences that drastically change the outcome. We show first that the loss of equilibrium occurs here via a saddle-center bifurcation, as in Paper I. In both models, the bifurcating solution reduces to the Painlevé I equation which describes the time dependence of the amplitude of the spatial mode in the weakly nonlinear regime that we call the Painlevé regime although Painlevé equations were neither derived nor studied in the context of bifurcation theory before our work to the best of our knowledge. During this regime, the important difference between the canonical and the microcanonical models concerns the radial dependence of the neutral mode (in particular the velocity field) which reflects the loss of balance between the inward pull of self-gravity and the outward pull of pressure. This loss of balance (which [*a priori*]{} depends on the location in the star) is global. Therefore, if the spatial profile of the velocity displays different directions, it will remain so, at least in the early stage of the Painlevé regime. In Paper I, the gravity was found to be dominant everywhere in the star with respect to the pressure, whereas here the gravity is not dominant everywhere. That gives different orientations of the radial velocity as a function of the radius. More precisely, we show that the microcanonical situation turns the all inward-going velocity field (found in the canonical case, see Paper I) into a velocity directed inward near the center of the star and outward in the rest of the star. This shows that in a simple model, fair to study because of the many uncertainties on what [*really*]{} happens in supernovae, one somehow gets rid of the difficulty of reversing an inward collapse of the star. Here, the early stage dynamics does already show a region where an outward going velocity motion is formed from the very beginning of the supernova process. Moreover, as soon as matter flows outward, the attraction of the outer shell by the core gets smaller, and is unable to reverse the outward motion as we numerically observe.
We use, as in Paper I, an equation of state of the form $P(r,t)=T(t)g[\rho(r,t)]$, where $P$ is the pressure and $r$ the radial distance from the center of the star. This equation of state characterizes a barotropic system and describes compression and expansion processes including heat transfer. Such a model is likely unrealistic with respect to the great complexity of all processes taking place inside a star experiencing supernova explosion. Nevertheless, we argue that the reality depends on so many uncontrolled and poorly understood physical phenomena not realizable in laboratory experiments, and on initial conditions not well defined, that it seems a better way to try to solve a simple model in a, what we believe, completely correct way. Moreover, our choice of the function $g[\rho(r,t)]$ gives a finite mass to the star that avoids the box trick encountered in previous studies [@can-microcan], where the self-gravitating particles are supposed to be confined within a spherical box, a device proposed by Antonov [@box] for globular clusters. This trick was used because a stellar system has the tendency to evaporate under the effect of encounters between stars [@Henon; @3corps; @YP-pologne; @kinaa], these encounters yielding a huge negative potential energy which acts as a source for the evaporation of the low energy stars located in the surrounding halo. The infinite mass problem is also encountered in the case of purely isothermal stars, and this is why we use a modified equation of state that is isothermal in the core and polytropic in the halo (with a polytropic index $n=1$ or $\gamma=2$) so that the density vanishes at a finite radius.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:equations\], we present the MEP model and its equilibrium solutions. We show that such a [*microcanonical*]{} description of a star having a given constant energy $E$ presents a saddle-center bifurcation in its dynamics. In Section \[sec:Painleve\], we show that the normal form of the MEP model close to the saddle-center bifurcation takes the form of Painlevé I equation and we compare the analytical prediction derived from it with a numerical simulation of the full MEP model. After the Painlevé regime, the full numerical study presented in Section \[sec:numerics\] displays a self-similar behavior of the core before the singularity (core collapse) with exponents characterizing the dominance of gravity over pressure in this region, whereas the outward motion of the rest of the star continues to accelerate, but with a smaller velocity than the inward central motion. In Section \[sec:post-coll\], we study the dynamics just after the singularity where a self-similar solution is given for both parts of the star, the core domain which condensates by free fall, and the halo supposed to expand freely, these different dynamics being ruled by the respective importance of gravity and pressure forces. In Section \[sec:free exp\], we consider the expansion of the remnants supposed to be well separated from the core. Assuming that the ejecta motion is isentropic, we show first that no self-similar solution exists when the condition of conservation of kinetic energy in the halo is imposed, because it makes too many conditions to be satisfied. We point out that this free expansion stage evolves naturally toward a non-self-similar solution displaying shocks. This is because in this regime the velocity field obeys a Burgers-type equation as soon as gravity and pressure terms become negligible in the Euler equation. This approach differs fundamentally from the current description of shocks created by the collision with the interstellar medium (the Sedov-Taylor regime invoked in the literature). Here shocks are created by the interactions inside the halo, not with external matter, as soon as the initial velocity field is maximum somewhere inside the halo. In Section \[sec:can-microcan\], and also throughout the paper, we compare the microcanonical results of the present study with the canonical results of Paper I, thereby illustrating the notion of ensembles inequivalence for systems with long-range interactions. Preliminary results of our study were presented in Ref. [@proceedings].
Saddle-center bifurcation in the microcanonical description of a self-gravitating fluid {#sec:equations}
=======================================================================================
We study the loss of equilibrium of a self-gravitating object (a star) in the framework of the hydrodynamical Euler-Poisson equations for an inviscid compressible fluid.
In Paper I, we considered the canonical description: the temperature $T$ of the whole star was assumed to be fixed. This description amounts to considering the star as a system in contact with a thermostat, its energy $E(t)$ being not fixed. We considered an equation of state $P(\rho)$ presenting a saddle-center at a critical temperature $T_c$ as the temperature decreases slowly. At this transition point two equilibrium solutions (one stable, the other unstable) merge, leading to a loss of equilibrium of the system since no equilibrium state exists for $T<T_c$. We studied the collapse of the star in the weakly nonlinear regime (Painlevé regime) near $T = T_c$ and next in the fully nonlinear regime.
Here, we consider the same model but for a closed (isolated, without thermostat) fluid, namely with fixed energy $E$, that corresponds to the *microcanonical* description. In that case, the temperature $T(t)$, which defines the internal energy $\frac{3}{2}N k_B
T(t) $ in equation (\[ae6\]), is not a fixed variable. Indeed, the fixed quantity at a given time is the total energy $E$, including kinetic energy, internal energy and gravitational energy. We consider the same equation of state $P(\rho)$ as in Paper I and show that it presents a saddle-center at a critical energy $E_c$. At that point, two equilibrium solutions (one stable, the other unstable) merge, leading to a loss of equilibrium of the system since no equilibrium state exists for $E<E_c$. Then, we assume that the energy $E(t)$ slowly/adiabatically decreases around the critical value $E_c$ at which the saddle-center bifurcation occurs. The slow decrease of the energy could schematically describe the radiative process of the star burning its matter. We study the collapse of the star in the weakly nonlinear regime (Painlevé regime) and in the fully nonlinear regime. We compare the results with those obtained in the canonical ensemble.
Description of the microcanonical model
---------------------------------------
We use the same notations as in Paper I. The MEP model presented below differs from the CEP model by an added equation imposing the conservation of energy in the fluid, although this energy changes slowly because of added small losses. This constraint modifies the properties of the equilibrium states with noticeable consequences concerning the loss of equilibrium of the star. Some relations that are needed in our theoretical study are regrouped in Appendices \[app:A\] and \[app:B\].
### Euler-Poisson equations with conservation of energy
Let us recall the basic equations written first with the original physical variables. The Euler-Poisson system is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e1}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot (\rho {\bf u})=0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e2}
\frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t}+({\bf u}\cdot \nabla){\bf
u}=-\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla P-\nabla\Phi,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e3}
\Delta\Phi=4\pi G\rho,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf u}({\bf r},t)$ is the fluid velocity, $\rho({\bf r},t)$ the mass density, $P({\bf r},t)$ the pressure, $G$ Newton’s constant, and $\Phi({\bf r},t)$ the gravitational potential. We consider an equation of state of the so-called barotropic form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e4}
P=T(t)g(\rho),\end{aligned}$$ namely with a uniform temperature. In equation (\[e4\]), $P$ and $\rho$ depend on time and space, whereas $T(t)$ is a sort of spatial average of the temperature which only depends on time. We assume that the temperature $T(t)$ evolves in time, while remaining spatially uniform, so as to conserve the total energy (kinetic $+$ thermal $+$ gravitational). We consider a simple energetic constraint of the form $$\begin{aligned}
E=\frac{1}{2}\int \rho {\bf u}^2\, d{\bf r}+\frac{3}{2}N k_B
T(t)+\frac{1}{2}\int\rho\Phi\, d{\bf r}
\label{ae6}\end{aligned}$$ which determines the temperature $T(t)$ for a given energy $E$. In doing so, we are assuming infinite thermal conductivity. This is a rough approximation making simpler the theoretical analysis.
### Steady state of the Euler-Poisson equations in physical variables
It is convenient to introduce the enthalpy per unit mass $h$ defined by $dh=dP/\rho$. For a barotropic equation of state of the form (\[e4\]), the enthalpy is a function of the density $h(\rho)=\int^{\rho} \lbrack P'(\rho')/{\rho'}\rbrack \, d\rho'$. It is defined up to an additive constant. We impose $h(\rho=0)=0$ which determines the constant. With this choice, the enthalpy vanishes at the edge of the star. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{he0}
h(\rho)=\int_0^{\rho} \frac{P'(\rho')}{\rho'} \, d\rho'.\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the enthalpy, the momentum equation can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{he1}
\frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t}+({\bf u}\cdot \nabla){\bf
u}=-\nabla h-\nabla\Phi.\end{aligned}$$ The condition of hydrostatic equilibrium is $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla h+\nabla\Phi={\bf 0}.
\label{he2}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, at equilibrium, $h({\bf r})=-\Phi({\bf r})+C$ where $C$ is a constant. This is the Gibbs relation. We call $r_0$ the radius of the star at equilibrium and take $\Phi(+\infty)=0$. On the boundary of the star, we have $h(r_0)=0$ and $\Phi(r_0)=-GM/r_0$. Therefore, $C=-GM/r_0$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
h({\bf r})=-\Phi({\bf r})-\frac{GM}{r_0}.
\label{he2b}\end{aligned}$$ From equations (\[e4\]) and (\[he0\]), we have $\rho=\rho(h,T)$. Taking the divergence of equation (\[he2\]) and using the Poisson equation (\[e3\]), we obtain the following differential equation for $h$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta h+4\pi G\rho(h,T)=0.
\label{he3}\end{aligned}$$
### Equation of state : an isothermal core with a polytropic envelope
To close the MEP model, we complete equations (\[e1\])-(\[ae6\]) by taking the same equation of state as in Paper I, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{i1}
P(\rho, T)=\rho_* \frac{k_B T}{m}\left (\sqrt{1+\rho/\rho_*}-1\right )^2.\end{aligned}$$ This equation of state has an isothermal core ($P\sim \rho k_B T/m$ at large density $\rho\gg \rho_*$) and a polytropic halo ($P\sim K \rho^{\gamma}$ with $K=k_B T/4m\rho_*$ and $\gamma=2$ at small density $\rho\ll\rho_*$) that confines the system in a finite region of space. Because of the isothermal core, we infer that the equation of state (\[i1\]) should lead to a saddle-center bifurcation [@emden; @chandra; @aaiso]. For the equation of state (\[i1\]), the enthalpy (\[he0\]) is explicitly given by $$h(\rho, T)=2 \frac{k_B T}{m} \ln \left ( 1+\sqrt{1+\rho/\rho_*}\right )-2 \frac{k_B T}{m} \ln (2).
\label{i2}$$ The inverse relation writes $${\rho}(h,T)=4\rho_*\left (e^{m h/k_B T}-e^{m h/2k_B T}\right )
\mathrm{.}
\label{i3}$$
### Dimensionless variables {#sec:tilda}
In the following, it will be convenient to use dimensionless variables. The parameters regarded as fixed are $\rho_*$, $M$, $m$, $k_B$, and $G$. From $\rho_*$ and $M$ we can construct a length $L=(M/\rho_*)^{1/3}$. Then, we introduce the dimensionless quantities $$%\begin{split}
{\tilde\rho}=\frac{\rho}{\rho_*},\quad {\tilde r}=\frac{r}{L},
\quad{\tilde\Phi}=\frac{\Phi}{G\rho_* L^2}, \quad {\tilde {\bf u}}=\frac{{\bf
u}}{L\sqrt{G\rho_*}},
%\end{split}
\label{eq:sc1b}$$ $${\tilde T}=\frac{k_B T}{m G\rho_* L^2},\, {\tilde E}=\frac{E}{\rho_*^2
GL^5},\, {\tilde P}=\frac{P}{GL^2\rho_*^2},\, {\tilde t}=t \sqrt{G\rho_*}.
\label{eq:sc2b}$$ Working with the dimensionless variables with tildes amounts to taking $G=\rho_*=M=m=k_B=1$ in the initial equations, a choice that we shall make in the following.
Equilibrium solutions, energy-radius relation, and caloric curve {#sec:equil}
----------------------------------------------------------------
For a given value of the energy (and therefore of the temperature) the steady state (equilibrium) is given by equations (\[he3\]) and (\[i3\]). The solutions may be expressed in terms of a second set of scaled variables, $\hat{r}={r}/{T^{1/2}}$, $\hat{\rho}=\rho$, $\hat{\Phi} = {\Phi}/{T}$, $\hat{h}=
{h}/{T}$, ${\hat p}={p}/{T}$, ${\hat{M}}=M/{T^{3/2}}$ that leads to the following ODE for the steady state enthalpy $$\hat{h}_{,\hat{r}^2} + \frac{2}{\hat{r}} \hat{h}_{,\hat{r}} + 4 \pi \hat{\rho}(\hat{h}) = 0
\label{es1}$$ with the density-enthalpy relation $$\hat{\rho}(\hat{h}) =4(e^{\hat{h}}-e^{\hat{h}/2}).
\label{es1b}$$ As in Paper I, this equation is solved for a given value of $\hat{h}(0)=
\hat{h}_0$, the only free parameter, with initial conditions $\hat{h}_{,\hat{r}}(0)= \hat{h}_{,\hat{r}^3}(0)=0$ and $\hat{h}_{,\hat{r}^2}(0)=-({2\pi}/{3}) \hat{\rho}(\hat{h}_0)$. The scaled radius of the star $\hat{r}_0$ corresponds to the smallest root of $
\hat{h}(\hat{r_0})=0$. The scaled mass of the star ${\hat M}=\int_0^{{\hat
r}_0} \rho({\hat r},t) 4\pi {{\hat r}}^2\, d{\hat r}$ is related to the temperature by the relation $\hat{M} = {T}^{-3/2}$ (we recall that the mass of the star is $1$ with the units defined in Section \[sec:tilda\]). Using $\hat{r}_0=r_0/{T^{1/2}}$ and the relation $\hat{M}(\hat{r}) = -\hat{r}^2
\hat{h}_{,\hat{r}}$ (see Appendix \[sec\_gauss\]) yielding ${\hat h}_{,{\hat
r}}(\hat{r}_0)=-{1}/(\sqrt{T}{r_0^2})$, we obtain $$\label{es2}
r_0=\left \lbrack \frac{\hat{r}_0}{-\hat{h}_{,\hat{r}}(\hat{r}_0)}\right \rbrack^{1/3},
\qquad
T=\frac{1}{\left \lbrack -\hat{r}_0^2 \hat{h}_{,\hat{r}}(\hat{r}_0)\right \rbrack^{2/3}}.$$ Alternatively, one can compute ${\hat M}=\int_0^{{\hat r}_0} \rho({\hat r},t)
4\pi {{\hat r}}^2\, d{\hat r}$ and determine the temperature by $T={\hat
M}^{-2/3}$ and the radius by $r_0=T^{1/2}\hat{r}_0$. On the other hand, using equations (\[he10\]) and (\[i1\]), the energy writes $$\label{es3}
E=\frac{3}{2}T -3 T^{{5}/{2}}\int_{0}^{\hat{r}_0} \left( \sqrt{1+{\hat \rho}}-1 \right )^2 4 \pi {\hat r}^2 d{\hat r}.$$ We can also compute the energy at equilibrium from the relation (see Appendix \[sec\_pot\]): $$\label{es4}
E=\frac{3}{2}T -\frac{1}{2r_0}+\frac{1}{2} T^{{5}/{2}}\int_{0}^{\hat{r}_0} {\hat
h}_{,{\hat r}}{\hat M} d{\hat r},$$ where we have used equations (\[ae6\]), (\[he5b\]), an integration by parts, and ${\hat\Phi}= - {\hat h} + C$ with $C= - {1}/({T^{3/2} \hat{r}_0})=
-{\hat{M}}/{\hat{r}_0}$.
Varying $\hat{h}_0$ from $0$ to $+\infty$ allows us to draw spiralling curves, such as $r_0(E)$ or $\beta(E)$, depicting the steady states. These curves (series of equilibria) are drawn in Figure \[spi-microcan1\]. At high energies (and high temperatures), the star is stable since it reduces to a pure polytrope of index $\gamma=2$ larger than $\gamma_c=4/3$ [@chandra]. Using Poincaré’s bifurcation theory [@poincare] (see [@katz; @can-microcan] for an application of this theory in the case of self-gravitating systems), one can show that the series of equilibria remains stable in the microcanonical ensemble until the first turning point of energy (corresponding to $0 \le \hat{h}_0 <
\hat{h}_0^{(c)}$), and that it becomes unstable afterward (corresponding to $\hat{h}_0 > \hat{h}_0^{(c)}$). More precisely, a new mode of stability is lost at each turning point of energy. We focus here on the critical point A’ where the first instability occurs as $E$ decreases ($\hat{h}_0$ increases). It corresponds to a minimum of the energy, characterized by the following parameter values $\hat{h}_0^{(c)}= 6.50655$, $\hat{r}_0^{(c)}= 0.26074$, $\hat{\rho}_{0}^{(c)}=2574$, $\hat{M}^{(c)}=0.3012$, $\hat{P}_0^{(c)}=2475$ or in non-hat scalings $ \rho_{0}^{(c)}=2574$, $r_0^{(c)}= 0.38897$, $P_0^{(c)}= 5508$, $E_{c}=
-0.984142$ with $T_c=\lbrack \hat{M}^{(c)}\rbrack^{-2/3} = 2.22538$.
![ Series of equilibria: Left: Radius versus energy $r_0(E)$; Right: inverse temperature versus energy $\beta(E)$. The curves are obtained by increasing the parameter $\hat{h}_0$ in the range $[0.5; 20]$ (smaller values of $\hat{h}_0$ are not represented as they correspond to the right parts of the curves which evolve monotonically). []{data-label="spi-microcan1"}](spi-roE-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.2in"} ![ Series of equilibria: Left: Radius versus energy $r_0(E)$; Right: inverse temperature versus energy $\beta(E)$. The curves are obtained by increasing the parameter $\hat{h}_0$ in the range $[0.5; 20]$ (smaller values of $\hat{h}_0$ are not represented as they correspond to the right parts of the curves which evolve monotonically). []{data-label="spi-microcan1"}](spi-micro-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
For these parameter values, the density profile is drawn in Figure \[fig:equil\]-(a) where the arrow indicates the equilibrium radius (the radial distance where the solution crosses zero). Beyond this radius we set $\rho(r)=0$ , as in Paper I, whereas it leads to functions $\hat{\rho}(r)$, $\hat{M}(r)$, and $\hat{h}(r)$ with discontinuous slopes.
(a)![(a) Density and enthalpy profiles $\hat{\rho}(\hat{r})/\hat{\rho}(0)$, $\hat{h}(\hat{r})/\hat{h}(0)$; (b) mass $\hat{M}(\hat{r})$ and (c) gravitational energy $W(\hat{r})$ at the microcanonical critical point A’ (saddle-center). The arrow in (a) indicates the radius where the density and the enthalpy vanish, whereas the arrows in (b) and (c) display the radius where the velocity sign changes in the dynamical regime, see Subsection \[sec:in-out\].[]{data-label="fig:equil"}](hrho-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
\(b) ![(a) Density and enthalpy profiles $\hat{\rho}(\hat{r})/\hat{\rho}(0)$, $\hat{h}(\hat{r})/\hat{h}(0)$; (b) mass $\hat{M}(\hat{r})$ and (c) gravitational energy $W(\hat{r})$ at the microcanonical critical point A’ (saddle-center). The arrow in (a) indicates the radius where the density and the enthalpy vanish, whereas the arrows in (b) and (c) display the radius where the velocity sign changes in the dynamical regime, see Subsection \[sec:in-out\].[]{data-label="fig:equil"}](mass-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.0in"} (c)![(a) Density and enthalpy profiles $\hat{\rho}(\hat{r})/\hat{\rho}(0)$, $\hat{h}(\hat{r})/\hat{h}(0)$; (b) mass $\hat{M}(\hat{r})$ and (c) gravitational energy $W(\hat{r})$ at the microcanonical critical point A’ (saddle-center). The arrow in (a) indicates the radius where the density and the enthalpy vanish, whereas the arrows in (b) and (c) display the radius where the velocity sign changes in the dynamical regime, see Subsection \[sec:in-out\].[]{data-label="fig:equil"}](Wr-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.0in"}
The mass enclosed inside a sphere of radius $\hat{r}$, $ \hat{M}(\hat{r})=\int_0^{\hat{r}}\rho(r') 4\pi {r'}^2\, dr'$, and the gravitational energy (also inside a sphere of radius $\hat{r}$) $W({\hat r})= - 3 T^{5/2} \int_0^{\hat r} (\sqrt{1+{\hat \rho}}-1)^2 4\pi {r'}^2\, dr'$, are shown in Figures \[fig:equil\]-(b) and \[fig:equil\]-(c) respectively where the arrows display the radius at which the fluid motion is expected to separate (at critical) between opposite directions (inward and outward) at the saddle-center, as explained below.
Saddle-center bifurcation in the microcanonical ensemble and linear stability analysis {#sec:ordre1}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have seen in the previous section that the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium can have several solutions with the same energy $E$, but only one is stable. Close to A’, two solutions (one stable and one unstable) merge. This defines a saddle-center bifurcation. Here, we investigate the structure of the critical mode.
### Linearized Euler-Poisson system
The Euler-Poisson set of equations can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{l1}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot (\rho {\bf u})=0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\rho {\bf u})+\nabla \cdot (\rho {\bf u}\otimes {\bf
u})=-\rho\nabla h-\rho\nabla\Phi,
\label{l2}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{l3}
\Delta\Phi=4\pi\rho.\end{aligned}$$ To determine the dynamical stability of a steady state of the Euler-Poisson system (\[l1\])-(\[l3\]), we consider a small perturbation about that state and write $f({\bf r},t)=f({\bf r})+\delta f({\bf r},t)$ for $f=(\rho,{\bf u},\Phi)$ with $\delta f({\bf r},t)\ll f({\bf r})$. The linearized Euler-Poisson system writes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{l4}
\frac{\partial\delta\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot (\rho \delta{\bf u})=0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\rho \delta{\bf u})=-\rho\nabla \delta h-\rho\nabla\delta\Phi,
\label{l5}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{l6}
\Delta\delta \Phi=4\pi \delta\rho.\end{aligned}$$ These equations can be combined into a differential equation of the form $$\frac{\partial^2\delta\rho}{\partial t^2}=\nabla\cdot \left\lbrack \rho(\nabla \delta h+\nabla\delta\Phi)\right\rbrack.
\label{l7}$$ Writing the time dependence of the perturbations as $\delta f({\bf r},t)\propto
e^{\lambda t}$, we obtain the eigenvalue equation $$\lambda^2\delta\rho=\nabla\cdot \left\lbrack \rho(\nabla\delta h+\nabla\delta\Phi)\right \rbrack,
\label{l8}$$ which has to be solved in conjunction with the Poisson equation (\[l6\]).
### The point of marginal stability {#sec_marg}
We shall now investigate the behavior of the perturbations at the critical point. Our aim is to derive the radial profile of the marginal mode which results from the merging of the stable and unstable equilibrium states. In the case of the CEP model this amounts to solving an ODE with proper initial conditions (see Paper I), whereas the MEP model leads to an integro-differential equation, equations (\[marg15\])-(\[marg17\]), that we may solve iteratively by changing one of the initial conditions, as explained below. The neutral mode ($\lambda=0$) which signals the change of stability of the series of equilibria is the solution of the differential equation $$\nabla\delta h^{(c)}+\nabla\delta\Phi^{(c)}={\bf 0}.
\label{marg1}$$ Therefore, at the critical point, we have $$\delta h^{(c)}({\bf r})=-\delta\Phi^{(c)}({\bf r}).
\label{marg2}$$ The constant of integration has been set equal to zero by assuming that the radius does not change at first order (see below). From this relation, and using Newton’s law (\[he4\]) in perturbed form, we obtain $$\delta h^{(c)}_{,r}=-\delta \Phi^{(c)}_{,r}=\frac{\delta M^{(c)}(r)}{r^2}.
\label{marg3}$$ Taking the divergence of equation (\[marg1\]) and using Poisson’s equation (\[l6\]), we get $$\Delta\delta h^{(c)}+4\pi\delta \rho^{(c)}=0.
\label{marg4}$$ The enthalpy $h$ and the density $\rho$ are linked by the relation $$\rho(h,T) =4\left (e^{\frac{h}{T}}-e^{\frac{h}{2T}}\right ).
\label{marg5}$$ The first order density deviation is given by $$\delta\rho= \rho_{,h}\delta h+\rho_{,T}\delta T,
\label{marg6}$$ where $$\rho_{,h}= \frac{4}{T}\left (e^{h/T}-\frac{1}{2}e^{h/2T}\right )
\label{marg7}$$ and $$\rho_{,T}= -\frac{4h}{T^2}\left (e^{h/T}-\frac{1}{2}e^{h/2T}\right )
\label{marg8}$$ stand for the partial derivatives of $\rho(h,T)$ with respect to $h$ and $T$, respectively. We have $$\rho_{,T}= -\frac{h}{T}\rho_{,h}.
\label{marg9}$$ We also note that $$\delta\rho(r_0)= \frac{2}{T}\delta h(r_0)
\label{marg10}$$ since $h(r_0)=0$.
Substituting these relations into equation (\[marg4\]), we obtain $$\Delta\delta h^{(c)}+4\pi \rho_{,h}^{(c)}\delta h^{(c)}-4\pi \frac{h^{(c)}}{T_c}\rho^{(c)}_{,h}\delta T^{(c)}=0.
\label{marg11}$$ On the other hand, the energetic constraint (\[ae6\]) writes at first order $$\begin{aligned}
\label{marg12}
0=\frac{3}{2} \delta T+\int\Phi\delta\rho\, d{\bf r}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting equations (\[marg6\])-(\[marg9\]) into equation (\[marg12\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{marg13}
\delta T=-\frac{\int \Phi \rho_{,h} \delta h\, d{\bf r}}{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{T}\int \Phi h\rho_{,h}\, d{\bf r}}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, combining equations (\[marg11\]) and (\[marg13\]), we obtain the integral equation $$\Delta\delta h^{(c)}+4\pi \rho^{(c)}_{,h}\delta h^{(c)}+
\frac{h^{(c)}}{T_c}\rho^{(c)}_{,h}\frac{4\pi\int \Phi^{(c)} \rho^{(c)}_{,h}
\delta h^{(c)}\, d{\bf r}}{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{T_c}\int \Phi^{(c)}
h^{(c)}\rho^{(c)}_{,h}\, d{\bf r}}=0,
\label{marg14}$$ which is the MEP version of the ordinary differential equation (25) of Paper I obtained for the CEP model free of the energetic constraint.
We now introduce the scaled variables of Section \[sec:equil\]. Furthermore, we note $\hat{j}=\delta{\hat h}^{(c)}$ and $\hat{r}_c=\hat{r}_0^{(c)}$. From now on, we remove the “hats” to simplify the expressions. The integral equation (\[marg14\]) becomes $$\Delta j+4\pi \rho^{(c)}_{,h}\, j
-4\pi h^{(c)} \rho^{(c)}_{,h}\int_0^{r_c} j(r) f(r)\, dr=0,
\label{marg15}$$ where $$f(r)=-\frac{4\pi}{D} \rho_{,h}^{(c)}\, \Phi^{(c)}\, r^2
\label{marg16}$$ and $$D = \, \frac{3}{2T_c^{3/2}} - \int_0^{r_c} \Phi^{(c)} (r) h^{(c)}(r)\rho^{(c)}_{,h} \, 4\pi r^2d{r}.
\label{marg17}$$ This equation has to be solved with the boundary condition $j_{,r}(r_c)=0$ (see Appendix \[app:B\]) plus another condition, for example the value of $j(0)$. Because of the linearity of the integro-differential equation with respect to $j(r)$ we can set $\int_0^{r_c}
j(r) f(r)\, d{ r}=1$, and vary $j(0)$ until the resulting solution satisfies this relation. We find that this occurs for $j(0)=20.3$. The solution $j(r)$ is drawn in Figure \[Figjzeta\], red curve. Finally, we note that the perturbed temperature at the critical point is given by $${\cal T}\equiv \frac{\delta T^{(c)}}{T_c}=\int_0^{r_c} j(r)f(r)\, dr=1.
\label{marg18}$$
![Neutral mode $j(r)$ (red curve), positive everywhere, and function $\zeta(r)$ (blue curve) defined in Section \[sec\_nfs\], solution of equation (\[n35\]). []{data-label="Figjzeta"}](jzeta-eps-converted-to.pdf){height="1.7in"}
### The inward/outward motion {#sec:in-out}
The radial profiles of mass, velocity and density deviations write as $\delta
M^{(c)}(r)=-r^2 j_{,r}(r)$, $S^{(c)}(r)={j_{,r}(r)}/{4\pi \rho^{(c)}(r)}$, and $\delta\rho^{(c)}(r)={\delta M^{(c)}_{,r}}/{4 \pi r^2}$, respectively (see Appendix B). The solution of equation (\[marg15\]) leads to the radial profiles shown in Figure \[FigrhM\]. In Figure \[FigrhM\]-(a), the insert is an enlargement of the lower part of the density deviation normalized by $\rho^{(c)}(r)$. It displays a small intermediate region of negative amplitude where the density of mass slightly decreases with respect to its equilibrium value. Figure \[FigrhM\]-(b) clearly displays a simultaneous inward and outward motion of the fluid, the sign of the velocity profile $S^{(c)}$, or of the mass $\delta M^{(c)}$, changing at a radius about $28\%$ of the star radius. When this value is reported on the curves of Figures \[fig:equil\]-(b) and \[fig:equil\]-(c) giving the mass $M(r)$ and the gravitational energy $W(r)$, they show that about $50\%$ of the mass is expected to be expelled at the beginning of the supernova process, whereas the other half of the total mass begins to move inward. Concerning the gravitational energy, about $3/4$ of it is concentrated in the inward-directed core, as indicated by the arrow in Figure \[fig:equil\]-(c).
\(a) ![ Radial profiles of the first order deviations at the microcanonical critical point: (a) density $
\delta \rho^{(c)}(r)$ (in the insert, the ratio $\delta \rho^{(c)}/ \rho^{(c)}$ displays the two nodes behavior of the density deviation); (b) mass $\delta
M^{(c)}(r)$ and velocity (or displacement) $S^{(c)}(r)$. []{data-label="FigrhM"}](deltarho-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.7in"}
(b)![ Radial profiles of the first order deviations at the microcanonical critical point: (a) density $
\delta \rho^{(c)}(r)$ (in the insert, the ratio $\delta \rho^{(c)}/ \rho^{(c)}$ displays the two nodes behavior of the density deviation); (b) mass $\delta
M^{(c)}(r)$ and velocity (or displacement) $S^{(c)}(r)$. []{data-label="FigrhM"}](deltaM-S-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.7in"}
The inward/outward motion is illustrated by the radial displacement $S^{(c)}(r)$ shown in Figure \[FigrhM\]-(b), red curve. We have to point out that, for the moment, the sign of the neutral mode is arbitrary since equation (\[marg15\]) defining the neutral mode profile $j(r)$ is linear. The sign of the radial profiles $S^{(c)}(r)$, $\delta M^{(c)}$ and $ \delta \rho^{(c)}(r)$ represented in Figure \[FigrhM\] is actually derived from higher order terms of the weakly nonlinear analysis developed in the next Section. Figure \[FigrhM\]-(b) shows that any particle located initially in the inner part of the star, $r< 0.073$, where the density is large (see Figure \[fig:equil\]-(a)) should move inward, whereas any particle located in the outer shell should move outward. In the insert of Figure \[FigrhM\]-(a) we show the ratio $\delta \rho^{(c)}/
\rho$ which displays the two nodes behavior of the density deviation. It illustrates the formation of a mass close to the center plus a halo further away, and a decrease of density in between. In summary, we expect the formation of a sort of explosive halo together with a collapse of the inner part (core) from the first order variations at criticality. This important point has to be confirmed by the higher order terms of the weakly nonlinear analysis, as done in next Section.
Dynamics close to the saddle-center bifurcation: derivation of the Painlevé I equation {#sec:Painleve}
======================================================================================
In this Section, we focus on the first stage of the motion, when the system approaches the critical point A’ in Figure \[spi-microcan1\] by decreasing the energy $E(t)$, following the stable portion of the series of equilibria. Note that here and in Paper I we call this weakly nonlinear stage “the Painlevé regime", and we call the analysis of the saddle-center bifurcation “the Painlevé analysis", whereas in the work of Painlevé no connection is made with bifurcation theory[^2]. In this Painlevé regime, because the velocity field has a small amplitude at the beginning of the motion, we assume that the advection term can be neglected in the Euler equation, an hypothesis that is justified during a time interval $t_0$ by using the same arguments as in Section 4.1 of Paper I (the time interval $t_0$ can be defined in terms of the coefficients appearing in the normal form of the Euler equations close to the saddle-center, i.e., the Painlevé I equation). In this Section, we use the same procedure and notations as in Section $4$ of Paper I, but this Section is self-contained.
Simplification of the hydrodynamic equations
---------------------------------------------
Neglecting the advection term in the Euler equation (\[l2\]) we obtain $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\rho {\bf u})=-\nabla P-\rho\nabla\Phi.
\label{sim2}$$ This equation can be combined with the equation of continuity (\[l1\]) into a single equation for the density $$\frac{\partial^2\rho}{\partial t^2}=\nabla\cdot (\nabla P+\rho\nabla\Phi),
\label{sim3}$$ where $\Phi$ is given by the Poisson equation (\[l3\]). The energetic constraint writes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sim5a}
E=\frac{3}{2}
T(t)+\frac{1}{2}\int \rho \Phi \, d{\bf r}.\end{aligned}$$ These equations are valid during a time interval of order $t_0$ before the collapse time (see Paper I).
The equation for the mass profile
---------------------------------
For a spherically symmetric evolution, using Newton’s law (\[he4\]), we obtain the following partial differential equation for the integrated density $$\frac{\partial^2 M(r,t)}{\partial t^2}= 4 \pi r^2 P_{,r} + \frac{1}{r^2}M_{,r} M.
\label{sim4}$$ The energetic constraint writes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sim5}
E=\frac{3}{2}
T(t)+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{R(t)} \Phi M_{,r}\, dr.\end{aligned}$$ In equation (\[sim4\]), the term $P_{,r}=P_{,\rho}(\rho) \rho_{,r}$ has to be expressed as a function of $\rho(r,t)=M_{,r}/(4 \pi r^2)$ and $\rho_{,r}(r,t)=(M_{,r^2}-2M_{,r}/r)/(4 \pi r^2)$. For the equation of state $$\begin{aligned}
P(\rho)= T(t)\left(\sqrt{1+\rho}-1\right )^2,
\label{mp1}\end{aligned}$$ we get $$P_{,\rho}(\rho)= T(t)\left (1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+{\rho}}}\right ).
\label{mp2}$$ Introducing this expression into equation (\[sim4\]), the dynamical equation for $M(r,t)$ writes $$\frac{\partial^2 M(r,t)}{\partial t^2}= T(t)\mathcal{L}(M)g(M_{,r}) + \frac{1}{r^2}M_{,r} M
\label{mp3}$$ with $$\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{L}(M)= M_{,r^2}-\frac{2}{r}M_{,r}\\
g(M_{,r})=1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{4 \pi r^2}M_{,r}}}
\mathrm{.}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{mp4}$$ The boundary conditions to be satisfied are $$\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
M(0,t)=0 \\
M(R(t),t)= 1 = 4 \pi\int_0 ^{R(t)} {\mathrm{d}} r' r'^2 \rho(r',t)
\mathrm{.}
\end{array}
\right. \label{mp5}$$ In the latter relation, the radius of the star $R(t)$ depends on time. However, this dependence will be neglected in this Painlevé analysis because it can be shown that it plays no role up to order two (with respect to the small parameter $\epsilon$ which characterizes the slow time dependence of $E$), the order considered below. Therefore, we take $R(t)\simeq r_0$.
Equilibrium state and neutral mode for the mass profile
-------------------------------------------------------
The steady solution of equation (\[mp3\]) is determined by the partial differential equation $$T\mathcal{L}(M)g(M_{,r}) + \frac{1}{r^2}M_{,r} M=0
\label{esn1}$$ with the energetic constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esn2}
E=\frac{3}{2}T+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{r_0}\Phi M_{,r}\, d{r}.\end{aligned}$$ We now consider a small perturbation about a steady state and write $M(r,t)=M(r)+\delta M(r,t)$ with $\delta M(r,t)\ll M(r)$. Linearizing equation (\[mp3\]) about this steady state and writing the time dependence of the perturbation as $\delta
M(r,t)\propto e^{\lambda t}$, we obtain the eigenvalue equation $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^2\delta M=T\left\lbrack {\cal L}(\delta M)g(M_{,r})+{\cal L}(M)g'(M_{,r})\delta M_{,r}\right\rbrack \nonumber\\
+\delta T {\cal L}(M)g(M_{,r})+\frac{1}{r^2}(M\delta M)_{,r}
\label{esn3}\end{aligned}$$ with the energy constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esn4}
\frac{3}{2}
\delta T+\int_0^{r_0}\Phi\, \delta M_{,r}\, dr=0. \end{aligned}$$ The neutral mode, corresponding to $\lambda=0$, is determined by the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
T\left\lbrack {\cal L}(\delta M)g(M_{,r})+{\cal L}(M)g'(M_{,r})\delta M_{,r}\right\rbrack \nonumber\\
+\delta T {\cal L}(M)g(M_{,r}) +\frac{1}{r^2}(M\delta M)_{,r}=0.
\label{esn5}\end{aligned}$$
Scaled variables {#sec:hatTc}
----------------
To study the dynamics close to the critical point A’, we introduce the scaled variables $\hat{r} =r/\sqrt{T_c}$, $\hat{t}=t$, $\hat{M}=M/T_c^{3/2}$, $\hat{h}=h/T_c$, ${\hat \Phi}=\Phi/T_c$, $\hat{\rho}=\rho$, ${\hat E}=E/T_c$, and ${\hat
T}=T/T_c$. At the critical point, we have ${\hat{ T}}=1$ and all the other variables coincide with those introduced in Section \[sec:equil\]. In the following, we drop the “hats” to simplify the notations. With this rescaling, we obtain $$\frac{\partial^2 M(r,t)}{\partial t^2}= T(t)\mathcal{L}(M)g(M_{,r}) + \frac{1}{r^2}M_{,r} M
\label{sca1}$$ with the boundary conditions $$\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
M(0,t)=0 \\
M(r_c,t)= T_c^{-3/2} = 4 \pi\int_0 ^{r_c} {\mathrm{d}} r' r'^2 \rho(r',t)
\mathrm{.}
\end{array}
\right. \label{sca2}$$ The energetic constraint writes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sca3}
E=\frac{3}{2}
T(t)+\frac{1}{2}T_c^{3/2}\int_0^{r_0}\Phi M_{,r}\, dr.\end{aligned}$$ The steady solution of equation (\[sca1\]) at the critical point is determined by $$\mathcal{L}(M^{(c)})g(M^{(c)}_{,r}) + \frac{1}{r^2}M^{(c)}_{,r} M^{(c)}=0
\label{sca4}$$ with the energetic constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sca5}
E_c=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{2}T_c^{3/2}\int_0^{r_c}\Phi^{(c)} M^{(c)}_{,r}\, d{r}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Newton’s law $\Phi_{,r}={M(r)}/{r^2}$, and the equilibrium relation $\Phi_{,r}=-h_{,r}$, we can easily check that equation (\[sca4\]) is equivalent to equation (\[es1\]). On the other hand, at the critical point, the marginal mode ($\lambda=0$) is determined by the differential equation \[see equation (\[esn5\])\]: $$\begin{split}
{\cal L}(&\delta M^{(c)})g(M^{(c)}_{,r}) +{\cal L}(M^{(c)})g'(M^{(c)}_{,r})\delta M^{(c)}_{,r} \\
&+\delta T {\cal L}(M^{(c)})g(M^{(c)}_{,r})+\frac{1}{r^2}(M^{(c)}\delta M^{(c)})_{,r}=0
\end{split}
\label{sca6}$$ with the energy constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sca7}
\frac{3}{2}
\delta T+T_c^{3/2}\int_0^{r_c}\Phi^{(c)}\, \delta M^{(c)}_{,r}\, dr=0.\end{aligned}$$ Using Newton’s law in perturbed form $\delta\Phi_{,r}={\delta M(r)}/{r^2}$, and the relation $\delta\Phi^{(c)}_{,r}=-\delta h^{(c)}_{,r}$ satisfied at the neutral point (see Section \[sec\_marg\]), we can check that equation (\[sca6\]) is equivalent to equation (\[marg15\]). This implies that the neutral mass profile is given by $$\delta M^{(c)}(r)=-r^2 j_{,r},
\label{sca8}$$ where $j(r)$ has been determined in Section \[sec\_marg\].
Normal form close to the saddle-center bifurcation {#sec_nfs}
--------------------------------------------------
The derivation of the normal form of the hydrodynamic equations close to the saddle-center bifurcation proceeds by expanding the different quantities close to their equilibrium value at critical energy $E_c$ in series of a small parameter $\epsilon$ which characterizes a slow variation of the energy with respect to its value at the saddle-center, supposed to evolve as $E(t)=E_c-\gamma' t$, with $\gamma' $ small. We set $$E=E_c-\epsilon^2 E^{(2)},
\label{n1}$$ which amounts to defining $\epsilon^2 E^{(2)}=\gamma' t$, and rescaling the time as $ t=t'/\epsilon ^{{1}/{2}}$. Equation (\[sca1\]) is then rewritten as $$\epsilon\frac{\partial^2 M}{\partial {t'}^2}= T(t')\mathcal{L}(M)g(M_{,r}) + \frac{1}{r^2}M_{,r} M.
\label{n2}$$ The radial distribution of mass (or radial profile) is expanded as $$M(r,t')= M^{(c)}(r) + \epsilon M^{(1)}(r,t')+\epsilon^2 M^{(2)}(r,t')+...
\label{n3}$$ where $M^{(c)}(r)$ is the equilibrium profile at $E=E_c$ (see above) drawn in Figure \[fig:equil\]-(b). The expansion of the energy is given in equation (\[n1\]) and the expansion of the temperature reads $$T(t')=1 +\epsilon T^{(1)}(t') +\epsilon^2 T^{(2)}(t')+...
\label{n4}$$ We now substitute the expansion (\[n3\]) into equation (\[n2\]) and consider each order.
### Leading order
At leading order, we get the equilibrium relation $$\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g^{(c)} + \frac{1}{r^2}M_{,r}^{(c)} M^{(c)}=0
\label{n5}$$ which has to satisfy the boundary conditions $$M^{(c)}(0)= M^{(c)}_{,r}(0)=0, \qquad M^{(c)}(r_c)= M=T_c^{-3/2}.
\label{n6}$$ The energy constraint writes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{n7}
E_c=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{2}T_c^{3/2}\int_0^{r_c}\Phi^{(c)} M^{(c)}_{,r}\, d{r}.\end{aligned}$$ The mass profile at the critical point is drawn in Figure \[fig:equil\]-(b).
### First order
To order $1$ with respect to $\epsilon$, we have $$T^{(1)}\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g^{(c)} + \mathcal{L}^{(1)}g^{(c)} + \mathcal{L}^{(c)}g^{(1)}+ \frac{1}{r^2}(M^{(1)} M^{(c)})_{,r}=0,
\label{n8}$$ with the energy constraint giving $$T^{(1)} =- \frac{2}{3} T_c^{3/2} \int_{0}^{r_c} \Phi^{(c)}(r) M^{(1)}_{,r} \, dr.
\label{n9}$$ Because equation (\[n8\]) is linear, its solution is of the form $$M^{(1)}(r,t')= A^{(1)}(t')F(r),
\label{n10}$$ $$T^{(1)}(t')= A^{(1)}(t'){\cal T},
\label{n11}$$ $$h^{(1)}(r,t')= A^{(1)}(t')j(r),
\label{n12}$$ $$S^{(1)}(r,t')= A^{(1)}(t')S^{(c)}(r),
\label{n13}$$ $$u^{(1)}(r,t')=\epsilon^{1/2} {\dot A}^{(1)}(t')S^{(c)}(r).
\label{n14}$$ This corresponds to the neutral mode multiplied by $A^{(1)}(t')$. In the foregoing equations $F(r)=\delta
M^{(c)}(r)$, ${\cal T}=\delta T^{(c)}$, $j(r)=\delta h^{(c)}(r)$ and the dot in equation (\[n14\]) stands for the time derivative. The neutral mode profiles (enthalpy, density, mass, and velocity) are plotted in Figures \[Figjzeta\] and \[FigrhM\]. The function $F(r)=\delta M^{(c)}(r)$ was actually derived from the solution $j(r)$ of equation (\[marg15\]) thanks to the relation $$F(r) = - r^2 j_{,r}.
\label{n15}$$
### Second order
To order $2$, equation (\[n2\]) gives $$\frac{\partial^2 M^{(1)}}{\partial t'^2} = T^{(2)}\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g^{(c)}+ T^{(1)}(\mathcal{L}^{(1)} g^{(c)}+\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g^{(1)})+
\mathcal{F}^{(2)},
\label{n16}$$ where $$\mathcal{F}^{(2)}=\mathcal{L}^{(2)} g^{(c)}+\mathcal{L}^{(1)}g^{(1)}+\mathcal{L}^{(c)}g^{(2)}+\mathcal{F}^{(2)}_1$$ and $$\mathcal{F}^{(2)}_1= \frac{1}{r^2}\left\lbrack (M^{(2)} M^{(c)})_{,r}+ M^{(1)} M^{(1)}_{,r} \right\rbrack$$ with $$\mathcal{L}^{(c)}=\mathcal{L}(M^{(c)}), \qquad\mathcal{L}^{(n)}=\mathcal{L}(M^{(n)}),$$ $$g^{(1)}=g'^{(c)}M_{,r}^{(1)},\;\;
g^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}g''^{(c)}(M_{,r}^{(1)})^2+g'^{(c)} M^{(2)}_{,r},$$ $$g^{(c)}=g(M_{,r}^{(c)}),\;\;
g'^{(c)}=(\frac{dg}{dM_{,r}})^{(c)}, \;\;
g''^{(c)}=(\frac{d^2g}{dM_{,r}^2})^{(c)}.$$ The $r$-dependent quantities can be written in terms of the equilibrium density function $\rho^{(c)}(r)$ as $$\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{L}^{(c)}=4\pi r^2\rho_{,r}^{(c)}, \\
g^{(c)} = 1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\rho^{(c)}}}, \\
g'^{(c)} =\frac{1}{8\pi r^2(1+\rho^{(c)})^{3/2}}, \\
g''^{(c)} = -\frac{3}{4(4\pi r^2)^2(1+\rho^{(c)})^{5/2}}
\mathrm{.}
\end{array}
\right. \label{n17}$$ The boundary conditions are $$\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
M^{(n)}(0,t')=0,\quad M^{(n)}_{,r}(0,t')=0, \\
M^{(n)}(r_c,t')=0
\mathrm{.}
\end{array}
\right. \label{n18}$$ The energetic constraint writes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{n20}
-E^{(2)}=\frac{3}{2} T^{(2)}+\frac{1}{2}T_c^{3/2}\int_0^{r_c} \Phi^{(1)}M^{(1)}_{,r}\, dr \nonumber\\
+T_c^{3/2}\int_0^{r_c} \Phi^{(c)}M^{(2)}_{,r}\, d{r}.\end{aligned}$$ This determines $T^{(2)}$. In terms of $M^{(n)}$ the resonant and non-resonant parts of the second order temperature deviation $T^{(2)}={T}^{(2)}_{\rm res.}+{T}^{(2)}_{\rm n.res.}$ are given by the relations $$\begin{aligned}
{T}^{(2)}_{\rm res.}= - \frac{2}{3} T_c^{3/2}\int_0^{r_c} \Phi^{(c)}
M^{(2)}_{,r} \, dr \nonumber\\
= - \frac{2}{3} T_c^{3/2}\int_0^{r_c} h^{(c)}_{,r} M^{(2)} \,
dr\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{T}^{(2)}_{\rm n.res.}= -\frac{1}{3} T_c^{3/2} \int_0^{r_c} \Phi^{(1)}
M^{(1)}_{,r} \, dr - \frac{2}{3}E^{(2)} \nonumber\\
= -\frac{1}{3} T_c^{3/2} \int_0^{r_c}
h^{(1)}_{,r} M^{(1)} \, dr - \frac{2}{3}E^{(2)}.\end{aligned}$$ Using equations (\[n10\]) and (\[n12\]), we get $${T}^{(2)}_{\rm n.res.}= -\frac{1}{3} T_c^{3/2} \lbrack
A^{(1)}\rbrack^2\int_0^{r_c} j_{,r}(r) F(r) \, dr - \frac{2}{3}E^{(2)}.
\label{n21m1}$$ After splitting the resonant and non-resonant terms in equation (\[n16\]), we obtain $$F(r)\ddot{A}^{(1)}(t') = T^{(2)}_{\rm n.res}\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g^{(c)}
+\mathcal{K}(F) [A^{(1)}]^2 + \mathcal{C}(M^{(2)}),
\label{n21}$$ where the non-resonant contribution to the quadratic term is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K}(F)=\frac{1}{r^2}FF_{,r} +\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g''^{(c)} F_{,r}^2 +g'^{(c)}{\cal L}(F)F_{,r} \nonumber\\
+\mathcal{T}\left ( {\cal L}(F)g^{(c)}+\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g'^{(c)} F_{,r}\right ),
\label{n22}\end{aligned}$$ whereas the resonant term is $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{C}(M^{(2)})= &\mathcal{L}^{(2)} g^{(c)} +\frac{1}{r^2}(M^{(2)}M^{(c)}
)_{,r} \\
+&\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g'^{(c)} M^{(2)}_{,r} +T^{(2)}_{\rm res}\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g^{(c)}.
\end{split}
\label{n23}$$ Substituting equation (\[n21m1\]) into equation (\[n21\]), introducing the slow decrease of the energy versus time, $E^{(2)}\sim \gamma' t/\epsilon^2$, and making the rescaling $A=\epsilon A^{(1)}$ to eliminate $\epsilon$ (we note that $A(t)$ is the true amplitude of the mass profile $M^{(1)}(r,t)$), we get $$\begin{split}
&F(r)\ddot{A} = - \frac{2}{3}\gamma' t \,\mathcal{L}^{(c)} g^{(c)} +\epsilon^2 \mathcal{C}(M^{(2)}) \\
+&\left\lbrack \mathcal{K}(F)
-\frac{1}{3} T_c^{3/2} \mathcal{L}^{(c)} g^{(c)}\int_0^{r_c} j_{,r}(r) F(r) \, dr \right\rbrack A^2 .
\end{split}
\label{n24}$$
### Solvability condition
To write the dynamical equation for $A(t)$ in a normal form, we multiply equation (\[n24\]) by a function $\zeta(r)$ and integrate over $r$ for $0 <r
<r_c$. We are going to derive the function $\zeta(r)$ so that the term ${\cal
C}(M^{(2)})$ disappears after integration. By definition, the function $\zeta$ must satisfy, for any function $M^{(2)}(r)$, the integral relation $$\int_0 ^{r_c} \mathcal{C}(M^{(2)})(r) \zeta(r) \, dr=0.
\label{n28}$$ Let us expand $\mathcal{C}$ as $$\mathcal{C}(M^{(2)})=
g^{(c)} M^{(2)}_{,r^2} +b M^{(2)}_{,r}+c M^{(2)}+\mathcal{I}[M^{(2)}],
\label{n29}$$ where $$\mathcal{I}[M^{(2)}]=\delta (r)\int_0^{r_c} h^{(c)}_{,r} M^{(2)} dr$$ with $$\delta(r)= - \frac{2}{3} T_c^{3/2}\mathcal{L}^{(c)}(r) g^{(c)}(r).$$ We have also introduced $b(r) =
-{2g^{(c)}}/{r}+{M^{(c)}}/{r^2}+\mathcal{L}^{(c)}g'^{(c)}$ and $c(r) =
{M^{(c)}_{,r}}/{r^2}$. In terms of the equilibrium values of the density and potential functions at the saddle-center, we have $$\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
g^{(c)}(r) = 1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\rho^{(c)}}}, \\
b(r) = -\frac{2g^{(c)}}{r} -h_{,r}^{(c)}+\frac{\rho_{,r}^{(c)}}{2(1+\rho^{(c)})^{3/2}}, \\
c(r) = 4\pi \rho^{(c)}
\mathrm{.}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{n30}$$ Integrating the first three terms of $\mathcal{C}(M^{(2)})(r)$ in equation (\[n28\]) by parts, using $M^{(2)}(r)=0$ on the boundaries $r=0$ and $r=r_c$, and using $M^{(2)}_{,r}(0)=0$ and $g^{(c)}(r_c)=0$, gives $$\begin{split}
\int_0^{r_c}dr\, & M^{(2)}\mathcal{D}\lbrack \zeta\rbrack \\
+& \int_0^{r_c}dr\, \zeta(r) \delta(r) \int_0^{r_c}dr\, M^{(2)}(r) h_{,r}^{(c)}(r)=0,
\end{split}
\label{n31}$$ where the action of the differential operator $ \mathcal{D}[.] $ on a function $\zeta(r)$ is such that $$\mathcal{D}[\zeta] = (g^{(c)}\, \zeta)_{,r^2}-(b\, \zeta)_{,r}+ c\,\zeta.
\label{n32}$$ It can be written equivalently as $$\mathcal{D}[\zeta] = g^{(c)}(r)\zeta_{,r^2}+ a_1(r) \zeta_{,r}+ a_0(r)\zeta,
\label{n33}$$ where the coefficients $$\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
a_1(r) = 2g^{(c)}_{,r} -b(r), \\
a_0(r) = c(r)+ g^{(c)}_{,r^2}(r) -b_{,r}(r),
\end{array}
\right.
\label{n34}$$ can be expressed in terms of the radial density by using equations (\[n17\]) and (\[n30\]). The function $\zeta$ is the solution of the integro-differential equation $$\mathcal{D}[\zeta] + h_{,r}^{(c)}(r)\int_0^{r_c}\zeta(r)\delta(r)\,dr =0.
\label{n35}$$ The solution $\zeta(r)$ is drawn in Figure \[Figjzeta\], blue curve. This solution is obtained by solving the integro-differential equation (\[n35\]) with two initial conditions. Close to the center, it can be shown that the solution of equation (\[n35\]) writes $\zeta(r)= z_1 r \;+\;z_3 r^3+...$. Therefore we set $\zeta(0)=0$ and $\zeta'(0)=z_1$, an a priori unknown parameter proportional to $G\equiv\int_0^{r_c} \zeta(r)\delta(r)\,dr$ which may be taken as unity since the integro-differential equation is linear with respect to $\zeta$. The value $z_1$ of the slope of $\zeta(r)$ at the center is determined numerically by increasing $z_1$ step by step. At step $n$, for a given $z_1^{(n)}$, we solve the ordinary differential equation $$\mathcal{D}[\zeta^{(n)}] + h_{,r}^{(c)}(r) =0,
\label{n36}$$ calculate the value of $\int_0^{r_c}\zeta^{(n)}(r)\delta(r)\,dr$, and increase the slope $z_1$ until we obtain the expected result $\int_0^{r_c}\zeta(r)\delta(r)\,dr\; =\; 1$.
### Painlevé I equation
(a)![ Evolution of the temperature (a) in the Painlevé regime, $0
\lesssim t \lesssim 0.6 $, (b) in the whole time interval before collapse, $0 \lesssim t \lesssim 0.684$. The numerical solution (dots) of the MEP model with the energetic constraint $E=E_c-\gamma' (t-t_0)$, where $\gamma'=0.1$, is compared in (a) with the solution $A(t)$ of the Painlevé I equation (\[n25\]) with the initial condition $A(t_0)=-0.008$ and $\dot{A}(t_0)=0.01$, where $t_0=0.18$. In (b) we add the self-similar solution $T(t) \sim (t-t_*)^{a(k)}$ of Section \[sec\_cc\] where $k=8$ ($a=-1/24$) in the green portion of the principal curve, and $k=8.4$ ($a=-0.074$) in the insert. []{data-label="Fig:Painl"}](Tpainl-19-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.7in"}
(b)![ Evolution of the temperature (a) in the Painlevé regime, $0
\lesssim t \lesssim 0.6 $, (b) in the whole time interval before collapse, $0 \lesssim t \lesssim 0.684$. The numerical solution (dots) of the MEP model with the energetic constraint $E=E_c-\gamma' (t-t_0)$, where $\gamma'=0.1$, is compared in (a) with the solution $A(t)$ of the Painlevé I equation (\[n25\]) with the initial condition $A(t_0)=-0.008$ and $\dot{A}(t_0)=0.01$, where $t_0=0.18$. In (b) we add the self-similar solution $T(t) \sim (t-t_*)^{a(k)}$ of Section \[sec\_cc\] where $k=8$ ($a=-1/24$) in the green portion of the principal curve, and $k=8.4$ ($a=-0.074$) in the insert. []{data-label="Fig:Painl"}](T-total-19-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.7in"}
Now that we have obtained the function $\zeta(r)$ satisfying the integral relation (\[n28\]), we find that equation (\[n24\]) multiplied by $\zeta(r)$ and integrated over $r$ for $0 <r<r_c$ takes the form of the Painlevé I equation $$\ddot{A}(t)= \tilde{\gamma} t+K A^2.
\label{n25}$$ The first coefficient in equation (\[n25\]) is given explicitly as a function of the parameters at the critical point by the expression $$\tilde{\gamma}= -\frac{2}{3}\gamma' \frac{\int_0^{r_c} {\cal L}^{(c)}(r)
g^{(c)}(r)\zeta(r)\, {\mathrm{d}}r}{\int_0^{r_c}F(r)\zeta(r)\, {\mathrm{d}}r}
\label{n26}$$ which is found to be equal to $\tilde{\gamma}= 46.63...\gamma'$ . Moreover, the second coefficient in equation (\[n25\]) is given by $$K= \frac{\int_0^{r_c} \mathcal{G}(r) \zeta(r)\,
{\mathrm{d}}r}{\int_0^{r_c}F(r)\zeta(r)\, {\mathrm{d}}r}
\label{n27}$$ with $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{G}(r)=&{\cal L}^{(c)}F_{,r}\left (\frac{1}{2}g''^{(c)} F_{,r} +
\mathcal{T}g'^{(c)} \right ) \\
+ &\left (g'^{(c)}F_{,r} + \mathcal{T}g^{(c)}\right
) (F_{,r^2}-\frac{2}{r}F_{,r}) + \frac{1}{r^2} F\; F_{,r}\\
+ &\frac{1}{3}{\cal L}^{(c)} g^{(c)} T_c^{3/2}
\int_0^{r_c} j(r)F_{,r}(r) dr.
\end{split}$$ It is found to have the numerical value $K=1055.98...$
As noted in Section \[sec:in-out\], an important point to make clear is the sign of the neutral mode which was unknown at first order. With the choice we made in the previous Section, we obtain at second order two positive coefficients $\tilde{\gamma}$ and $K$ in the Painlevé equation (\[n25\]). This result confirms that we made the good choice at first order, because it leads to the acceleration of the velocity field initially chosen. A change of sign of the neutral mode amounts to changing $A$ into $-A$ in the Painlevé equation (\[n25\]), or to changing the sign of the nonlinear coefficient $K$ (this change of sign being formal because it is just a consequence of the sign chosen for the neutral mode). [*In fine*]{}, this imposes us to reverse $-A$ into $A$ because we want to look at a growing perturbation. In summary, the weakly nonlinear analysis provides the time evolution of the perturbation *and* the sign of the growing mode. This is an intrinsic property of saddle-center bifurcations which is absent in the case of “classical" transitions from a linearly stable to a linearly unstable situation, where the unstable mode may have either positive or negative amplitude. Such a fair property of saddle-center bifurcations comes from the fact that the stable and unstable equilibrium states are merging at the critical point, so that no equilibrium state exists beyond that point.
We now compare the prediction of the weakly nonlinear analysis derived here with the solution of the full MEP model. The numerical solutions of the full MEP model were obtained using a variant of the CentPack Software [@progbalbas1; @progbalbas2] by Balbas and Tadmor, with a spatial mesh of $3000$ points and adaptative time increments. In Figure \[Fig:Painl\]-(a), we plot in solid line the temperature $T(t)=\mathcal{T} A(t)$ resulting from the above Painlevé analysis and show in dotted line the temperature calculated with the full numerical MEP model for the early stage of the explosion-implosion process. In the numerical study of the MEP model, our aim was to take as initial condition the equilibrium state at the critical energy $E_c$ defined theoretically in Section \[sec:equil\], and let the energy slowly decrease. However, the numerical value of the equilibrium state in the MEP solution is not exactly the one predicted by the theory (point A’ in Figure \[spi-microcan1\]) because of finite mesh effects, as already observed in the canonical case (Paper I). Here, the density in the core is about two orders of magnitude larger than in Paper I, causing rapid fluctuations of the MEP solution around an average value. These fluctuations are clearly visible on the temperature $T(t)$ of Figure \[Fig:Painl\]-(a) which displays a few oscillations before increasing strongly. Such rapid oscillations are not observed in solving Painlevé’s equation: with off-equilibrium initial conditions close to the critical point, we would get oscillations with a long period as described in Paper I (see Figure 2 and equation (10)). The rapid oscillations observed here could be attributed to acoustic waves formed because of the stiffness of the density. They are characterized by a back and forth motion of matter in the star, as illustrated in Figure \[Fig:motion-Painl\] which reports the deviations of mass and velocity in the whole star versus $r$ at various times in the weakly nonlinear regime. Due to this back-and-forth motion, the MEP profiles shown in this figure agree only qualitatively with the neutral mode profiles shown in Figure \[FigrhM\]-(b). Note that the fluid mechanical equations we solve are without any damping term, so spurious time oscillations are easily generated in the numerics.
(a)![Fluctuations of mass and velocity of the MEP model showing the back and forth motion concomitant with the oscillations of temperature $T(t)$ during the Painlevé regime. We also see that the velocity is negative in the core and positive in the halo. Therefore, these direct numerical simulations confirm the inward/outward motion of the star predicted by our linear or weakly nonlinear analysis close to the critical point. Furthermore, the numerical profiles $\delta M(r,t)$ and $\delta u(r,t)$ are in qualitative agreement with the radial profiles of the first order deviations at the microcanonical critical point plotted in Figure \[FigrhM\]. []{data-label="Fig:motion-Painl"}](dm4065E-01tv4-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="2.0in"}
(b)![Fluctuations of mass and velocity of the MEP model showing the back and forth motion concomitant with the oscillations of temperature $T(t)$ during the Painlevé regime. We also see that the velocity is negative in the core and positive in the halo. Therefore, these direct numerical simulations confirm the inward/outward motion of the star predicted by our linear or weakly nonlinear analysis close to the critical point. Furthermore, the numerical profiles $\delta M(r,t)$ and $\delta u(r,t)$ are in qualitative agreement with the radial profiles of the first order deviations at the microcanonical critical point plotted in Figure \[FigrhM\]. []{data-label="Fig:motion-Painl"}](uE-01t-24Nov-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="2.0in"}
To compare the temperature of the MEP model with the weakly nonlinear analysis, we take as initial conditions of the Painlevé equation the ones of the MEP solution averaged over the oscillations at a given time $t_0=0.18$ which is chosen close to the point where $T(t)=T_{c}=1$ (in normalized variables). The agreement between the MEP model and the weakly nonlinear analysis (see Figure \[Fig:Painl\]-(a)) is very good until $t_s=0.6$ which characterizes the end of the Painlevé regime where nonlinear terms of higher order come into play. After $t=t_s$, the two curves separate, the solution of the full equations increasing much more strongly than the weakly nonlinear one. The solution of the full equations has a self-similar behavior leading to a finite time singularity at $t_*\simeq 0.684$ illustrated by the green portion of the curve (see the next Section). The solution of the Painlevé equation also displays a divergence but it occurs later (at $t_P \simeq 0.8$), in a regime where the Painlevé equation is not valid anymore (see below).
The duration of the Painlevé regime is expected to be a few times the precursor time (intermediate time scale) which stands between the short and long time scales, defined in Section 2 of Paper I, and given by the relation $$t_0= (\tilde{\gamma} K)^{-1/5}.
\label{n27b}$$ Introducing the numerical values of $K$ and $\tilde{\gamma}$ in equation (\[n27b\]), we obtain $t_0=0.18$ which is about $1/3$ the full Painlevé regime duration illustrated in Figure \[Fig:Painl\]-a, as expected. In the framework of Painlevé’s equation, the collapse time is given by the relation $t_P \simeq 3.4 t_0$, or $t_P \simeq 0.4\vert
T_c/\dot{T}\vert^{1/5}$, where $\dot{T}/T_c=\gamma'$ (see Paper I). Numerically, this gives $t_{P }^{\rm approx}= 0.63$. This approximate value agrees well with the exact Painlevé diverging time $t_{P}= 0.8$ when taking the origin at $t_0=0.18$. Note that this “Painlevé” collapse time is not reached by the solution of the MEP model which diverges before at $t_*\simeq 0.684$. On the other hand, we have shown in Paper I that the amplitude of the Painlevé solution (for example the temperature drawn in solid line) diverges close to $t_P$ as $$A(t)= \frac{0.0063}{(t_P-t)^{2}},
\label{n27bb}$$ a solution different from the MEP model solution as discussed in the next Section \[see equation (\[Tself\])\].
The post-Painlevé regime before explosion (pre-collapse regime) {#sec:numerics}
===============================================================
After the weakly nonlinear Painlevé regime, the full numerical MEP model displays a solution which ultimately diverges at $t_*$ defined as the collapse time. This divergence occurs in the core domain whose radius shrinks to zero while the density and the velocity increase up to infinity there. Simultaneously, the temperature also diverges as shown in Figure \[Fig:Painl\]-(b). In the halo, the outward velocities continue to grow, but more slowly than in the core, so that at the collapse time $t_*$ the outward motion of matter is still at an early stage. The solution of the MEP model will be described separately in the two regions.
Core collapse {#sec_cc}
-------------
The increase of density and velocity close to the center of the star, which are well visible in linear scale in Figures \[Fig:dens1\]-(a) and \[Fig:post-Painl-u\]-(a), deserves to be specified. The numerical study displays a solution which becomes self-similar in the core after the Painlevé regime, with a singularity of the second kind in the sense of Zel’dovich [@Zeldo]. This property was already found in the canonical case (Paper I) where the whole star collapses. In both cases, in the collapsing domain, the values of the exponents characterizing the self-similar regime show that gravity dominates over pressure forces. However, direct numerical simulations show that the exponents of the MEP model are different from those of the CEP model. Recall that for the gravity-dominated case, using the notations of Paper I, the self-similar density is of the form $$\rho(r,t) = (-t)^{-2} R(r(-t)^{-2/\alpha})
\mathrm{,}
\label{eq:rhoa}$$ and the self-similar velocity is of the form $$u(r,t) = (-t)^{-1+\frac{2}{\alpha}} U(r(-t)^{-2/\alpha})
\mathrm{,}
\label{eq:ua}$$ where $R$ and $U$ are invariant profiles, $\xi=r(-t)^{-2/\alpha}$ is the scaled radial distance, and the exponent $\alpha$ is larger than two. We have taken the origin of time at the collapse time $t_*$. These self-similar solutions require that $R(\xi)\sim \xi^{-\alpha}$ and $ U(\xi)\sim \xi^{-(\alpha/2-1)}$ for $\xi\rightarrow +\infty$ in order to have a steady profile at large distances, as necessary. The exponent $\alpha$ is not free; it is related to the behavior of the self-similar solution as $\xi\rightarrow 0$ [@epje]. More precisely, expanding $R$ as $R = R_0 + R_2 \xi^2 + ... + R_k \xi^k+ ... $ and $U$ as $U= U_1 \xi + ... + U_k \xi^{k+1} + ...$, one finds $$\alpha(k)=\frac{6k}{2k+3},
\label{eq:alfak}$$ where $k$ is an even number because we consider solutions with spherical symmetry.
The behavior of the temperature $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exp3}
T(t)=\frac{2}{3}E-\frac{1}{3}\int\rho\Phi\, d{\bf r}-\frac{1}{3}\int\rho {\bf u}^2\, d{\bf r},\end{aligned}$$ can be deduced from the above scalings in the core domain. This can be done if one neglects the contribution of the halo to the energy in equation (\[exp3\]), an assumption justified because the kinetic and gravitational energies are much smaller in the halo than in the core.[^3] In the core, the potential energy behaves as $W\sim \rho_c \Phi_c r_0^3$, where $\Phi_c\sim -\rho_c r_0^2$ according to Poisson’s equation. Using $\rho_c\sim (-t)^{-2}$ and $r_0\sim (-t)^{2/\alpha}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
T \sim - W \sim (-t)^{10/\alpha-4} \;\;\; \sim
(-t)^{\frac{15-2k}{3k}}
\label{Wself}
\end{aligned}$$ which diverges for $\alpha$ larger than $5/2$, or for the even number $k$ larger than $6$.[^4] In order to investigate whether a self-similar solution of the form (\[eq:rhoa\]), (\[eq:ua\]) and (\[Wself\]) agrees with the numerical results, let us first look at the temperature behavior in the post-Painlevé regime before the divergence, for $t_{s}< t < t_{*}$, where $t_{s}\simeq 0.60$ and $t_{*} \simeq 0.684$. Restoring the initial notations, equation (\[Wself\]) writes $$T (t)= T(t_s) \left (\frac{t_*-t}{t_*-t_s}\right )^{a(k)}
\quad {\rm
with} \quad a(k)=\frac{15-2k}{3k}.
\label{Tself}$$ The best fit with the numerical results occurs for $a= -0.074$ which is chosen in the insert (green line) of Figure \[Fig:Painl\]-(b). This value corresponds to $k=8.4$, or $\alpha=2.5454$, indicating that the integer value $k=8$ is a possible candidate. The corresponding exponent $$\alpha(8)=\frac{48}{19}\qquad {\rm implying}\qquad
a(8)=-\frac{1}{24}
\label{eq:alpha}$$ chosen to draw the green line superposed to the full curve $T(t)$ gives a good fit with the numerical curve. For the value $k=8$, the temperature diverges at the collapse time as $$T(t)\propto (t_*-t)^{-1/24}.$$
(a)![ Density in the core domain before collapse: (a) Numerical solutions of the MEP model ($\rho (r,t)$ increases with time); (b) Invariant profiles (\[ff5\])-(\[ff7\]) versus $r/r_{0}$ of the self-similar pressureless Penston-type solution with $k=8$. []{data-label="Fig:dens1"}](rhovsrzoom-24Nov-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="2in"}
\(b) ![ Density in the core domain before collapse: (a) Numerical solutions of the MEP model ($\rho (r,t)$ increases with time); (b) Invariant profiles (\[ff5\])-(\[ff7\]) versus $r/r_{0}$ of the self-similar pressureless Penston-type solution with $k=8$. []{data-label="Fig:dens1"}](R-U-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.8in"}
\(a) ![Density $\rho (r,t)$ before core collapse in $\log_{10}$ scale (numerical solution of the MEP equations). In (a) the thick straight lines display the slopes $\alpha(8)=-48/19$ (solid blue) and $\alpha(4)=-24/11$ (dashed black) respectively; in (b) the numerical solutions $\rho (r,t)/\rho (0,t)$ versus $r/r_0(t)$ for $\alpha(8)$ are superposed to the invariant function (\[ff5\])-(\[ff6\]) in blue thick line. []{data-label="Fig:dens-log"}](rholog19948s19-24Nov-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="2.0in"}
\(b) ![Density $\rho (r,t)$ before core collapse in $\log_{10}$ scale (numerical solution of the MEP equations). In (a) the thick straight lines display the slopes $\alpha(8)=-48/19$ (solid blue) and $\alpha(4)=-24/11$ (dashed black) respectively; in (b) the numerical solutions $\rho (r,t)/\rho (0,t)$ versus $r/r_0(t)$ for $\alpha(8)$ are superposed to the invariant function (\[ff5\])-(\[ff6\]) in blue thick line. []{data-label="Fig:dens-log"}](rhoalphak8-24Nov-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="2.0in"}
Let us now check and see if the radial solutions $u(r,t)$ and $\rho(r,t)$ also display a self-similar behavior with invariant functions corresponding to the value $k=8$ suggested by the temperature behavior. The numerical density curves $\rho(r,t)$ for increasing time values are shown in linear and logarithmic scales in Figures \[Fig:dens1\]-(a) and \[Fig:dens-log\]-(a) respectively. The latter shows an asymptotic behavior $r^{-\alpha}$ which agrees with the the slope $\alpha(8)=48/19$ reported above the curves (blue straight line) of Figure \[Fig:dens-log\]-(a). For comparison, the slope $\alpha(4)=24/11$ of the CEP model is plotted in dashed (black) line. Note that in both cases (CEP and MEP models) the value of $\alpha$ is larger than $2$ contrary to Penston’s isothermal solution [@Penston] deduced by assuming that pressure and gravity forces keep the same order of magnitude until the collapse.
The whole self-similar solution ($U(.),R(.)$) can be derived either by solving the two coupled differential equations (102) and (103) of Paper I, or by using the parametric solution given in Appendix B.1 of Paper I which generalizes Penston’s pressureless solution [@Penston], namely $$\frac{\rho(r,t)}{\rho_c(t)}=\frac{3}{3+2(3+k)y+(3+2k)y^2},
\label{ff5}$$ $$\frac{r}{r_0(t)}=y^{1/k}(1+y)^{2/3},
\label{ff6}$$ $$\frac{u(r,t)}{u_0(t)}=-\frac{y^{1/k}}{(1+y)^{1/3}},
\label{ff7}$$ where $y(t)\propto t_{*}/(t_{*}-t)$ goes from $0$ to $+\infty$.
The exponent of the MEP model, $\alpha(8)=48/19$, corresponds to the on-axis behavior of the function $R = R_0 + R_8 \xi^8+ ...$, whereas with the CEP model we found $k=4$, $\alpha(4)=24/11$ and $R = R_0 + R_4
\xi^4+ ...$. The invariant functions ($U(.),R(.)$) are drawn in Figure \[Fig:dens1\]-(b) in linear scale.
To compare the numerical curves with the functions ($U(.),R(.)$) we define a time dependent core radius $r_{0}(t)$ by the relation $\rho(0,t)
r_{0}(t)^{\alpha}=1$ and plot $\rho
(r,t)/\rho (0,t)$ and $u(r,t)/u_{0}(t)$ versus $r/r_0(t)$. Using this procedure, the density curves merge quite well (in the core domain) into the theoretical solution of equations (\[ff5\]) and (\[ff6\]) plotted in blue line for $k=8$, as illustrated in Figure \[Fig:dens-log\]-(b).
(a)![(a) Velocity $u(r,t)$ for $t_s< t < t_*$ in the whole star (the modulus of the extremum increases with time); (b) Velocity ratio $-u(r,t)/u_{0}(t)$ versus $r/r_{0}(t)$ compared to the invariant parametric solution (\[ff5\])-(\[ff7\]) applying to the core for $k=8$ (blue thick line). []{data-label="Fig:post-Painl-u"}](u117v3PH-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="2.0in"}
(b)![(a) Velocity $u(r,t)$ for $t_s< t < t_*$ in the whole star (the modulus of the extremum increases with time); (b) Velocity ratio $-u(r,t)/u_{0}(t)$ versus $r/r_{0}(t)$ compared to the invariant parametric solution (\[ff5\])-(\[ff7\]) applying to the core for $k=8$ (blue thick line). []{data-label="Fig:post-Painl-u"}](ualpha099k8v6essai2PH-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="2.0in"}
The merging of the velocity curves into a single one $U$ is not as good, except close to the center, for $r \leq r_{0} (t)$, see Figure \[Fig:post-Painl-u\]-(b). At larger radii, the numerical curves separate, approaching asymptotically the solution $U$ (blue line) in the core as time tends to $t_{*}$. Compared to the CEP results, where the self-similar behavior was also better for the density than for the velocity, we note that here the non-merging region concerns the right part of the curve only (compare Figure \[Fig:post-Painl-u\]-(b) with Figure 14 of Paper I). We attribute this effect (at large radii) to the fact that the velocity has to change its sign at the internal surface of the halo $r_{h}$, which enforces the slope of the velocity at the beginning of the self-similar regime when the ratio $r_{0}/r_{h}$ is not small.
Halo: No self-similar solution {#sec:precoll-halo}
------------------------------
The velocity curves presented in Figure \[Fig:post-Painl-u\]-(a) clearly illustrate the simultaneous inward/outward motion of matter in the time interval $t_s < t <
t_{*}$, where the velocity is negative in the core, and *positive* in the halo, with a modulus increasing with time in both parts. During the self-similar growth of density and inward velocity in the core, what happens in the halo? Is the solution self-similar there? We shall see that the answer is NO.
First, we note that the velocity and density diverge only in the core while they remain finite in the halo, as illustrated in Figure \[Fig:post-Painl-uhalo\] which zooms in Figure \[Fig:post-Painl-u\]-(a) in the halo region. Moreover, during the time interval $t_s < t < t_{*}$, the halo gains a radial extension of about $20\%$, a small evolution compared to the strong shrinking of the core. These two observations seem to indicate that the expansion of the halo is still in a preliminary stage when the core collapses. However, one may ask if the solution is self-similar in the halo before the core collapse (or if it will become self-similar after the collapse, a property investigated in the next section, while not studied numerically). Looking at this possibility, we search for a self-similar solution for a dilute medium by neglecting the self-gravity, so the Euler equations (\[e1\]) and (\[e2\]) reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exp1}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r^2
\rho u)=0\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exp2}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+ u\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}=-
\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial P}{\partial r}.\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the equation of state is purely isothermal[^5] so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exp4}
P=\rho T(t).\end{aligned}$$ The pressure increases because the temperature $T(t)$ increases with time when the core shrinks self-similarly, as described just above if $k$, an even number, is larger than $6$ in equation (\[Tself\]). We take $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exp4b}
T(t)\propto (-t)^a\qquad (a<0).\end{aligned}$$ We neglect the size of the core as compared to the size of the halo (this is marginally valid since $r_h=0.05$ and $r_c=0.26$).
We first look for a self-similar solution of the form $$\rho(r, t) = (- t)^{\beta} R\left(r(-t)^{\beta/\alpha}\right)
\mathrm{,}
\label{selfrho}$$ $$u(r, t) = (- t)^{\delta} U\left(r (-t)^{\beta/\alpha}\right)
\mathrm{.}
\label{selfu}$$ The exponents are linked by the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sc1}
\beta/\alpha + \delta +1=0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sc2}
\delta -1= a + \beta/\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that the mass in the halo $M_h=4\pi\int
\rho(r',t) r'^2\, {\mathrm{d}}r'$ is approximately constant during this short time interval (an approximation not really fulfilled here where matter comes from the inside layer, see Figure \[Fig:post-Painl-uhalo\] where the zero-velocity radius $r_{h}(t)$ decreases from $0.075$ to $0.05$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sc4}
\alpha= 3.\end{aligned}$$ Then we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sc4b}
\beta= -3\left (\frac{a}{2}+1\right ),\qquad \delta=
\frac{a}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the value $a=-1/24$ from equation (\[eq:alpha\]), we obtain a self-similar solution which diverges at $t_{*}$, the density increasing as $
(-t)^{-47/16}$, the velocity as $(-t)^{-1/48}$, and the radius shrinking to zero as $ (-t)^{47/48}$. This clearly disagrees with the numerical results where the dimension of the halo increases by a factor $1.2$, the velocity barely increases and the density decreases. To explain the irrelevance of the above scalings for our model, we have to notice that they are derived within the hypothesis that the pressure dominates over gravity, an hypothesis that could be irrelevant at this stage because the halo is not yet dilute enough. Precisely, the density in the inner part of the halo is approximately equal to $30$ (which is the initial density at $r=0$ in the canonical case where gravity dominates) and the gravitational attraction by the core is not negligible with respect to the self-gravity forces in the halo because the mass of the core is approximately equal to the mass in the halo, see Figure \[fig:equil\]-(b), and the halo is still close to the core: its internal radius ($r_{h} \sim 0.05$) is noticeably smaller than its size ($r_{c} - r_{h }= 0.21$).
To go further in the investigation of self-similar solutions in the dilute gas, and motivated by the linear behavior of the velocity profile for $t \simeq t_{s}$ in Figure \[Fig:post-Painl-uhalo\], we perform a more precise study of the self-similar solutions of equations (\[exp1\])-(\[exp2\]) of the form (\[selfrho\]) and (\[selfu\]) under the assumption that the velocity increases linearly with the distance, namely with the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz}
\rho({\bf r},t)=\frac{M}{R(t)^3} f\left\lbrack \frac{\bf r}{R(t)}\right
\rbrack,\qquad
{\bf u}({\bf r},t)=H(t){\bf r}.\end{aligned}$$ This study is reported in Appendix \[sec\_a\] for an equation of state $P=K(t)\rho^{\gamma}$. There, we show that the radius obeys the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{radius}
\ddot R R^{3\gamma-2} =(t_{*}- t)^a.\end{aligned}$$ In Appendix \[sec\_c1\] we consider first solutions of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7ab}
R(t)=A(t_{*}-t)^{q}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\gamma=1$, we show that a solution of the form (\[ansatz\]) exists only for $a<-2$. Therefore this solution with $u\propto r$ is incompatible with our numerics where we found $a=-1/24$. This result confirms that a gravity-free self-similar solution of the form (\[selfrho\])-(\[selfu\]) is not appropriate to describe the dynamics of the halo during the strongly nonlinear regime before the core collapse.
On the other hand, assuming that gravity dominates pressure does not fit the numerics as well (because this hypothesis gives the same exponents as the ones found for the collapse). Finally, assuming that gravity and pressure forces are of the same order of magnitude leads to the exponents values $\alpha= - \beta=2$ and $\delta=a/2$ which do not fit our numerical results. We conclude that the halo does not follow a self-similar evolution of the form of equations (\[selfrho\]) and (\[selfu\]) in the pre-collapse regime, whatever is the ratio between the gravity and the pressure forces.
![ Velocity versus radius in the halo for $t_s < t < t_*$ (the maximum increases with time). []{data-label="Fig:post-Painl-uhalo"}](u117zoom-24Nov-eps-converted-to.pdf){height="2.0in"}
Secondly, in Appendix \[sec\_c2\], we consider another type of gravity-free self-similar solution which also obeys (\[radius\]), but we replace equation (\[7ab\]) by the condition that the radius of the star $R(t)$ increases and tends to a constant $B$ at $t_*$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rcst}
R(t)=B+\epsilon(t) \qquad \textrm{with} \qquad \epsilon(t)_{t\to t_{*}} \to
0.\end{aligned}$$ In that case, we show that the solution exists and is valid provided that $-2 <
a <0$. The velocity of expansion $\dot R$ takes a finite value at time $t_{*}$ when $a>-1$, and the density decreases as $t\to t_{*}$. These two properties agree with our numerical results, Figure \[Fig:post-Painl-uhalo\], although the starting hypothesis $u=H(t)r$ is definitely not fulfilled. In summary a gravity-free self-similar solution associated to diverging temperature and non-diverging radius exists, but it is irrelevant to describe the dynamics of the halo in the pre-collapse regime because it supposes that the velocity increases linearly with the radius for $t_{s} <t<t_{*}$, which is not observed in our simulation.
Self-similar dynamics just after the singularity (post-collapse regime) {#sec:post-coll}
=======================================================================
In this Section, we present self-similar solutions for the core and the halo just after the singularity time $t_{*}$ (as in the previous Section, we take it as the origin of time). In the core region, we assume that gravity forces overcome pressure forces, as it was stated in the pre-collapse regime. On the other hand, we propose a self-similar solution for the halo which is based on the opposite assumption (pressure overcoming gravity). This solution may be valid soon after the singularity, when the star is very hot and the pressure in the halo is larger than the gravity because the expansion already took place. We did not perform any numerical simulation to check whether these self-similar solutions agree with the MEP model, particularly because of the formation of a singularity at $r=0$ (Dirac peak) in the core plus the lack of knowledge on the temperature evolution in the halo (assumed here of the form $T(t)\propto t^{a}$ where the exponent $a>0$ is unknown).
Solution in the core domain {#sec_scd}
----------------------------
We outline here the derivation of the solution in the core which is similar to the solution of the CEP model but with a different value of the exponent $\alpha$ ($\alpha_{\rm MEP}=48/19$ instead of $\alpha_{\rm CEP}=24/11$). We emphasize that the density does not write as a Dirac distribution at the singularity time $t_{*}$, but as a power law $\rho(r,0) \propto
r^{-\alpha}$ which yields a mass equal to zero at the center because the mass integral converges at $r = 0$ for $\alpha< 3$.
At very short times after the collapse, we assume that the inward motion follows a free fall dynamics in the core region. The situation is then qualitatively the same as in the CEP model, and looks (mathematically) like the one of the dynamics of the Bose-Einstein condensation where the mass of the condensate begins to grow from zero [*[after]{}*]{} the time of the singularity [@BoseE; @bosesopik]. A self-similar solution exists which is the one derived in [@epje] but for the value of the exponent $\alpha$ found here, equation (\[eq:alpha\]). We recall that the main change with respect to the pre-collapse study amounts to adding to the equations of density and momentum conservation, an equation for the mass at the center $M_c(t)$ (with $M_c(0) = 0$). The mass flux across a sphere of radius $r$ being $ J = 4 \pi r^2 \rho(r) u(r)$, the equation for $M_c(t)$ is $$\frac{d{M}_{c}}{dt} = \left[-4 \pi r^2 \rho(r) u(r)\right]_{r \to 0}
\mathrm{.}
\label{eq:Mc}$$ Therefore, the equations one has to solve now are the same as before, $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial
r}\left( r^2 \rho u \right) = 0
\mathrm{,}
\label{eq:Euler.1+}$$ $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + u \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} = - \frac{G
M(r,t)}{r^2}
\mathrm{,}
\label{eq:Euler.2+}$$ plus the mass inside a sphere of radius $r$ $$M(r,t) = 4 \pi \int_0^r {\mathrm{d}}r' r'^2 \rho(r',t) + M_c(t)
\mathrm{.}
\label{eq:Euler.2.1+}$$ These equations after singularity include the whole set of equations leading to the singularity. Moreover, the solution at $t_{*}$ has the same asymptotic behavior on both sides of the singularity. It follows that the scaling laws are the same before and after $t_{*}$. At very short times after $t_{*}$ taken as the origin of time, only the solution very close to $r = 0$ is changed by the occurrence of a finite mass at $r = 0$ which is very small. We look for a self-similar solution of equations (\[eq:Euler.1+\])-(\[eq:Euler.2.1+\]) with $\rho(r, t)$ and $u(r,t)$ having the same exponents as before collapse: $$\rho(r,t) = t ^{-2} R_+(r t^{-2/\alpha}) \mathrm{,}$$ $$u(r,t) =
t^{-1+\frac{2}{\alpha}} U_+(r t^{-2/\alpha}) \mathrm{,}$$ plus another scaling for $M_c(t)$: $$M_c(t) = K_M t^b
\mathrm{,}$$ where $\alpha=48/19$ and $b$ is a positive exponent to be found. The two terms on the right-hand side of equation (\[eq:Euler.2.1+\]) are of the same order of magnitude with respect to $t$ if $$b = \frac{6}{\alpha} - 2,$$ a positive exponent as it should be (recall the condition that $\alpha$ is less than 3). For $\alpha=48/19$, we get $b=3/8$. Therefore, the mass at $r=0$ and the core radius evolve with time $t$ (positive) as $$M_c(t) = K_M t^{\frac{3}{8}}, \qquad R_{c}(t) \sim t^{\frac{19}{24}},
\label{eq:singsc}$$ in this self-similar post-singularity regime. We refer the reader to [@epje] for additional information about this self-similar solution (see, in particular, the explicit analytical solution given in Appendix B of [@epje]).
The evolution of the temperature of the system in the post-collapse regime where the core is a mathematical singularity (Dirac peak) is not clear. Indeed, the divergence of the potential energy of the core would imply an infinite temperature (for global energy conservation). However, if we replace the singular core by a relativistic compact object such as a neutron star, we can get an estimate of the temperature by the relation $k_B T\sim M_c\, c^2$ leading to the scaling $$T(t) \propto t^{{3}/{8}}.
\label{tev}$$ We shall consider this law of evolution of the temperature in the following section and in Appendix \[sec\_b\].
A self-similar solution for the halo {#subsec:phcsol}
------------------------------------
We assume that the energy released during the collapse of the core heats the halo and provides its expansion. Indeed, as the gravitational energy $W$ of the core decreases (and becomes very negative), the temperature $T$ of the halo and its macroscopic kinetic energy $E_{\rm kin}$ increase and become very large ($T\sim E_{\rm kin}\sim -W$) as a result of energy conservation. Therefore, the pressure inside the halo can be high enough to accelerate its expansion. More precisely, we assume that the pressure forces in the halo are stronger than the gravity forces, a condition which will be checked [*in fine*]{}. For the sake of generality, we assume that the halo has a polytropic equation of state of the form $$\begin{aligned}
P=K(t)\rho^{\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ where $K(t)$ is an increasing function of time. The isothermal case is recovered for $\gamma=1$ and $K(t)=T(t)$.
In Appendix \[sec\_a\] we show that a self-similar solution exists within such a frame, a question which is interesting from a mathematical point of view in addition to its potential applicability to the expansion of the halo in the supernova problem. The self-similar solution has a Tsallis [@tsallis] invariant density profile (reducing to a Gaussian for $\gamma=1$) with a typical radius $R(t)$ and a velocity field which increases linearly with the radius $r$. The halo expands with time, as expected, its size $R(t)$ evolving according to the second order differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phc2}
\ddot R R^{3\gamma-2} = K(t).\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq:phc2\]) shows that the expansion rate $\dot R(t)$ is time dependent, contrary to what is generally admitted in the first stage of the expansion, an important point which is discussed below. The case where $K(t)=K$ is independent of time corresponds to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phc2b}
\ddot R = \frac{K}{R^{3\gamma-2}}.\end{aligned}$$ This equation is similar to Newton’s law for a particle in a potential of the form $V(R)=[K/3(\gamma-1)]R^{-3(\gamma-1)}$. It is studied in Ref. [@prep] by analogy with cosmological models (the isothermal case $\gamma=1$ is treated specifically in Appendix \[sec\_k\] of the present paper and asymptotic results valid for an arbitrary index $\gamma$ are also given in that Appendix). Here, we assume that $K(t)=t^{a}$, where $a$ can be of any sign for the sake of generality. In that case, the radius of the halo obeys the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phc3}
\ddot R R^{3\gamma-2}=t^{a}.\end{aligned}$$ The asymptotic behavior of the solution of this equation is studied in Appendix \[sec\_b\]. Below we illustrate some particular behaviors numerically.
\(a) ![Solution of equation (\[eq:phc3\]) for the case of an adiabatic expansion ($a=0$) with initial conditions $R(0)=1$ and $\dot R(0)= 0.1$. (a) Radius of the halo $R(t)$; (b) Kinetic energy $E_{\rm kin}(t)\sim \dot
R(t)^{2}$. In (a) the solid line for $\gamma=1.3$ shows an asymptotic constant rate, the dashed line for $\gamma=1$ displays an expansion rate increasing with time as $ t \log(t)^{1/2}$, and the dotted line for $\gamma=1/2$ evolves as $R(t)\sim t^{4}$ asymptotically. Same legend for curves (b).[]{data-label="Fig:phcs"}](Rt-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
(b)![Solution of equation (\[eq:phc3\]) for the case of an adiabatic expansion ($a=0$) with initial conditions $R(0)=1$ and $\dot R(0)= 0.1$. (a) Radius of the halo $R(t)$; (b) Kinetic energy $E_{\rm kin}(t)\sim \dot
R(t)^{2}$. In (a) the solid line for $\gamma=1.3$ shows an asymptotic constant rate, the dashed line for $\gamma=1$ displays an expansion rate increasing with time as $ t \log(t)^{1/2}$, and the dotted line for $\gamma=1/2$ evolves as $R(t)\sim t^{4}$ asymptotically. Same legend for curves (b).[]{data-label="Fig:phcs"}](Ecptp-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
Numerical solutions of equation (\[eq:phc3\]) are presented in Figures \[Fig:phcs\]-(a) and \[Fig:PHCsol\]-(a) respectively for several values of the exponents $a$ and $\gamma$ chosen for their role in the late time dynamics. In all cases the expansion rate $\dot R$ is clearly time dependent, see the curves of Figures \[Fig:phcs\]-(b) and \[Fig:PHCsol\]-(b) which display the kinetic energy $E_{\rm kin}\propto \dot R ^{2}$. This result differs from the common description of the remnant motion just after the explosion (supposed to expand with a constant velocity due to the conservation of kinetic energy). We shall return to this so-called “free expansion regime” in the next Section. Here, we look if there is a range of parameter values ($a$ and $\gamma$) such that the self-similar solution has an expansion rate which tends *asymptotically* to a constant value. In Appendix \[sec\_cst\] we show that such an asymptotic solution exists, and fulfills our assumptions that pressure is stronger than gravity, provided that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{range}
\frac{3+a}{3} < \gamma < \frac{4+a}{3}.\end{aligned}$$ In that case, the asymptotic behavior of the velocity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{drt}
\dot{R}(t)\simeq v + \frac{1}{v^{3\gamma-2}}
\frac{t^{-3(\gamma-1)+a}}{a-3\gamma+3}+...\;\; (t\rightarrow +\infty).\end{aligned}$$ Other solutions with a different asymptotic behavior, that are valid for values of $\gamma$ in a range different from equation (\[range\]), are given in Appendix \[sec\_b\]. Assuming an adiabatic expansion and an homogeneous entropy inside the halo, amounts to considering the case $a=0$ (see the next Section). In that case, the condition of validity of the solution (\[drt\]) corresponding to $R\sim vt$ is $1<\gamma<4/3$. For example, for $\gamma=1.3$, we can check on Figure \[Fig:phcs\] that the asymptotic expansion rate is constant. By contrast, for $1/3<\gamma<1$ the radius increases as $R(t)\propto
t^{2/(3\gamma-1)}$ (see Appendices \[sec\_kb\] and \[sec\_ut\]) and for $\gamma=1$ it increases as $R(t)\propto t\sqrt{\ln t}$ (see Appendix \[sec\_ka\]). More generally, for $\gamma=1$, the asymptotic expansion rate is constant when $-1<a<0$ while the radius increases as $R(t)\propto
t^{(a+2)/2}$ when $a>0$. In particular, for $\gamma=1$ and $a=3/8$ (see the end of Sec. \[sec\_scd\]), the radius increases as $R(t)\propto
t^{19/16}$ (see Appendix \[sec\_ut\]) which is not very far from a linear behavior.[^6] Note that for an ideal gas the exponent $\gamma$ is equal to unity for an isothermal transformation only, otherwise one has $\gamma>1$. This is because an adiabatic transformation implies $\gamma=c_{p}/c_{v}$ with $c_{p}$ larger than $c_{v}$, and other transformations (called “polytropic”) are intermediate between adiabatic and isothermal. Therefore we chose a value of $\gamma$ larger than unity to illustrate the role of the exponent $a$ on the dynamics of the solution. The solution of equation (\[eq:phc3\]) is shown in Figure \[Fig:PHCsol\] for $\gamma=1.2$ and various values of the exponent $a$ which satisfy the condition (\[range\]). In addition to the adiabatic case ($a=0$), we have chosen a positive ($a=1/2$) and a negative ($a=-1/3$) value of the exponent $a$. In all cases, the late time dynamics displays the condition of asymptotic constant kinetic energy, but with different time scales. In Figure \[Fig:PHCsol\]-(b), the velocity tends to a constant plus a term decreasing as $t^{-0.93}$, $t^{-0.6}$, and $t^{-0.1}$ for the dotted, solid and dashed line respectively. Note that if the self-similar solution proposed here could describe the first stage of the expansion of the halo, we expect that it merges ultimately with the non self-similar Burgers solution suggested in Section \[sec:free exp\] which displays shocks.
(a)![Solution of equation (\[eq:phc3\]) versus time with initial conditions $R(1)=\dot{R}
(1)=1$ for $\gamma=1.2$. (a) Radius of the halo $R(t)$; (b) Kinetic energy $E_{\rm kin} \propto \dot{R}(t)^{2} $. We have taken $a$ equal to $-1/3$ (dotted), $0$ (solid), and $+ 1/2$ (dashed), respectively. In each case the kinetic energy tends to a constant for $t\rightarrow +\infty$.[]{data-label="Fig:PHCsol"}](PHCRa-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
(b)![Solution of equation (\[eq:phc3\]) versus time with initial conditions $R(1)=\dot{R}
(1)=1$ for $\gamma=1.2$. (a) Radius of the halo $R(t)$; (b) Kinetic energy $E_{\rm kin} \propto \dot{R}(t)^{2} $. We have taken $a$ equal to $-1/3$ (dotted), $0$ (solid), and $+ 1/2$ (dashed), respectively. In each case the kinetic energy tends to a constant for $t\rightarrow +\infty$.[]{data-label="Fig:PHCsol"}](Ect-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
Isentropic expansion of the halo and shock formation {#sec:free exp}
====================================================
Physics of the free expansion stage {#sec:general-post}
-----------------------------------
Here, we consider the expansion of the remnants, namely the gas ejected by the explosion of a supernova. We shall assume that the remnant is a dilute gas, although much denser than the interstellar medium. We consider a general equation of state but, as we show below, the pressure is irrelevant for the expansion of a dilute gas. The study of the remnants is of interest because it represents the last stage of the evolution following a supernova explosion which should be matched with the previous stage of the supernova. In addition, those remnants have been observed both on SN1987A and for a number of supernovae having exploded in our Galaxy not too long ago. Lastly, this study is of interest also because it is one of the few instances where a lab-model could be looked at on Earth with some relevance for an astrophysical problem.
We shall neglect a set of perhaps crucial phenomena, namely plasma effects due to the finite electric conductivity of the expanding gas (this yields Laplace forces which could supersede inertia and gravity in the expanding gas). We shall also assume spherical symmetry, not displayed by the observed remnants, except for their large scale structure. As shown later, asphericity is not so crucial from the point of view of the present analysis.
We consider what is called sometimes in the literature the “free expansion stage” following the supernova explosion, when the ejecta are believed to expand freely in space and cool adiabatically because of their expansion. This stage begins after the formation of the neutron star (if any is formed) and when the temperature, pressure and density of the remnants are small enough, see below. It should last until the density of the remnants becomes of the order of magnitude of the density of the interstellar gas. It seems that this is considered as a rather uneventful stage of the expansion, although we believe that this stage of adiabatic cooling is of primary interest. Here, we point out that in order to create structures in an expanding gas volume, as observed in the remnants, there is no need to have interaction with an outside interstellar gas because shocks can occur even within the dynamics of the expanding gas. As we shall show, this occurrence of shocks depends on the initial distribution of the fluid velocity *inside* the remnants: if the radial velocity is larger for a given radius than for a larger one, a shock forms because the larger velocities overcome the slower ones. This shock has its own dynamics related to the conservation relations. Lastly, this early stage of the expansion is, by far, the one that is the best known experimentally because it is a stage where the remnants are still far more luminous than the rest of the Galaxy. Based on the existence of such internal shock waves, we suggest an explanation for the very sharp luminous rings observed in the remnants of SN1987A. Therefore, we believe it is of interest to try to understand this “free expansion stage".
A basic question concerning the free expansion is the validity of its fluid mechanical description. This question concerns the expanding matter, but could also concern the interstellar medium. The validity of such a picture requires that the mean free path of molecules, ions, electrons and atoms in the expanding gas (or in the interstellar medium) is much smaller than the length scale of the structure under consideration. If this is not the case, one has what is called a dust gas, without interaction between the particles other than possibly gravitation. In such a dust gas, the conservation of entropy does not occur, velocity fields with more than one value at a given point are perfectly possible, and shock waves are absent. Here, we assume that the expanding matter is dilute, but not infinitely dilute, with a mean free path far smaller than its size. Therefore, it can be described as a fluid at very large Mach number, in the sense of regular fluid mechanics, namely with a single valued velocity field. The constraint of single valued velocity field explains the formation of shock waves inside this expanding gas, before any interaction with the interstellar medium, as discussed below.
For the interstellar medium, a fluid mechanical description is questionable. According to Spitzer [@Spitzer1; @Spitzer2], its mean free path in the usual sense is of the order of the size of the Galaxy. It is about $500$ pc for a $2$ MeV proton moving in a gas of neutral hydrogen atoms of density of order one atom per cubic centimeter, that should forbid to consider it as a fluid. However, Spitzer notices that, because of the existing magnetic field in the Galaxy, the gyration radius of protons is far smaller than their mean free path, which could reduce by orders of magnitude the mean free path of protons. This could well be, but we must notice that charged particles move freely along the lines of the magnetic field making this reduction of the mean free path not so efficient. Moreover, as noticed by Spitzer, the energy density of the galactic magnetic field is well below the one of the expanding gas so that it is not clear that the electric currents due to the galactic magnetic field are able to slow down this expanding gas.
Another question is the interaction between the molecules of the expanding bubble. As it expands, its density decreases and it should enter in the so-called Knudsen regime where the mean free path of atoms and molecules becomes of the same order or bigger than its radius $R$. This stage comes quite late in the expansion, as shown by the following simple estimate: the radius of the blob is of order $(M_h/ \rho)^{1/3}$ although the mean-free path $l$ is of order $ l = m
/
(\rho\sigma)$ where $m$ is the mass of the atoms making the gas and $\sigma$ is the cross section for the collisions. Therefore, as the density decreases, the mean free path should become larger than the radius of the gas blob, forbidding to describe this gas by the equations of fluid mechanics supplemented by the thermodynamic relations. To put this condition in a dimensionless form, let us introduce the quantity $$\rho_{\rm Kn}= m \sigma^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:kn1}$$ which is the mass density of dense matter, the inter-particle distance of which is of order of $\sigma^{1/2} $. The mean free path becomes of the order of the radius of the cloud when its density is such that $$\rho = \rho_{\rm Kn} \left(\frac{m}{M_{h}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:kn2}$$ a very low density compared to usual densities of condensed matter, $m/M_{h}$ being like the inverse number of atoms in the expanding cloud, surely a very small number.
In summary, we consider below the post-explosion regime where the expanding gas is dense enough to be interacting with itself (the attraction by the core of the exploded star will also be considered), but not with the interstellar medium, and such that it makes a continuous fluid, not a Knudsen gas.
Difference with the Sedov-Taylor problem {#sec:self-sim no g}
----------------------------------------
In this regime, we first point out that a self-similar expansion with gravity and pressure forces included in the equation has to be rejected. Many authors invoke the Sedov-Taylor solution (see Section 106, p. 403-406, of [@ll] and [@sedov2; @sedov3; @sedov4]) to describe the second phase of the expansion of the remnant. But the Sedov-Taylor solution was derived for the expansion of an explosion releasing energy in another gas. This solution conserves energy only, while mass conservation does not enter into the solution because the initial mass is mixed with the infinite mass around. Therefore Sedov-Taylor is not suitable here because, in our description of the free expansion stage, the remnant is an entity which exchanges neither energy nor mass with the interstellar medium. Then we have to impose the constraints of conservation of mass and energy for the remnant. In our case, self-similarity of the *free expanding bubble*, if it exists, requires to neglect some physical effects, as it was done for the description of free fall of dense molecular clouds where the pressure forces were assumed to be negligible with respect to the gravity forces.
Below, we consider two cases, first when gravity is negligible compared to pressure, secondly when both gravity and pressure are negligible. In the former case, we show that the conservation of mass and energy is compatible with a self-similar solution only for the case $\gamma=1$ which corresponds to an isothermal process, not to an adiabatic one. This solution must be rejected since $c_{p}=c_{v}$ is unphysical for a dilute gas. In the latter case, we derive rather straightforwardly an approximation of the fluid equations of Burgers-type, which is well-known to yield shocks. This equation has a simple solution which can be extended beyond situations of perfect spherical symmetry. This solution differs from the one of free fall of a dust gas in a few points. First, the Burgers solution is not self-similar and depends on the initial conditions contrary to the free fall solution. Secondly, if those conditions are such that a shock wave is created, the subsequent evolution couples mass, energy and momentum conservation by the Rankine-Hugoniot relations which link the flux across the shock waves and yield ultimately their trajectory. Somehow, dynamics of mass and energy (the two being linked by the adiabatic condition) are enslaved to the velocity field when this one is smooth (before the shock), but actively enters into the dynamics when shock waves are formed.
The equations for an inviscid compressible ideal fluid in spherically symmetric situations, including self-gravitation, read (see Section 6 of [@ll]): $$r ^2 \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial (\rho u r^2) }{\partial r} = 0
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:densite}$$ $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + u \frac{\partial u }{\partial r} = - \frac{1}{
\rho} \frac{\partial P}{\partial r} - \frac{4\pi G}{r^2} \int_0^r
\mathrm{d}r' r'^2 \rho (r')
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:moment}$$ $$r ^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left ( \frac{1}{2} \rho u^2 + \rho
\varepsilon\right ) + \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left\lbrack \rho u r^2
\left (\frac{1}{2} u^2 + w\right ) \right\rbrack = 0
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:energy}$$ where $\rho$ is the mass density, $u$ the radial velocity, $ \varepsilon $ the internal energy per unit mass, $w = \varepsilon +p/\rho$ the enthalpy per unit mass and $G$ is Newton’s constant. Equation (\[eq:energy\]) can be transformed into the condition that the flow is isentropic $$\frac{\partial (r ^2 s \rho)}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial}{\partial r}(u r^2 s \rho) = 0
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:entropy}$$ where $s$ is the entropy per unit mass such that $d\varepsilon = T ds
+(p/\rho^2) d\rho$. To take advantage that the flow is isentropic, one uses as thermodynamic variables the density $\rho$ and the entropy $s$. Therefore, the pressure $P$ is a function of those two quantities, $P(\rho, s)$. If the heat capacities of the gas are independent of temperature, Laplace’s relation between pressure and density reads $$P = K(s) \rho^ {\gamma}
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:pressure}$$ where $\gamma = c_p/c_v$ is the ratio of heat capacities at constant pressure and constant volume (for an ideal gas undergoing an adiabatic process). For the sake of generality, we did introduce a constant $K(s)$ depending explicitly on the entropy $s$ because it is possible to have an initial state of non-uniform entropy. However, we shall assume later that the entropy is initially uniform, and try to find a possible self-similar solution of the above set of equations for a gas bubble expanding [*in vacuo*]{}. To that purpose, we look for solutions depending on time and radius as $F(r, t) = r^a f(r t^b)$, where $a$ and $b$ are exponents to be derived from the equations, with $a$ depending on the field $F$ under consideration (that is either $ \rho$, $u$ or $s$) although $b$ is the same for all fields. Moreover $f(.)$ is a numerical function with values of order one when its argument is of order one.
In the frame of a perfect gas expanding adiabatically, equation (\[eq:pressure\]) requires that the pressure tends to zero as the density does. Moreover the pressure depends on the temperature as $P \sim
T^{c_p/(c_{p}-c_{v})}$ and $c_{p }> c_{v}$, which implies that the absolute temperature of the gas tends to zero as well. Therefore, the internal energy of the gas, being proportional to $T$, must also tend to zero. Moreover, the gravitational energy in equation (\[ae6\]) tends also to zero because the typical dimension of the halo becomes very large (see below the condition for neglecting the gravitation with respect to pressure forces). We shall assume that the isentropic expansion starts after this (short) transient, when the internal and gravitational energies are almost wholly converted into kinetic energy, so that the density of energy per unit mass is of order $ \rho u^2$ after this conversion has been achieved. In summary, we assume that the condition of conservation of total energy amounts to imposing that the order of magnitude of the velocity $u$ is constant during the isentropic expansion.
No self-similar expansion without gravity {#witug}
-----------------------------------------
Let us insert the self-similar solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sc-halo}
\rho(r, t) = r^a R(r t^b),\qquad u(r, t) = r^c U(r t^b), \end{aligned}$$ in the equations of perfect fluids with the pressure-density relation (\[eq:pressure\]) and neglect the gravitational term. For an expanding solution, one must have $b \leq 0 $. From mass conservation, the integral of $
\rho(r, t) $ over the whole space must be constant, which implies $$a=-3
\textrm{.}
\label{eq:a3}$$ The two terms on the left-hand side of equation (\[eq:moment\]) are of the same order of magnitude if the condition $$b(1-c)=-1
\label{eq:bc1}$$ is fulfilled. As noted above, the (reasonable) condition of conservation of kinetic energy requires $c=0$ which ensures a constant order of magnitude of the velocity field. In this case, the relation (\[eq:bc1\]) reduces to $$b=-1
% \textrm{,}
\label{eq:bc}$$ which means that the size of the shell expands linearly with time, as $R(t)=v t$. This solution corresponds to what is generally called the “free (or Joule) expansion stage" in the literature [@Joule]. Lastly, imposing that the pressure gradient divided by $ \rho$, with $ P = K(s) \rho^ {\gamma} $ and a constant entropy, is minus the acceleration yields $$b= - \frac{1 }{3\gamma - 2},
\label{eq:bgam}$$ which agrees with the condition that $b$ is negative if $\gamma$ is larger than $2/3$ . Equations (\[eq:bc\]) and (\[eq:bgam\]) are compatible for the particular value $$\gamma=1$$ only. However, as mentioned in the previous Section, $\gamma$ is always larger than $1$ in the case of adiabatic or polytropic processes. Therefore, *no physically meaningful self-similar solution of the expanding halo exists for an adiabatic process*. By physically meaningful, we refer to a solution which conserves the kinetic energy and the entropy as assumed above (then $\gamma$ is larger than unity).
Let us now discuss the range of validity of our hypothesis of negligible gravity forces for self-similar solutions of the form (\[eq:sc-halo\]). Keeping the relation (\[eq:bc1\]) with equation (\[eq:bgam\]), one finds that the gravitation term scales like $$\frac{4\pi G}{r^2} \int_0^r \mathrm{d}r' r'^2 \rho (r') \sim r^{-2} \sim t^{2b}
\textrm{.}
\label{eq:scalinggrav}$$ This is to be compared with the other terms, for exemple with the scaling of the acceleration $ u_{,t} \sim t^{-1}$ just derived. For any negative value of $b$ the exponent $-1$ of the acceleration as a function of time is larger than the exponent $2b$ of the gravitational force if $ \gamma < 4/3$. Therefore, when looking at the limit of large $t$, the gravitational force is negligible when $\gamma$ fulfills the relation $$\frac{2}{3} < \gamma < \frac{4}{3}
\textrm{.}
\label{eq:condgam}$$ If $\gamma$ is bigger than $4/3$, the gravitational attraction dominates at large time, then any self-similar solution is expected to evolve toward a collapse.
Expansion without pressure and without gravity {#sec:Burgers}
----------------------------------------------
The alternative to the self-similar solution considered above is to assume that one of the terms in the dynamical equations is negligible with respect to the others, an assumption which changes the scaling laws. Because the pressure tends to zero by adiabatic expansion, it is natural to assume that the pressure term in equation (\[eq:moment\]) becomes small with respect to the other terms as well as the gravitational interaction in this late stage of the expansion [*in vacuo*]{}. This reduces the momentum equation to the simple form $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + u \frac{\partial u }{\partial r} = 0
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:momentmod}$$ an equation well-known since Poisson to have the implicit solution $$u(r, t) = u_0 (r - u t)
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:momentmodsol}$$ where $u_0(r)$ is the initial radial velocity. This solution conserves the order of magnitude of $u$ in the course of time, which is consistent with the conservation of energy. The solution in equation (\[eq:momentmodsol\]) is also well-known to become multi-valued after a finite time for a wide range of initial conditions. However, it is easy to find initial conditions remaining single-valued forever by choosing an initial velocity field growing uniformly as $r$ goes from $0$ to $\infty$, as assumed in the peculiar form (\[ansatz\]). An initial condition leading to a multi-valued solution after a finite time yields actually shock waves regularized by viscosity and heat conduction, which could well be what is observed in the remnants of supernovae. Once the velocity field is known as well as the initial distribution of mass density, one can find, at least by implicit relations, the distribution of mass at any later time. The solution for the density takes the form $$r^2 \rho(r, t) = \frac{\partial r_0 }{\partial r} r_0^2 \rho_0(r_0(r, t))
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:momentmodsoldens}$$ where $ \rho_0(r_0) $ is the initial condition for the density, and where $r_0$ is the function of $(r, t)$ such that $r_{,t} = u(r, t) $ with the initial condition $r(t = 0) = r_0$, and where $u(r, t)$ is given by equation (\[eq:momentmodsol\]).
At this stage, one should check that the neglected terms are actually negligible in this limit of long times compared to what has been kept. Let us look at equation (\[eq:moment\]) and compare the terms on the left- and right-hand side in the late stage of the expansion of the gas, that is when $r$ becomes large. The term $u u_{r}$, called dynamical pressure term, of order $u^{2}/r$, is proportional to $1/r$ because $u$ keeps constant order of magnitude to ensure the conservation of energy. The term $P_{,r}/\rho$ involving the thermodynamical pressure $P \propto \rho^{\gamma}$ is of order $\rho^{\gamma-1}/r$ with $\rho\sim M_{h}/r^{3}$, where $M_{h}$ is the mass of the expanding cloud. That gives a term of order $1/ r^{3\gamma-2}$ decreasing more rapidly with time (as the radius size $r$ increases) than the left hand side term in equation (\[eq:moment\]) because $\gamma $ is larger than unity. The gravitational term, namely $- (4\pi G/r^2) \int_0^r \mathrm{d}r'
r'^2 \rho (r')$, scales like $G M / r^2$, where $M$ is the total mass, a constant. Therefore, it decays faster than the term of dynamical pressure, by a factor $1/r$ as $r$ tends to infinity. This shows that, as assumed, the dynamical pressure is dominant in the regime of a dilute gas. This analysis was based on the fluid equations for a compressible inviscid gas. If this gas becomes highly diluted, it enters the so-called Knudsen regime discussed in Subsection \[sec:general-post\].
Let us notice again that even though the equations of motion do not include explicitly the temperature (or the entropy) this one is known from the constraint of conservation of entropy (\[eq:entropy\]) where the velocity field is given by the implicit equation (\[eq:momentmodsol\]) and the density derived from the equation of transport of mass (\[eq:densite\]) or (\[eq:momentmodsoldens\]). Somehow, one could say that the velocity field of the expanding gas acts a little bit like a piston with an imposed motion such that the gas expands. A related physical phenomenon is the Ranque effect [@Ranque] where a gas injected at high pressure tangentially in a cylinder makes a very strong vortex and cools down spontaneously when extracted near the axis of the cylinder where the pressure is low. In the Ranque effect, the cooling occurs not just by expansion as in the theory presented above, but because of the centrifugal force due to the rotation of the gas inside the cylinder.
Because we have in mind the expansion of the mass of a star after it exploded as a supernova, we must consider also the possible effect of a mass remaining at the center of the star, being the rest of the core after the explosion, even though no such dense core has been observed (yet?) in SN 1987A, the best known supernova. This adds another gravity term in equation (\[eq:moment\]) which becomes $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + u \frac{\partial u }{\partial r} = - \frac{1}{ \rho} \frac{\partial p}{\partial r} - \frac{4\pi G}{r^2} \int_0^r \mathrm{d}r' r'^2 \rho (r') - \frac{G M_c}{r^2}
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:momentcore}$$ where $M_c$ is the mass of the core, a point mass located at $r = 0$. Contrary to the term of self gravitation, the last term, representing the attraction by the core, diverges near $r = 0$ and so cannot be neglected anymore, at least for $r$ small. Let us suppose that the solution remains like the one derived before, that is with a density decreasing to zero with time, and a radial velocity keeping a constant order of magnitude. Comparing the kinetic energy of a unit mass and the gravitational energy due to the attraction by the core, one finds a critical radius $r^*$ such that if $r > r^*$ the velocity is positive while it is negative otherwise. This radius is $r^* = G M_c/u^2$ where $u$ is the order of magnitude of the velocity. At $ r = r^*$ the velocity $u(r)$ changes sign. Because of the scalings, $r^*$ remains of the same order of magnitude, in particular because for $r$ larger than $r^*$ the velocity is directed outward and so no mass is added to the core. Therefore because there is no feeding of mass coming from outside, the radius $r^*$ should stay constant, and the local density tends to zero as it does for $r$ much larger than $r^*$. For $r \gg r^*$, the blob keeps expanding as explained above because the attraction by the core becomes negligible compared to the dynamic pressure, and the density inside the core tends to collapse on the center, but with a negligible attraction on the expanding gas at radii much larger than $r^*$, where most the mass is located.
Depending on the initial conditions $u_0(r)$ for the velocity field, the solution of equation (\[eq:momentmod\]) may or may not lead to a finite time singularity. If it does not, the assumptions leading to this equation remain correct for all positive times. If this solution becomes singular at finite time, there is the question of the evolution after the singularity time. As well-known since Riemann, the finite time singularity of the solutions of equation (\[eq:momentmod\]) is physically transformed into a solution with a propagating discontinuity, a shock wave, once molecular transport (heat conductivity and viscosity) is taken into account. Notice that such a shock wave is neither the one derived from the Sedov-Taylor model of an expanding gas (the remnant) inside an exterior medium (the interstellar medium) which is supposed to occur at the boundary between the two media, nor the one often referred to in theories of supernovae, which is supposed to occur inside the star just after the core collapse and is believed to play a role in the emission of matter outside. In the present case, the discontinuity propagates also inside the medium where it was born (as in the latter case), but the propagation occurs through an expanding rarefied gas. In our case, we have neglected the pressure term $- P_{,r}/\rho$ in the momentum equation (\[eq:moment\]), that adds complexity to the standard theory of shock waves. This approximation was based on the fact that the order of magnitude of the thermodynamic pressure $P$ becomes negligible compared to the one of the dynamic pressure (giving rise to the term $ u u_{, r}$ in equation (\[eq:moment\])).
To neglect the thermodynamic pressure with respect to the dynamical pressure amounts to taking the limit where the velocity of sound, $c_{s}=\sqrt{p'(\rho)}$, is much less than the actual fluid velocity $u$, equivalent to the limit of a very large Mach number $$\mathcal{M}=\frac{u}{c_{s}}\gg 1
\textrm{.}
\label{eq:Mac}$$ In this limit, one can use the known relations giving the ratio between the thermodynamic parameters on both sides of a shock wave. In the present case, we shall be concerned with the ratio of number densities. As shown in Section 89 of [@ll], this ratio is, for shock waves of arbitrary Mach number in polytropic gases, given by $$\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1} = \frac{(\gamma + 1) \mathcal{M}_1^2}{(\gamma - 1) \mathcal{M}_1^2 + 2}
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:ratiodeb}$$ where the index $1$ refers to the upstream part of the shock, and $2$ to the downstream part, both being located inside the expanding remnant. In the case of a shock propagating outward, the index $1$ refers to the outside and $2$ to the inside, while $u_1$ is the fluid velocity near the shock front on the upstream side in the frame of reference of the shock. Its order of magnitude is the one of the fluid velocity in the expanding gas, much bigger in the low density limit than the speed of sound $c_1$ on the upstream side. Therefore, as already mentioned, neglecting the thermodynamic pressure is valid in the limit of large Mach number. In this limit, the ratio of densities across the shock takes the finite value $(\gamma + 1)/(\gamma - 1)$, which shows that the accumulation of matter on the shock is limited to a finite ratio. Notice that this ratio is obviously larger than 1 because it is the ratio of the density on the downstream side (index 2) to the upstream side (index 1). It is equal to $7$ for a gas such that $\gamma = 4/3$. It would be interesting to know if a larger effect of mass concentration happens on manifolds where the velocity is more singular than on shock waves, like for instance near the line of merging of two shock surfaces or at points where three shock surfaces meet. An interesting possibility is that such an accumulation of mass and energy increase could explain the observation of rings in SN1987A, with a fair axial symmetry, likely due to the initial rotation of the star. At sufficiently long time after the initial explosion, the shock waves due to the initial conditions for the velocity field likely get an axisymmetrical shape which could result in lines of intersection having this symmetry and so be circles in planes perpendicular to the same axis, the symmetry between the two thin circles being due to a symmetry with respect to the lid plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the star.
It is of interest to remark that a shock wave occurring in the expanding gas at decreasing density and temperature is a manner for the system to increase its temperature. In strong shocks (see equation (89.10) of [@ll]) propagating through polytropic gases, there is a very large increase of temperature on the downstream side. The ratio of the downstream temperature $T_2$ to the upstream temperature $T_1$ is given by $$\frac{T_2}{T_1} = \frac{2 \gamma (\gamma - 1)}{(\gamma + 1)^2} \mathcal{M}_1^2
\textrm{,}
\label{eq:ratiodebb}$$ where $ \mathcal{M}_1 $ is the large upstream Mach number. Such a large temperature increase could well explain the observation of a light emitting part of the remnants, particularly near their edge where the effect of an initial velocity difference is more likely to yield a shock wave because of the structure of the solution of the equation (\[eq:momentmod\]).
Comparison with the canonical description {#sec:can-microcan}
=========================================
In this Section, we summarize the main results obtained in this paper, which are valid in the microcanonical ensemble (fixed energy $E$), and we compare them with those obtained in Paper I, which are valid in the canonical ensemble (fixed temperature $T$). As discussed in the Introduction, the CEP model gives some results that are identical to those found here for the MEP model, but there are also important differences.
Series of equilibria
--------------------
First of all, we recall that the series of equilibria are the same in the canonical and microcanonical ensembles. They are made of all the solutions of equations (\[es1\]) and (\[es1b\]), stable or unstable, corresponding to the condition of hydrostatic equilibrium. This leads to the spiralling curve of Figure 5 in Paper I and to the spiralling curves of Figure \[spi-microcan1\] in this paper. However, the stability of the solutions is different in the microcanonical and canonical ensembles. Using the Poincaré theory [@poincare; @katz; @can-microcan], one can show that the series of equilibria is stable in the canonical ensemble before the first turning point of temperature and that it becomes unstable afterward. The instability occurs when the specific heat $C=dE/dT$ becomes infinite, passing from positive to negative values. Furthermore, a new mode of stability is lost at each turning point of temperature as the series of equilibria $\beta(E)$ rotates anticlockwise. The critical point A where the first instability occurs as $T$ decreases ($\hat{h}_0$ increases) corresponds to a minimum of the temperature. This canonical critical point (saddle-center) has been fully characterized in Paper I. It corresponds to $T_c^{\rm cano}=1.546$ and $E_c^{\rm cano}=0.378$. Similarly, one can show that the series of equilibria is stable in the microcanonical ensemble before the first turning point of energy and that it becomes unstable afterward. The instability occurs when the specific heat vanishes, passing from negative to positive values. Furthermore, a new mode of stability is lost at each turning point of energy as the series of equilibria $\beta(E)$ rotates anticlockwise. The critical point A’ where the first instability occurs as $E$ decreases ($\hat{h}_0$ increases) corresponds to a minimum of the energy. This microcanonical critical point (saddle-center) has been fully characterized in Section \[sec:equil\] of the present paper. It corresponds to $E_c^{\rm micro}=-0.984142$ and $T_c^{\rm micro}=2.22538$. The fact that the onset of instability differs in microcanonical and canonical ensembles (A $\neq$ A’) is a manifestation of ensembles inequivalence for systems with long-range interactions [@can-microcan]. Considering the caloric curve of Figure \[spi-microcan1\]-(b), we note that the region of ensembles inequivalence (between points A and A’) occurs in the region of negative specific heats $C=dE/dT<0$. This is natural because we know from general arguments of thermodynamics that the specific heat must be positive in the canonical ensemble while there is no [*a priori*]{} constraint on its sign in the microcanonical ensemble. These results regarding the caloric curve $\beta(E)$ and the notion of ensembles inequivalence are similar to those obtained in the context of box-confined isothermal spheres (see [@box; @lbw; @aaiso]). We also note that the curves which depict the succession of equilibrium states lead to spirals spinning inversely when the equilibrium radius of the star is plotted versus $T$ or versus $E$: compare $r_0(T)$ shown in Figure 5 of Paper I with the curve $r_0(E)$ shown in Figure \[spi-microcan1\]-(a) of the present paper. In the canonical ensemble, the series of equilibria is stable until point A, so that the radius always decreases as the temperature decreases (see Figure 5 of Paper I). As a result, we anticipate that the canonical description should give a contraction of the radius of the star (collapse/implosion) after the instability point A. In the microcanonical ensemble, the series of equilibria is stable until point A’. The radius first decreases as the energy decreases, then, after the turning point of radius $r_0=0.371$, energy $E=-0.80$, and temperature $T=1.97$, the radius increases as the energy keeps decreasing (conjointly, in the region of negative specific heat, the temperature increases as the energy decreases). As a result, we anticipate that the microcanonical description should give an expansion of the radius of the star and an increase of temperature (explosion) after the instability point A’ (see Figure \[spi-microcan1\]-(a)).
Neutral mode
------------
The structure of the neutral mode is different in the canonical and microcanonical ensembles. This has important consequences for the evolution of the star in the collapse regime. The important result is depicted by the spatial profile of the velocity which is negative everywhere for the CEP model illustrated in Figure \[Fig:cep-vit\]-(a), whereas the velocity clearly changes sign in the star for the microcanonical case (see the curve $S(r)$ drawn in Figure \[FigrhM\]-(b)). This shows that the collapse corresponds to a pure inward motion in the canonical ensemble while, in the microcanonical ensemble, the core collapses (inward motion) and the halo expands (outward motion). This result has to be completed by the spatial profile of the density deviation, which displays only one node for the CEP model at the critical point A (see the curve $\delta
\rho/ \rho$ in the insert of Figure \[Fig:cep-vit\]-(b)), so the density increases in the core and decreases in the outer layers, whereas in the microcanonical ensemble, the density deviation $\delta \rho/ \rho$ at the critical point A’ displays two nodes (see Figure \[FigrhM\]-(a)), so the density increases in the core and in the halo, while it decreases in the intermediate region.
\(a) ![Radial profile of the first order deviation in the canonical case (CEP model) for (a) the displacement (or velocity), and (b) the density. The insert in (b) shows the presence of a single node. []{data-label="Fig:cep-vit"}](Scan-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
(b)![Radial profile of the first order deviation in the canonical case (CEP model) for (a) the displacement (or velocity), and (b) the density. The insert in (b) shows the presence of a single node. []{data-label="Fig:cep-vit"}](dro-can-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
We note that the above results regarding the structure of the neutral modes in the canonical and microcanonical ensembles are similar to those obtained in the context of box-confined isothermal spheres (see [@sc] and references therein). However, the box prevents the expulsion of the halo, so the box model is limited in this sense, and the present model, which is unbounded, should be prefered for astrophysical applications. The above results are also in agreement with general results of thermodynamics applied to self-gravitating systems (see [@can-microcan] and Appendices A and B of [@sc]). Indeed, in the canonical ensemble, the system evolves so as to minimize its free energy at fixed mass. Therefore, one expects that the system collapses as a whole and ultimately forms a [*Dirac peak*]{} containing all the mass.[^7] Indeed, a Dirac peak has an infinite negative free energy. The collapse of the system is accompanied by a huge decrease of potential energy ($W$) which overcomes the slower decrease of entropy (or increase of $-TS$). Such an evolution is energetically favorable. On the other hand, in the microcanonical ensemble, the system evolves so as to maximize its entropy at fixed mass and energy. Therefore, one expects that the system takes a [*core-halo*]{} structure. Indeed, by collapsing the core and expanding the halo we can make the entropy very large, possibly infinite, while conserving the energy. As the core collapses, its potential energy decreases. Since the total energy is conserved, the kinetic energy of the halo must increase simultaneously. As a result, the halo overheats and is ejected at large distances. Such an evolution is entropically favorable.
Weakly nonlinear regime
-----------------------
Our weakly nonlinear analysis, whose relevance is confirmed by the numerical solution of the full hydrodynamic equations, is valid during the early stage of the collapse dynamics. It leads to the same Painlevé I equation \[see equation (\[n25\]) here and equation (75) in Paper I\] in both canonical and microcanonical models, but the coefficients are different. In Paper I, we obtained $\gamma\simeq 120.2$ and $K\simeq 12.3$, whereas in the present paper we obtained $\gamma\simeq 46.62$ and $K\simeq 1055.98$. Therefore, the amplitude $A(t)$ increases more slowly in the canonical model than in the microcanonical one, compare Figure $8$ of Paper I with Figure \[Fig:Painl\] here. This is related to the fact that the critical density $\rho_0^{(c)}$ is much lower (by a factor $100$) in the CEP model with respect to the MEP model.
Fully nonlinear regime
----------------------
The fully nonlinear regime is marked by the collapse of the core of the system, the formation of a finite time singularity, and the growth of a Dirac peak by accretion of the surrounding matter in the post-collapse regime. When considering the collapse of the core, one can neglect the pressure as compared to the self-gravity. The core undergoes a self-similar collapse (free fall) in both canonical and microcanonical ensembles but the exponents are different in the two ensembles. For example, the density profile decreases as $r^{-24/11}$ in the CEP model and as $r^{-48/19}$ in the MEP model. Consequently, in the post-collapse regime, the mass in the Dirac peak increases as $M_c(t)\sim t^{3/4}$ in the CEP model and as $M_c(t)\sim t^{3/8}$ in the MEP model. On the other hand, in the CEP model, the system collapses as a whole while, in the MEP model, it takes a core-halo structure reminiscent of a red giant. The halo is heated by the energy released by the collapsing core and, when considering the evolution of the halo, one can consider that the pressure force overcomes the gravitational attraction. Therefore, the canonical ensemble may be relevant to describe the life and death of supermassive stars which collapse (implode) without exploding (hypernova phenomenon) while the microcanonical ensemble may be relevant to describe the life and death of less massive stars which present a more complex evolution marked by the collapse (implosion) of the core and the explosion of the halo (supernova phenomenon). The final fate of a star is to become a neutron star if its mass is below the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit or a black hole if its mass is above the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit.
[*Remark:*]{} In previous works on the statistical mechanics of self-gravitating systems [@box; @lbw], the collapse of the system in the microcanonical ensemble was associated with the so-called gravothermal catastrophe. The gravothermal catastrophe is not like an avalanche (or a free fall). During the gravothermal catastrophe the system takes a core-halo structure but remains in hydrostatic equilibrium [@lbe; @inagakilb]. Its evolution is due to the temperature gradient between the core and the halo and the fact that the core has a negative specific heat $C=dE/dT<0$ [@lbw; @thirring]. Therefore, by losing heat the core grows hotter and evolves away from equilibrium. On the other hand, the halo does not explode and even barely expands. The evolution of the system consists just in a core collapse. This description applies to globular clusters. During the gravothermal catastrophe their central parts collapse and get hotter while their outer parts are left behind. In our model, which rather applies to gaseous stars described by fluid equations, we are in the opposite regime (see also [@sc]).[^8] There is no gradient of temperature but the system is not in hydrostatic equilibrium. At low energies and low temperatures, the pressure cannot balance the gravitational attraction and the star collapses. The core experiences a free fall and the halo expands because it is heated by the energy released by the collapsing core (we have adopted a rough energetic constraint where the temperature is uniform but increases with time). We have suggested that this simple model could be related to the onset of red giant structure and to supernova explosions. We note that Lynden-Bell and Wood [@lbw] and Thirring [@thirring] have also related the gravitational instability resulting from the negative specific heat of self-gravitating systems to the onset of red giant structure and to supernova explosions (see [@ac] for additional comments). Probably, a realistic model of stars should take into account both energy transfers by temperature gradients as in [@lbe; @inagakilb] [*and*]{} deviation from hydrostatic equilibrium as in our model.
Conclusion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Presently, theories of supernova explosion focus on physical phenomena such as the emission of neutrinos, or complex 3D effects which we do not consider at all in our work. We focus on an entirely different aspect of the physics of supernovae, namely the fluid mechanical part, without considering the immensely complex set of possible nuclear reactions in the core. We show that implosion *and* explosion taking place at the death of a massive star may occur simultaneously. This yields an alternative explanation to the yet unsolved problem of supernova description where the two steps process makes, we believe, an unsatisfactory explanation. Using a simple model which has no aim to reproduce the complex reality of what happens inside a star, we point out first that the huge difference of time scales between the long life of a star and its abrupt death can be understood in the light of a catastrophe-like theory which includes dynamical aspects. This is performed by sweeping slowly a saddle-center bifurcation. Starting from the stable equilibrium state and approaching the saddle-center bifurcation, the weakly nonlinear analysis leads to a universal (Painlevé I) equation followed by a self-similar collapse more rapid than the growing explosion of the outer shell.
It is important to point out that the Painlevé analysis gives access to the sign for the velocity field at the critical point, contrary to what happens in “classical" transitions from a linearly stable to a linearly unstable situation (where the unstable mode may have either positive or negative amplitude). As we have shown, this sign may change as a function of the radius. This fair property of the definite sign of the growing Painlevé solution comes from the fact that in the case of a saddle-center bifurcation, the two stable and unstable equilibrium states (a center and a saddle respectively) merge at the critical point, beyond which no equilibrium state exists (neither stable nor unstable) that makes the difference with the “classical" case.
Our study illustrates once more (see [@can-microcan]) that a change from canonical to microcanonical description, not looking very important at first, does deeply change the outcome of the transition from stable to unstable state. In the case we have studied, the canonical model collapses without producing any outgoing flow of matter, although the microcanonical model shows a core collapse together with an explosive outer shell. The former case (Paper I) could reproduce what happens in the case of supermassive stars which die via hypernovae showing very intense and directive gamma ray bursts, but no explosion of matter (or a very faint one) and often leads to the formation of black holes. In the present paper, on the other hand, we show that it is possible to reproduce what happens for massive stars which die via supernovae showing explosion of matter and often leading to the formation of a neutron star resulting from the core collapse. Therefore, our simple model opens up the way to a new understanding of the explosion of stars, based on fluid mechanics, catastrophe theory, and bifurcation properties of their equilibrium state. It also provides a nice illustration of the property of inequivalence between canonical and microcanonical ensembles for systems with long-range interactions.
The assumption of a uniform temperature inside the star implies physically that heat conduction is very fast so that temperature is made uniforme on a time scale much shorter than the one of the physical process we consider. This could be due, for instance, to heat transfer by photons, moving a priori very fast in the star, even though this motion is a kind of Brownian motion, not a straight trajectory. Another physical possibility is given by the well-known Laplace equilibrium in the atmosphere of the Earth: Laplace assumed, rightly, that, because of very fast vertical motions, the air reaches rapidly an isentropic equilibrium, where the entropy per unit mass is constant (notice that the word entropy was absent in Laplace’s work, but he understood that fast exchanges like in sound waves are such that there is no irreversible exchange of heat so that the relationship between pressure and volume is given by the relation $P V^{\gamma}$ constant, where $P$ is the pressure, $V$ the specific volume, and $\gamma$ the ratio of heat conductivity at constant pressure and volume). Therefore, if fast vertical motion (likely turbulent) is present in the star, it could be closer to reality to take, instead of a uniform temperature and a global energy conservation, a constraint of Laplace equilibrium, namely a uniform entropy per unit mass together with a conserved total energy. Such an equilibrium with a non uniform temperature is what is expected to represent the present state inside the Sun, with a temperature increasing toward the center. While being not much heavier to treat numerically, this description would be hardly tractable analytically and this is why we considered a simpler isothermal model. However, we expect that, qualitatively, the results should be comparable.
In the description of the halo expansion after the explosion, we made rough approximations. Nevertheless, the points we made clear seem important. In a first stage, we assumed that the halo expands self-similarly powered by the rise of temperature accompanying the contraction of the core. In a second stage, we assumed that the free expansion stage is an isentropic process with two constraints, the conservation of mass and energy. This stage of free expansion, which has not been much studied, reveals itself to be especially interesting because neglecting the gravity with respect to the pressure forces, we find that no self-similar solution exists, contrary to the free fall of dense molecular gas (where the opposite was assumed). Then, we point out that when both pressure and gravity are negligible, another type of solution appears, of Burgers-type, which is a prototype for creating shocks. Such a scenario could happen in the process of remnant expansion, but is not the common one found in the literature which invokes Sedov-Taylor self-similar solutions where the shock is due to the interaction between the remnant and the interstellar matter. Our argument relies on the fact that the mean-free path in interstellar matter may be as large as the size of a galaxy, that makes such event unrealistic. In our rough description shocks are formed naturally inside the remnant, they propagate inside this matter, the role of the interstellar medium being ignored.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
Two of us (P.H. Chavanis and Y. Pomeau) greatly acknowledge “la fondation des Treilles” which helped finance a colloquium organized in September 2014 in their beautiful mediterranean domain of Tourtour (83690, France) where our collaboration started on this subject.
Useful relations in original variables {#app:A}
======================================
We regroup in this Appendix some useful relations that are needed in our theoretical study. We write the equations in terms of the original (dimensional) variables.
Newton’s law {#sec_gauss}
------------
Integrating the Poisson equation (\[e3\]) for a spherically symmetric distribution of matter, we obtain Newton’s law $$\begin{aligned}
{\Phi}_{,r}(r,t)=\frac{GM(r,t)}{r^2},
\label{he4}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M(r,t)=\int_0^r \rho(r',t) 4\pi {r'}^2\, dr'
\label{he5}\end{aligned}$$ is the mass contained within the sphere of radius $r$. The density is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(r,t)=\frac{M_{,r}(r,t)}{4\pi {r}^2}.
\label{he5b}\end{aligned}$$ Applying Newton’s law at the edge of the star, we get $${\Phi}_{,r}(R(t),t)=\frac{GM}{R(t)^2}\quad {\rm and}\quad
{\Phi}(R(t),t)=-\frac{GM}{R(t)},
\label{he6}$$ where $M$ is the total mass of the star (to get the second relation we have assumed that the space is empty outside the star so that Newton’s law can be easily integrated for $r\ge R(t)$). For a steady state, using equation (\[he2\]), the foregoing relations from equations (\[he4\]) and (\[he6\]) imply $$\begin{aligned}
{h}_{,r}(r)=-\frac{GM(r)}{r^2},\qquad {h}_{,r}(r_0)=-\frac{GM}{r_0^2}.
\label{he7}\end{aligned}$$
Gravitational energy {#sec_pot}
--------------------
The gravitational energy of the star is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e6}
W(t)=\frac{1}{2}\int\rho\Phi\, d{\bf r}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Poisson’s equation (\[e3\]), integrating by parts, and using equation (\[he6\]) valid for a spherically symmetric distribution of matter, we find that the gravitational energy is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e6b}
W(t)&=&\frac{1}{8 \pi
G} \int \Phi \Delta \Phi \, d{\bf r} \nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{GM^2}{2R(t)}-\frac{1}{8 \pi
G} \int (\nabla \Phi)^2 \, d{\bf r}.\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, using equation (\[he5b\]), we can write $$\label{ew}
W(t)=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{R(t)}\rho\Phi \, 4\pi r^2\,
dr=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{R(t)}\Phi M_{,r}\, dr.$$ Integrating equation (\[ew\]) by parts and using equation (\[he6\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W(t)=-\frac{GM^2}{2 R(t)}-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{R(t)}M \Phi_{,r} \, dr.\end{aligned}$$ For a steady state, using equation (\[he2\]), the foregoing equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
W=-\frac{GM^2}{2 r_0}+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{r_0}M h_{,r} \, dr.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, at equilibrium, the energy (\[ae6\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
E=\frac{3}{2}N k_B T-\frac{GM^2}{2 r_0}+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{r_0}M h_{,r} \, dr.\end{aligned}$$
Virial theorem
--------------
For a self-gravitating gas in a steady state, the scalar virial theorem writes $$\begin{aligned}
3\int P\, d{\bf r}+W=0.
\label{he9}\end{aligned}$$ Using equation (\[he9\]), the energy (\[ae6\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{he10}
E=\frac{3}{2}N k_B
T-3\int P\, d{\bf r}.\end{aligned}$$
Radial displacement
-------------------
We consider a spherically symmetric evolution of the system and define the radial displacement $S(r,t)$ by $$\delta u=S_{,t},$$ where $u(r,t)$ is the radial component of the velocity field. In the linearized equations, recalling that the perturbations evolve with time as $e^{\lambda t}$, we get $$\delta u=\lambda
S.$$ The linearized continuity equation (\[l4\]) may be written as $$\delta \rho+\frac{1}{r^2}(r^2 \rho S)_{,r}=0.
\label{rs1}$$ Multiplying equation (\[rs1\]) by $4\pi r^2$ and integrating between $0$ and $r$, we get $$S(r)=-\frac{\delta M(r)}{4\pi\rho(r) r^2}.
\label{rs2}$$ This relation is valid for $r<r_0$. It is undetermined at $r=r_0$ where $\rho=0$. However, coming back to equation (\[rs1\]), and expanding the derivative, we obtain $$S(r_0)=-\frac{\delta\rho(r_0)}{\rho_{,r}(r_0)}.
\label{rs3}$$
Useful relations in scaled variables at the critical point {#app:B}
==========================================================
In this Appendix, we regroup some useful relations in scaled variables that we apply at the critical point. In all the subsequent formulae, we suppress the hats (in the final equations) in order to simplify the notations.
Writing equation (\[marg3\]) in scaled variables, we get $$j_{,r}(r)=-\delta \Phi^{(c)}_{,r}(r)=-\frac{\delta M^{(c)}(r)}{r^2}.
\label{ur1}$$ Since $\delta M^{(c)}(r_c)=0$ because the total mass is conserved, the foregoing equation gives $j_{,r}(r_c)=0$. Knowing $j(r)$ we obtain $\delta M^{(c)}(r)$ by the relation $$\delta M^{(c)}(r)=-r^2 j_{,r}(r).
\label{ur2}$$ Writing equation (\[he5b\]) in perturbed form and introducing the scaled variables, we get $$\delta\rho^{(c)}(r)=\frac{\delta M^{(c)}_{,r}}{4\pi r^2}=-\frac{1}{4\pi}\Delta
j,
\label{ur3}$$ where we have used equation (\[ur2\]) to obtain the last equality. Writing equation (\[rs2\]) in scaled variables with ${\hat S}=S/T^{1/2}$, we get $$S^{(c)}(r)=-\frac{\delta M^{(c)}(r)}{4\pi\rho^{(c)}(r)
r^2}=\frac{j_{,r}(r)}{4\pi \rho^{(c)}(r)},
\label{ur4}$$ where we have used equation (\[ur2\]) to obtain the last equality. At the edge of the star, writing equations (\[marg10\]) and (\[rs3\]) in scaled variables, we get $$S^{(c)}(r_c)=-\frac{\delta\rho^{(c)}(r_c)}{\rho^{(c)}_{,r}(r_c)}
=-\frac{2j(r_c)}{\rho^{(c)}_{,r}(r_c)}.
\label{ur5}$$
A self-similar solution for the expansion of the halo {#sec_a}
=====================================================
In this Appendix, we construct a self-similar solution describing the expansion of the halo according to the model developed in Section \[subsec:phcsol\].
Euler equations
---------------
We consider the Euler equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a1}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot (\rho {\bf u})=0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a2}
\frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t}+({\bf u}\cdot \nabla){\bf
u}=-\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla P,\end{aligned}$$ with a polytropic equation of state of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a3}
P=K(t)\rho^{\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ where $K(t)$ is a given function of time. We assume that $K(t)\ge 0$ in order to have a positive pressure. We assume that $\gamma>0$ so that the pressure force leads to an expansion of the halo: $-(1/\rho)P'(\rho)d\rho/dr>0$ (recalling that $d\rho/dr<0$). Finally, we neglect the self-gravity of the halo in equation (\[a3\]), an approximation whose validity will be discussed in Section \[sec\_val\].
Scaling ansatz
--------------
We look for a self-similar solution of equations (\[a1\])-(\[a3\]) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a4}
\rho({\bf r},t)=\frac{M}{R(t)^3} f\left\lbrack \frac{\bf r}{R(t)}\right
\rbrack,\qquad
{\bf u}({\bf r},t)=H(t){\bf r}.\end{aligned}$$ We have assumed that the velocity field is proportional to the radial distance ${\bf r}$ with a proportionality factor $H(t)$. Defining $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a4b}
{\bf x}=\frac{{\bf r}}{R(t)},\end{aligned}$$ we can rewrite equation (\[a4\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a4c}
\rho({\bf r},t)=\frac{M}{R(t)^3} f({\bf x}),\qquad
{\bf u}({\bf r},t)=H(t)R(t){\bf x}.\end{aligned}$$ In the foregoing equations $R(t)$ is the typical size (radius) of the halo and $f({\bf x})$ is the invariant density profile. We assume that the density profile contains all the mass ($\int \rho({\bf r},t)\, d{\bf r}=M$) so that $\int f({\bf x})\,
d{\bf x}=1$.
The continuity equation (\[a1\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a5}
\frac{\partial\ln\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot {\bf u}+ {\bf
u}\cdot \nabla\ln\rho=0.\end{aligned}$$ From equation (\[a4\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a6}
\frac{\partial\ln\rho}{\partial t}=-\frac{\dot R}{R}{\bf x}\cdot \nabla_{\bf
x}\ln f-3\frac{\dot R}{R},\nonumber\\
\nabla\ln\rho=\frac{1}{R}\nabla_{\bf x}\ln
f,\qquad \nabla\cdot {\bf u}=3H.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the foregoing relations into equation (\[a5\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a7}
\left (H-\frac{\dot R}{R}\right )\left (3+{\bf x}\cdot \nabla_{\bf x}\ln f\right
)=0.\end{aligned}$$ This equation must be satisfied for all ${\bf x}$. This implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a8}
H(t)=\frac{\dot R}{R}.\end{aligned}$$ We note the formal analogy with the Hubble constant in cosmology. We have ${\bf
u}({\bf r},t)=[\dot R/R(t)]{\bf r}=\dot R {\bf x}$.
Using equation (\[a4\]), the left hand side of the Euler equation (\[a2\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a9}
\frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t}+({\bf u}\cdot \nabla){\bf
u}=(\dot H+H^2){\bf r}=\frac{\ddot R}{R}{\bf r}=\ddot R {\bf x}.\end{aligned}$$ For an equation of state of the form of equation (\[a3\]), the pressure term in the right hand side of equation (\[a2\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a10}
-\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla P=-K(t)\gamma\rho^{\gamma-2}\nabla\rho.\end{aligned}$$ With the scaling ansatz from equation (\[a4\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a11}
-\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla
P=-K(t)\gamma\frac{M^{\gamma-1}}{R^{3\gamma-2}}f^{\gamma-2}\nabla_{\bf x} f.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting equations (\[a9\]) and (\[a11\]) into the Euler equation (\[a2\]), and assuming that $f$ depends only on $x=|{\bf x}|$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a12}
\ddot
R=-K(t)\gamma\frac{M^{\gamma-1}}{R^{3\gamma-2}}f^{\gamma-2}\frac{f'(x)}{x}.\end{aligned}$$ The variables of position and time separate provided that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a13}
f^{\gamma-2}\frac{df}{dx}+2Ax=0\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a14}
\ddot R=2AK(t)\gamma\frac{M^{\gamma-1}}{R^{3\gamma-2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is a constant (the factor $2$ has been introduced for convenience). These differential equations determine the invariant halo profile $f(x)$ and the evolution of the halo radius $R(t)$.
Invariant halo profile and halo radius
--------------------------------------
The differential equation (\[a13\]) determining the invariant profile of the halo can be integrated into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a15}
f(x)=\left\lbrack C-(\gamma-1)A x^2\right\rbrack_+^{1/(\gamma-1)},\end{aligned}$$ where $[x]_+=x$ if $x\ge 0$ and $[x]_+=0$ if $x\le 0$. Therefore, the invariant profile (\[a15\]) is given by a Tsallis distribution [@tsallis] of index $\gamma$ (see Section VI of [@sc2]). We can take $C=A$ without loss of generality. Denoting this constant by $Z^{1-\gamma}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a16}
f(x)=\frac{1}{Z}\left\lbrack 1-(\gamma-1)x^2\right\rbrack_+^{1/(\gamma-1)},\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ is determined by the normalization condition $\int f({\bf x})\, d{\bf
x}=1$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a17}
Z=\int_0^{x_{\rm max}}\left\lbrack
1-(\gamma-1)x^2\right\rbrack_+^{1/(\gamma-1)}\, 4\pi x^2\, dx,\end{aligned}$$ where $x_{\rm max}=1/\sqrt{\gamma-1}$ if $\gamma\ge 1$ and $x_{\rm max}=+\infty$ if $1/3<\gamma\le 1$. The distribution is not normalizable when $\gamma\le
1/3$. Therefore, in the following, we assume $\gamma>1/3$. The integral can be expressed in terms of Gamma functions leading to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a18}
Z=\frac{\pi^{3/2}\Gamma\left (\frac{1}{\gamma-1}\right
)}{(\gamma-1)^{5/2}\Gamma\left (\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}\right
)}\qquad (\gamma\ge 1),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a19}
Z=\frac{\pi^{3/2}\Gamma\left (\frac{1}{1-\gamma}-\frac{3}{2}\right
)}{(1-\gamma)^{3/2}\Gamma\left (\frac{1}{1-\gamma}\right )} \qquad
(1/3<\gamma\le 1).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the differential equation (\[a14\]) determining the evolution of the halo radius becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a20}
\ddot R=2 Z^{1-\gamma} K(t)\gamma\frac{M^{\gamma-1}}{R^{3\gamma-2}}.\end{aligned}$$ By a proper rescaling, we can write this equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a21}
\ddot R R^{3\gamma-2} = K(t).\end{aligned}$$ For the isothermal equation of state $P=\rho
k_B
T(t)/m$ (corresponding to $\gamma=1$), the invariant halo profile is the Gaussian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a22}
f(x)=\frac{1}{\pi^{3/2}}e^{-x^2}\end{aligned}$$ and the evolution of the halo radius is determined by a differential equation of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a23}
\ddot R=\frac{T(t)}{R}.\end{aligned}$$ For the polytropic equation of state $P=K(t)\rho^2$ (corresponding to $\gamma=2$), the invariant halo profile is parabolic $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a24}
f(x)=\frac{15}{8\pi}(1-x^2)_+\end{aligned}$$ and the evolution of the halo radius is determined by a differential equation of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a25}
\ddot R=\frac{K(t)}{R^4}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the expansion of the halo is always accelerating ($\ddot R>0$).
Validity of the approximations {#sec_val}
------------------------------
The Euler equations (\[a1\]) and (\[a2\]) are valid provided that we can neglect the self-gravity of the halo as compared to the pressure force. The pressure force scales as $$\label{a26}
\frac{1}{\rho}|\nabla P|=\frac{1}{\rho}K(t)|\nabla \rho^{\gamma}|\sim
\frac{K(t)\rho^{\gamma-1}}{R}\sim \frac{K(t)M^{\gamma-1}}{R^{3\gamma-2}},$$ while the gravitational force scales as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a27}
|\nabla \Phi|\sim
\frac{GM}{R^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, when $R$ is large, the gravitational force is negligible in front of the pressure force provided that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a28}
\frac{GM}{R^{2}}\ll \frac{K(t)M^{\gamma-1}}{R^{3\gamma-2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The validity of this approximation depends on the function $K(t)$ and on the value of the polytropic index $\gamma$. Some examples are given below.
The case $K(t)=1$ {#sec_k}
-----------------
In this subsection, we assume that the temperature is constant: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k1}
K(t)=1.\end{aligned}$$ In that case, the differential equation (\[a21\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k2}
\ddot R = \frac{1}{R^{3\gamma-2}}.\end{aligned}$$ It is similar to the fundamental equation of dynamics (Newton’s equation) for a fictive particle of unit mass and position $R(r)$ submitted to a repulsive force of the form $F=1/R^{3\gamma-2}$. The case of an arbitrary polytropic index $\gamma$ is treated in Ref. [@prep] by developing an analogy with the Friedmann equations of cosmology.
### Isothermal equation of state $(\gamma=1)$ {#sec_ka}
Here, we specifically consider the case $\gamma=1$ corresponding to an isothermal equation of state. In that case, the differential equation (\[k2\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k3}
\ddot R = \frac{1}{R}.\end{aligned}$$ It can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k4}
\ddot R=-\frac{dV}{dR}\qquad {\rm with}\qquad V(R)=-\ln R.\end{aligned}$$ The first integral of motion is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k5}
E=\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{dR}{dt}\right )^2+V(R),\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ is a constant. The evolution of the halo radius $R(t)$ is therefore determined by the integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k6}
t=\int_{R_0}^{R(t)}\frac{dR}{\sqrt{2(E-V(R))}},\end{aligned}$$ where $R_0$ is its value at $t=0$. In writing equation (\[k6\]) we have assumed that $R(t)$ always increases with time. Substituting the potential $V(R)$ from equation (\[k4\]) into equation (\[k6\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k7}
t=\int_{R_0}^{R(t)}\frac{dR}{\sqrt{2(E+\ln
R)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Making the change of variables $x=\sqrt{E+\ln R}$ in equation (\[k7\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k8}
t=\sqrt{2}e^{-E}\int_{\sqrt{E+\ln
R_0}}^{\sqrt{E+\ln
R(t)}} e^{x^2}\, dx.\end{aligned}$$ This equation can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k9}
t=\sqrt{2} R(t)D(\sqrt{E+\ln
R(t)}) \nonumber\\
-\sqrt{2}R_0 D(\sqrt{E+\ln
R_0}),\end{aligned}$$ where $D(x)$ is Dawson’s function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k10}
D(x)=e^{-x^2}\int_{0}^{x} e^{t^2}\, dt.\end{aligned}$$ It has the asymptotic behavior $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k11}
D(x)=\frac{1}{2x}+\frac{1}{4x^3}+... \qquad (x\rightarrow +\infty).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for $t\rightarrow +\infty$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k12}
t\sim \frac{R}{\sqrt{2\ln R}},\end{aligned}$$ leading to (at leading order): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k13}
R(t)\sim t\sqrt{2\ln t}.\end{aligned}$$ The radius of the halo expands linearly in time with a logarithmic correction. The velocity of expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k14}
\dot R(t)\sim \sqrt{2\ln t},\qquad {\dot R}^2(t)\sim 2\ln
t\end{aligned}$$ increases logarithmically in time.
### Asymptotic results for an arbitrary index {#sec_kb}
Here, we provide asymptotic results valid when $t\rightarrow +\infty$. For an arbitrary index $\gamma$, the potential writes $$\begin{aligned}
V(R)=\frac{1}{3(\gamma-1)}\frac{1}{R^{3(\gamma-1)}}.\end{aligned}$$ We first assume $\gamma>1$. For $R\rightarrow +\infty$, the potential $V(R)\rightarrow 0$ and the first integral of motion (\[k5\]) reduces to $\dot
R\sim \sqrt{2E}$ (with $E>0$) leading to $$\begin{aligned}
R(t)\sim \sqrt{2E}\, t \qquad (t\rightarrow +\infty).\end{aligned}$$ We now assume $1/3<\gamma<1$. For $R\rightarrow +\infty$, the potential $V(R)\rightarrow -\infty$ and the first integral of motion (\[k5\]) reduces to $\dot R\sim
\sqrt{-2V(R)}$ leading to $$R(t)\sim \left\lbrack
\frac{(3\gamma-1)^2}{6(1-\gamma)}\right\rbrack^{{1}/{(3\gamma-1)}}t^{
2/(3\gamma-1)} \;\;(t\rightarrow +\infty).$$
For $K(t)=1$ the condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]) takes the form $R^{4-3\gamma}\gg 1$. Since $R(t)\rightarrow +\infty$ for $t\rightarrow
+\infty$, the foregoing asymptotic behaviors are valid provided that $\gamma<4/3$.
The case $K(t)=t^a$ (post-collapse) {#sec_b}
-----------------------------------
In this subsection, we assume that the temperature evolves with time as a power law: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b1}
K(t)=t^a.\end{aligned}$$ In that case, the differential equation (\[a21\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b2}
\ddot R R^{3\gamma-2} = t^a.\end{aligned}$$ For the sake of generality, we let the value of $a$ arbitrary (positive or negative). For $a>0$ the temperature increases with time up to infinity. This is the situation corresponding to the post-collapse regime considered in Section \[sec:post-coll\] where $a=3/8$ and $\gamma=1$ (isothermal gas). For $a<0$ the temperature decreases with time up to zero.
### Solution $R(t)= A t^q$ with $q>0$ {#sec_ut}
We consider a solution of equation (\[b2\]) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b3b}
R(t)= A t^q\end{aligned}$$ with $q>0$ (and, of course, $A>0$). In that case, the halo radius increases with time up to infinity. Substituting this ansatz into equation (\[b2\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b3}
Aq(q-1)t^{q-2}A^{3\gamma-2}t^{(3\gamma-2)q}= t^a,\end{aligned}$$ implying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b4}
q=\frac{a+2}{3\gamma-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b5}
A^{3\gamma-1}=\frac{1}{q(q-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Considering equation (\[b5\]), and recalling that $q>0$ and $A>0$, we see that a necessary condition for the existence of a solution is that $q>1$. Considering equation (\[b4\]) with $q>1$, and recalling that $\gamma>1/3$, we find that the solution exists provided that $a>-2$ and $1/3<\gamma<(a+3)/3$.
The condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b6}
\frac{1}{t^{2q}}\ll \frac{t^a}{t^{(3\gamma-2)q}}\qquad {\rm for}\qquad
t\rightarrow +\infty.\end{aligned}$$ When $\gamma>1/3$ this requires $\gamma<(3a+8)/6$. This condition is always satisfied when the solution exists. When $a=0$ the solution exists and is valid provided that $1/3<\gamma<1$. When $\gamma=1$ the solution exists and is valid provided that $a>0$. When $\gamma=1$ and $a=3/8$ (see Section \[sec:post-coll\]), we get $R=(16/\sqrt{57})t^{19/16}$, which is close to the law $R\sim
vt$ corresponding to a constant kinetic energy (see Section \[sec:free exp\]).
[*Remark:*]{} There exist solutions where the radius increases with time ($q>0$) while the temperature decreases with time ($a<0$).
### Solution $R(t)= A t^q$ with $q<0$ {#solution-rt-a-tq-with-q0}
We consider a solution of equation (\[b2\]) of the form of equation (\[b3b\]) with $q<0$ (and, of course, $A>0$). In that case, the halo radius decreases with time up to zero. Substituting this ansatz into equation (\[b2\]) we get equation (\[b3\]) implying equations (\[b4\]) and (\[b5\]). Considering equation (\[b4\]) with $q<0$, and recalling that $\gamma>1/3$, we find that the solution exists provided that $a<-2$.
The condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]) takes the form of equation (\[b6\]). When $\gamma>1/3$ this requires $\gamma<(3a+8)/6$. This condition is never fulfilled when the solution exists. When $a=0$ the solution does not exist. When $\gamma=1$ the solution exists provided that $a<-2$ but it is not valid.
### Asymptotic solution $\dot R(t)\rightarrow v$ with $v>0$ {#sec_cst}
We consider an asymptotic solution of equation (\[b2\]) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b7b}
R(t)= vt+\epsilon(t)\end{aligned}$$ with $v>0$ and $|\epsilon(t)|\ll v t$ for $t\rightarrow +\infty$. This means that the velocity $\dot R$ of the halo (or its kinetic energy $\propto {\dot R}^2$) tends to a constant for large times. Substituting this ansatz into equation (\[b2\]) we get for $t\gg 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b7}
\ddot \epsilon \sim \frac{1}{v^{3\gamma-2}} t^{a-3\gamma+2}.\end{aligned}$$ After two integrations, we obtain (the constants of integration can be taken equal to zero without restriction of generality) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b8}
\epsilon(t) \sim \frac{1}{v^{3\gamma-2}}
\frac{t^{a-3\gamma+4}}{(a-3\gamma+3)(a-3\gamma+4)}.\end{aligned}$$ The velocity of the halo is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b8b}
\dot R \simeq v+ \frac{1}{v^{3\gamma-2}}
\frac{t^{a-3\gamma+3}}{a-3\gamma+3}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the terminal velocity $v$ cannot be determined by this asymptotic approach as it depends on the initial condition. The condition $|\epsilon(t)|\ll
v t$ for $t\rightarrow +\infty$ impose $\gamma>(a+3)/3$. Since our approach assumes $\gamma>1/3$, we find that the solution exists (i) for any $\gamma>1/3$ when $a<-2$; (ii) for $\gamma>(a+3)/3$ when $a>-2$.
The condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b10}
\frac{1}{t^{2}}\ll \frac{t^a}{t^{3\gamma-2}}\qquad {\rm for}\qquad
t\rightarrow +\infty.\end{aligned}$$ This requires $\gamma<(a+4)/3$. We note in that case that $\epsilon(t)<0$ so that asymptotically $R(t)\lesssim vt$. In conclusion, the solution exists and is valid provided that (i) $-3<a<-2$ and $1/3<\gamma<(a+4)/3$; (ii) $a>-2$ and $(a+3)/3<\gamma<(a+4)/3$. When $a=0$ the solution exists and is valid provided that $1<\gamma<4/3$. When $\gamma=1$ the solution exists and is valid provided that $-1<a<0$.
[*Remark:*]{} There exist solutions where the radius increases with time while the temperature decreases with time ($a<0$).
### Asymptotic solution $R(t)\sim (t_{f}-t)^q$ with $q<0$
We consider an asymptotic solution of equation (\[b2\]) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b11b}
R(t)\sim A
(t_{f}-t)^q\end{aligned}$$ with $q<0$ (and, of course, $A>0$). This corresponds to a future finite time singularity in the sense that the halo radius becomes infinite in a finite time $t_f$. Defining $\tau=t_{f}-t$ and substituting this ansatz into equation (\[b2\]), we get for $\tau\rightarrow 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b11}
Aq(q-1)\tau^{q-2}A^{3\gamma-2}\tau^{q(3\gamma-2)}\sim t_{f}^a,\end{aligned}$$ implying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b12}
q=\frac{2}{3\gamma-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b13}
A^{3\gamma-1}=\frac{t_{f}^a}{q(q-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Considering equation (\[b12\]) and recalling that $\gamma>1/3$, we find that the condition $q<0$ is never fulfilled. Therefore, there is no solution of that form.
### Asymptotic solution $R(t)\sim (t_{f}-t)^q$ with $q>0$
We consider an asymptotic solution of equation (\[b2\]) of the form of equation (\[b11b\]) with $q>0$ (and, of course, $A>0$). In that case, the halo radius vanishes in a finite time $t_f$. Defining $\tau=t_{f}-t$ and substituting this ansatz into equation (\[b2\]), we get equation (\[b11\]) for $\tau\rightarrow 0$, implying equations (\[b12\]) and (\[b13\]). Considering equation (\[b13\]), and recalling that $q>0$ and $A>0$, we see that a necessary condition for the existence of a solution is that $q>1$. Considering equation (\[b12\]) with $q>1$, we find that the solution exists provided that $1/3<\gamma<1$, independently of $a$.
The condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b1w}
\tau^{-2q}\ll \tau^{-(3\gamma-2)q}\qquad {\rm
for}\qquad \tau\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ This requires $\gamma>4/3$. This condition is never fulfilled when the solution exists. When $a=0$ the solution exists provided that $1/3<\gamma<1$ but it is not valid. There is no solution of the form (\[b11b\]) when $\gamma=1$.
### Conclusions
Regrouping the foregoing results, and considering only solutions that satisfy the condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]), we come to the following conclusions: (i) When $-3<a<-2$ the solution of equation (\[b2\]) behaves asymptotically as $R\sim vt$ for $1/3<\gamma<(a+4)/3$ (see Appendix \[sec\_cst\]); (ii) When $a>-2$ the solution of equation (\[b2\]) behaves asymptotically as $R\sim A t^q$ with $q>0$ for $1/3<\gamma<(a+3)/3$ (see Appendix \[sec\_ut\]) and as $R\sim vt$ for $(a+3)/3<\gamma<(a+4)/3$ (see Appendix \[sec\_cst\]).
When $a=0$, the solution of equation (\[b2\]) behaves asymptotically as $R\sim A
t^{2/(3\gamma-1)}$ for $1/3<\gamma<1$ (see Appendices \[sec\_kb\] and \[sec\_ut\]), as $R\sim
t\sqrt{2\ln t}$ for $\gamma=1$ (see Appendix \[sec\_ka\]), and as $R\sim vt$ for $1<\gamma<4/3$ (see Appendices \[sec\_kb\] and \[sec\_cst\]).
When $\gamma=1$, the solution of equation (\[b2\]) behaves asymptotically as $R\sim vt$ for $-1<a<0$ (see Appendix \[sec\_cst\]), as $R\sim
t\sqrt{2\ln t}$ for $a=0$ (see Appendix \[sec\_ka\]), and as $R\sim A
t^{(a+2)/2}$ for $a>0$ (see Appendix \[sec\_ut\]).
When $a=3/8$ and $\gamma=1$, which is the situation corresponding to the post-collapse regime considered in Section \[sec:post-coll\], the solution of equation (\[b2\]) behaves asymptotically as $R\sim A t^{19/16}$ (see Appendix \[sec\_ut\]).
The case $K(t) = (t_{\rm coll}-t)^a$ (pre-collapse) {#sec_c}
---------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we assume that the temperature behaves as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c1}
K(t)=(t_{\rm coll}-t)^a.\end{aligned}$$ In that case, the differential equation (\[a21\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c2}
\ddot R R^{3\gamma-2} = (t_{\rm coll}-t)^a.\end{aligned}$$ Defining $\tau=t_{\rm coll}-t$, it reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c3}
\ddot R R^{3\gamma-2} = \tau^a.\end{aligned}$$ For the sake of generality, we let the value of $a$ arbitrary (negative or positive). When $a<0$, the temperature diverges in a finite time $t_{\rm coll}$. This is the situation corresponding to the pre-collapse regime considered in Section \[sec:numerics\] where $a=-1/24$ and $\gamma=1$ (isothermal gas). When $a>0$, the temperature tends to zero in a finite time $t_{\rm coll}$.
### Solution $R(\tau)= A (t_{\rm coll}-t)^q$ with $q<0$ {#sec_c1}
We consider a solution of equation (\[c2\]) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c4b}
R(\tau)= A \tau^q\end{aligned}$$ with $q<0$ (and, of course, $A>0$). In that case, the radius $R(t)$ increases and becomes infinite at $t=t_{\rm coll}$. Substituting this ansatz into equation (\[c3\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c4}
Aq(q-1)\tau^{q-2}A^{3\gamma-2}\tau^{(3\gamma-2)q}= \tau^a,\end{aligned}$$ implying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c5}
q=\frac{a+2}{3\gamma-1} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c5b}
A^{3\gamma-1}=\frac{1}{q(q-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Considering equation (\[c5\]) with $q<0$, and recalling that $\gamma>1/3$, we find that the solution exists provided that $a<-2$.
The condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c7}
\frac{1}{\tau^{2q}}\ll \frac{\tau^a}{\tau^{(3\gamma-2)q}}\qquad {\rm for}\qquad
\tau\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ When $\gamma>1/3$ this requires $\gamma>(3a+8)/6$. This condition is always fulfilled when the solution exists. When $a=0$ the solution does not exist. When $\gamma=1$ the solution exists and is valid provided that $a<-2$. For the case considered in Section \[sec:precoll-halo\], corresponding to $\gamma=1$ and $a=-1/24$, the condition $a<-2$ is not satisfied so there is no solution of the form of equation (\[c4b\]) with $q<0$. This suggests that the radius of the halo does not diverge at $t_{\rm coll}$ in agreement with the numerical solution of the MEP model.
### Solution $R(\tau)= A (t_{\rm coll}-t)^q$ with $q>0$ {#sec_c1b}
We consider a solution of equation (\[c2\]) of the form of equation (\[c4b\]) with $q>0$ (and, of course, $A>0$). In that case, the radius $R(t)$ decreases and tends to zero at $t=t_{\rm coll}$. Substituting this ansatz into equation (\[c3\]) we get equation (\[c4\]) implying equations (\[c5\]) and (\[c5b\]). Considering equation (\[c5b\]), and recalling that $q>0$ and $A>0$, we see that a necessary condition for the existence of a solution is that $q>1$. Considering equation (\[c5\]) with $q>1$, and recalling that $\gamma>1/3$, we find that the solution exists provided that $a>-2$ and $1/3<\gamma<(a+3)/3$.
The condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]) takes the form of equation (\[c7\]). When $\gamma>1/3$ this requires $\gamma>(3a+8)/6$. This condition is never fulfilled when the solution exists. For the case considered in Section \[sec:precoll-halo\], corresponding to $\gamma=1$ and $a=-1/24>-2$, the condition $1/3<\gamma<(a+3)/3=71/72$ is not satisfied, so there is no solution of the form of equation (\[c4b\]) with $q>1$ (we get $q=47/48<1$). This suggests that the radius of the halo does not tend to zero at $t_{\rm coll}$ in agreement with the numerical solution of the MEP model.
### Asymptotic solution $R(t)\rightarrow B$ {#sec_c2}
We consider an asymptotic solution of equation (\[c2\]) of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nc8}
R(\tau)= B+ \epsilon(\tau)\end{aligned}$$ with $|\epsilon(\tau)|\rightarrow
0$ when $\tau\rightarrow 0$. In that case, the radius $R(t)$ reaches a finite value $B$ at $t=t_{\rm coll}$. Substituting this ansatz into equation (\[c3\]) we get for $\tau\ll 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c8}
\ddot \epsilon \sim \frac{1}{B^{3\gamma-2}} \tau^{a}.\end{aligned}$$ After two integrations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c9}
\epsilon(t) \sim \frac{1}{B^{3\gamma-2}}
\frac{\tau^{a+2}}{(a+2)(a+1)}-v\tau,\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ is a constant of integration (the other constant of integration can be taken equal to zero without restriction of generality). This solution exists provided that $a>-2$. We note that $B$ and $v$ cannot be determined by this asymptotic approach since they depend on the initial condition. The velocity of expansion is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c10}
\dot R(t)=-\dot R(\tau)=-\dot\epsilon(\tau) \sim -\frac{1}{B^{3\gamma-2}}
\frac{\tau^{a+1}}{a+1}+v.\end{aligned}$$ When $a>-1$, the velocity $\dot R(t)$ tends to a finite value $v$ at $t_{\rm coll}$. When $a<-1$, the velocity $\dot R(t)$ tends to $+\infty$ as $t\rightarrow t_{\rm coll}$.
The condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c11}
1\ll \tau^a \qquad {\rm for}\qquad
\tau\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ This condition is fulfilled provided that $a<0$. In conclusion, the solution exists and is valid provided that $-2<a<0$. When $a=0$ the solution exists but is not valid. When $\gamma=1$ the solution exists and is valid provided that $-2<a<0$. For the case considered in Section \[sec:precoll-halo\], corresponding to $\gamma=1$ and $a=-1/24$, we find that the solution (\[nc8\]) exists and is valid. Together with the result of Appendices \[sec\_c1\] and \[sec\_c1b\], this strongly suggests that the radius of the halo tends to a constant at $t=t_{\rm
coll}$ in agreement with the numerical solution of the MEP model. Furthermore, since $a=-1/24>-1$, the velocity $\dot
R(t)$ tends to a finite value $v$ at $t=t_{\rm coll}$.
### Conclusions
Regrouping the foregoing results, and considering only solutions that satisfy the condition of validity of our study (\[a28\]), we come to the following conclusions: (i) When $a<-2$ the solution of equation (\[c2\]) behaves asymptotically as $R\sim A (t_{\rm coll}-t)^q$ with $q<0$ for $\gamma>1/3$ (see Appendix \[sec\_c1\]); (ii) When $-2<a<0$ the solution of equation (\[c2\]) tends to a constant $R\rightarrow B$ for $\gamma>1/3$ (see Appendix \[sec\_c2\]).
When $\gamma=1$, the solution of equation (\[c2\]) behaves asymptotically as $R\sim A (t_{\rm coll}-t)^{(a+2)/2}$ for $a<-2$ (see Appendix \[sec\_c1\]) and tends to a constant $R\rightarrow B$ for $-2<a<0$ (see Appendix \[sec\_c2\]).
When $a=-1/24$ and $\gamma=1$, which is the situation corresponding to the pre-collapse regime considered in Section \[sec:numerics\], the solution of equation (\[c2\]) tends to a constant $R\rightarrow B$ (see Appendix \[sec\_c2\]).
[99]{}
H.A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**[62]{}**]{}, 801 (1990). A. Burrows, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**[85]{}**]{}, 245 (2013). Y. Pomeau, M. Le Berre, P.H. Chavanis, B. Denet, Eur. Phys. J. E [**37**]{}, 26 (2014). Y. Pomeau, M. Le Berre, C. Narteau, P. Fromy, in [*Comptes-rendus de la 14ème Rencontre du Non-Linéaire*]{}, edited by C. Josserand [*et al.*]{} (Paris 2011), 135-144; Y.Pomeau, M. Le Berre, arXiv:1102.5637. R. D. Peters, M. Le Berre, Y. Pomeau, Phys. Rev. E **86**, 026207 (2012). A. J. K. Phillips, P. A. Robinson, Phys. Rev. E [**[79]{}**]{}, 021913 (2009). Y. Pomeau, M. Le Berre, Chaos, CNN, in [*Memristors and Beyond*]{}, Special Issue in honor of Léon Chua (A. Adamatzky, G. Chen Eds.), Chap. 28 (World Scientific, 2012). Y. Pomeau, M. Le Berre, arXiv:1107.3331. P.H. Chavanis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**[20]{}**]{}, 3113 (2006). V.A. Antonov, Vest. Leningr. Gos. Univ. [**7**]{}, 135 (1962) \[translation in IAU symposium [**113**]{}, 525 (1985)\]. M. Hénon Ann. Astrophys.[ **24**]{}, 369 (1961). M.L. Chabanol, F. Corson, Y. Pomeau, Europhys. Lett. [ **50**]{}, 148 (2000). Y. Pomeau “Statistical Mechanics of Gravitational Plasma", in [*Proceedings of 2nd Warsaw School of Statistical physics*]{} (University of Warsaw Press, 2008), 165-207. R. Emden,[ *Gaskugeln Anwendungen der Mechanischen Wärmetheorie auf Kosmologische und Meteorologie Probleme*]{} (Teubner, Leipzig, 1907). S. Chandrasekhar, *An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure* (Dover, 1942). P.H. Chavanis, Astron. Astrophys. [**381**]{}, 340 (2002). H. Poincaré, Acta Math. [**7**]{}, 259 (1885). J. Katz, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**183**]{}, 765 (1978). H. Nessyahu, E. Tadmor, J. Comput. Phys. [**87**]{}, 408 (1990). J. Balbas, E. Tadmor, CentPack, http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/centpack. Z.G.I. Barenblatt, Y. B. Zel’dovich, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**4**]{}, 285 (1972). M.V. Penston, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**[144]{}**]{}, 425 (1969). C. Josserand, Y. Pomeau, S. Rica, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**[145]{}**]{}, 231 (2006). J. Sopik, C. Sire, P.H. Chavanis, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 011112 (2006). C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. [**52**]{}, 479 (1988). P.H. Chavanis, in preparation. L. Spitzer, [*Diffuse Matter in Space*]{} (Wiley, N. Y., 1968). L. Spitzer, [*Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium*]{} (Wiley, N.Y, 1977). L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, *Fluid Mechanics*, Course of Theoretical Physics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1987). L.I. Sedov, J. Appl. Math. Mech. [**10**]{}, 241 (1946). R. Latter, J. Appl. Phys. [**26**]{}, 954 (1955). J. Lockwood-Taylor, Phil. Mag. [**46**]{}, 317 (1955). M.J. Klein, [*Principles of the Theory of Heat*]{} (D. Reidel Pub. Cy., Dordrecht, 1986). G. Ranque, J. Phys. Rad. [**4**]{}, 112 (1933). D. Lynden-Bell, R. Wood, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**138**]{}, 495 (1968). C. Sire, P.H. Chavanis, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 046133 (2002). G. Alberti, P.H. Chavanis, arXiv:1808.01007. C. Sire, P.H. Chavanis, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 061111 (2008).
[^1]: A saddle-center bifurcation occurs when a center merges with a saddle at the fold point in Hamiltonian systems, a fairly standard situation as documented in Paper I.
[^2]: Painlevé found these equations when searching solutions having peculiar properties related to the position of their complex singularities
[^3]: These quantities are of order $M u_{i}^{2}$ and $M^{2}/r_{i}$, where the index $i=1,2$ refers to the core and halo domains (here $M_{1}\sim M_{2} \sim M/2$). Their relative values depend on the mean velocity and on the size of the fluid in each region. We observe numerically that the velocity in the halo is much smaller than in the core (and the inverse for the size $r_{i}$).
[^4]: The kinetic energy behaves as $E_{\rm
kin}\sim \rho_c u_0^2 r_0^3$. Using $\rho_c\sim (-t)^{-2}$, $r_0\sim (-t)^{2/\alpha}$ and $u_0\sim (-t)^{-1+2/\alpha}$, we get $E_{\rm kin}\sim (-t)^{10/\alpha-4}\sim
-W$. Therefore, the divergence of the kinetic energy $E_{\rm kin}\rightarrow
+\infty$ in Eq. (\[exp3\]) could compensate the divergence of the gravitational energy $W\rightarrow -\infty$. However, numerical simulations show that $W$ dominates. Therefore, as a result of the conservation of the energy, the collapse of the core ($W\rightarrow -\infty$) is associated with an increase of the temperature of the system ($T\rightarrow +\infty$).
[^5]: Since the initial density is larger than unity in the main part of the halo, we shall consider that the equation of state (\[mp1\]) may be approximated by equation (\[exp4\]). This was a problem to build equilibrium solutions with a finite mass but this is not a problem if we consider dynamical solutions.
[^6]: The linear behavior characterizes what is generally called free expansion, understood as the propagation of the remnant with constant kinetic energy, at the very beginning of the expansion when the pressure of the interstellar gas is negligible, before accumulated mass of this gas affect the expansion.
[^7]: Of course, in practice, other physical processes such as quantum mechanics and general relativity [@ac; @rc] will come into play and prevent this classical mathematical singularity to form. It will be replaced by a quantum compact object such as a white dwarf or a neutron star (if its mass is smaller than the Chandrasekhar [@chandra31] or Oppenheimer-Volkoff [@ov] limit) or by a black hole.
[^8]: This is necessary to account for the very different timescale governing the collapse of globular clusters and stars. The timescale of the gravothermal catastrophe is of the order of the age of the Universe while the timescale of star collapse (e.g. supernova) is of the order of a few days.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded, smooth domain of $\mathbb{R}^{N},$ $N\geq1.$ For each $p>N$ we study the optimal function $s=s_{p}$ in the pointwise inequality$$\left\vert v(x)\right\vert \leq s(x)\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert
_{L^{p}(\Omega)},\quad\forall\,(x,v)\in\overline{\Omega}\times W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega).$$ We show that $s_{p}\in C_{0}^{0,1-(N/p)}(\overline{\Omega})$ and that $s_{p}$ converges pointwise to the distance function to the boundary, as $p\rightarrow\infty.$ Moreover, we prove that if $\Omega$ is convex, then $s_{p}$ is concave and has a unique maximum point.
author:
- |
Grey Ercole$^{\text{\thinspace a}}$ and Gilberto A. Pereira$^{\text{\thinspace b}}\medskip$\
[ Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, 30.123-970, Brazil]{}\
[[email protected]]{}\
[ Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, 35.400-000, Brazil.]{}\
[[email protected] ]{}
title: 'An optimal pointwise Morrey-Sobolev inequality'
---
[**2010 AMS Classification:** 35D40; 35J70; 35P30. ]{}
[**Keywords:** Dirac delta distribution, infinity Laplacian, Morrey-Sobolev inequality.]{}
Introduction
============
The well-known Morrey’s inequality in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ states that if $p>N$ then $$\left\vert v(x)-v(y)\right\vert \leq C_{p,N}\left\vert x-y\right\vert
^{1-(N/p)}\left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left\vert \nabla v\right\vert
^{p}\mathrm{d}x\right) ^{\frac{1}{p}},\quad\forall\,x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad v\in W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^{N}), \label{MorreyRN}$$ where $C_{p,N}$ is a positive constant depending only on $p$ and $N,$ whose optimal value is still unknown for $N\geq2.$
For $N=1$ the optimal constant $C_{p,1}$ in (\[MorreyRN\]) is known to be $1$ and, for $N\geq2,$ expressions that appear in standard proofs of (\[MorreyRN\]) are $$C_{p,N}=\frac{2pN}{p-N}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad C_{p,N}=\frac{C(N)}{\sqrt[p]{N\omega_{N}}}\left( \frac{p-1}{p-N}\right) ^{\frac{p-1}{p}},
\label{CpN}$$ where $C(N)$ is a constant depending only on $N$ and $\omega_{N}$ is the $N$-dimensional volume of the unit ball.
Now, let $\Omega$ be a bounded, smooth domain of $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ and let $d_{\Omega}$ denote the distance function to the boundary $\partial\Omega,$ that is, $$d_{\Omega}(x):=\inf_{y\in\partial\Omega}\left\vert x-y\right\vert ,\quad
x\in\overline{\Omega}.$$ Taking an arbitrary $y\in\partial\Omega$ in (\[MorreyRN\]) one arrives at the following pointwise inequality$$\left\vert v(x)\right\vert \leq C_{p,N}\left( d_{\Omega}(x)\right)
^{1-(N/p)}\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert _{p},\quad\forall\,(x,v)\in
\overline{\Omega}\times W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega), \label{sx}$$ where, for $N<p\leq\infty$, $\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert _{p}$ stands for the standard norm of $L^{p}(\Omega)$ (a notation that will be kept throughout the paper).
Note that $\left( d_{\Omega}\right) ^{1-(N/p)}\in C_{0}^{0,1-(N/p)}(\overline{\Omega}),$ the space of the functions that vanish on the boundary $\partial\Omega$ and are $(1-(N/p))$-Hölder continuous in $\overline
{\Omega}.$
Passing to the maximum values in (\[sx\]) we arrive at the well-known Morrey-Sobolev inequality$$\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{\infty}\leq C_{p,N,\Omega}\left\Vert \nabla
v\right\Vert _{p},\quad\forall\,v\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega), \label{MS}$$ where the constant $C_{p,N,\Omega}$ depends only on $p,N$ and $\Omega.$
In this paper we study the function$$s_{p}(x):=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{lll}\sup\left\{ \left\vert v(x)\right\vert /\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert
_{p}:v\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)\setminus\left\{ 0\right\} \right\} &
\mathrm{if} & x\in\Omega\\
0 & \mathrm{if} & x\in\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right. \label{spx}$$ which is the optimal function in the pointwise (version of) Morrey-Sobolev inequality $$\left\vert v(x)\right\vert \leq s(x)\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert _{p},\quad\forall\,(x,v)\in\overline{\Omega}\times W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega).
\label{sMS}$$
Clearly, $s_{p}$ satisfies (\[sMS\]) and if $s:\overline{\Omega}\rightarrow\lbrack0,\infty)$ satisfies (\[sMS\]), then $s_{p}\leq s$ pointwise in $\overline{\Omega}.$ This fact and (\[sx\]) imply that $$0<s_{p}(x)\leq C_{p,N}\left( d_{\Omega}(x)\right) ^{1-(N/p)}\quad
\forall\,x\in\Omega, \label{sharpness}$$ for every constant $C_{p,N}$ satisfying (\[MorreyRN\]). Therefore, $s_{p}$ is continuous at the boundary points.
In Section \[Sec2\] (see Theorem \[Main1\]) we show that for each $x\in\Omega$ given, there exists a (unique) function $u_{p}\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ that is positive in $\Omega$, assumes the maximum value $1$ uniquely at $x$ and satisfies $$s_{p}(x)=(\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p})^{-1}. \label{2}$$ Using these facts and (\[sharpness\]) we prove that $s_{p}\in C_{0}^{0,1-(N/p)}(\overline{\Omega}).$
We emphasize that, actually (see Remark \[Green\]), $$s_{p}(x)=(G_{p}(x;x))^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad u_{p}(y)=\frac{G_{p}(y;x)}{G_{p}(x;x)},\quad\forall\,y\in\Omega,$$ where $G_{p}(\cdot;x)$ denotes the Green function of the $p$-Laplacian in $\Omega$ with pole at $x.$
Alternatively, as it can be noticed from [@Jan], $$s_{p}(x)=(\operatorname{cap}_{p}(\left\{ x\right\} ,\Omega))^{-\frac{1}{p}}$$ for each $x\in\Omega,$ where$$\operatorname{cap}_{p}(\left\{ x\right\} ,\Omega):=\inf\left\{ \left\Vert
\nabla u\right\Vert _{p}^{p}:u\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)\cap C(\Omega),\quad
u(x)\geq1\right\}$$ denotes the $p$-capacity of the punctured domain $\Omega\setminus\left\{
x\right\} .$ Hence, as consequence of (\[2\]), $u_{p}$ is the $p$-capacitary function corresponding to $\operatorname{cap}_{p}(\left\{
x\right\} ,\Omega)$.
Still in Section \[Sec2\] (see Corollary \[1d\]), we derive an explicit expression of $s_{p}$ for the unidimensional case, where $\Omega$ is an interval. We also argue that in the case where $\Omega$ is a multidimensional ball the function $s_{p}$ is radially symmetric and radially decreasing. Even though, it seems to be very difficult to derive an explicit expression for $s_{p}$ in this case. We recall that an explicit expression for the Green function of the $p$-Laplacian for a ball is not available if $p>2.$
In Section \[Sec3\] (see Proposition \[uinf\]) we prove that $$\lim_{p\rightarrow\infty}s_{p}(x)=d_{\Omega}(x),\quad\forall\,x\in
\overline{\Omega}.$$ Moreover, for each $x\in\Omega$ we show that the function $u_{p}$ satisfying (\[2\]) converges uniformly, as $p\rightarrow\infty$, to a function $u_{\infty}\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap C_{0}(\overline{\Omega})$ that is infinity harmonic in the punctured domain $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\}
$ (see Theorem \[Main2\]).
In Section \[Sec4\] (see Theorem \[convex1\]), we prove that if $\Omega$ is convex, then the function $s_{p}$ is concave and has a unique maximum point. The concavity proof is adapted from arguments developed by Hynd and Lindgren [@HL]. The uniqueness of the maximum point is a direct consequence of their main result: the extremal functions for the Morrey-Sobolev inequality (\[MS\]) are scalar multiple of each other and achieve the maximum value uniquely at a same point.
The optimal function$\label{Sec2}$
==================================
In this section, $\Omega$ is a bounded, smooth domain of $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ and $p>N\geq1.$ For each $x\in\Omega$ we define $$\mathcal{M}_{p}(x):=\left\{ v\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega):\left\vert
v(x)\right\vert =\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{\infty}=1\right\}$$ and $$\mu_{p}(x):=\min_{v\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)}\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert
_{p}^{p}. \label{lampS1}$$
We recall that the Dirac Delta distribution $\delta_{x}$ is the linear functional defined by$$\left\langle \delta_{x},\phi\right\rangle :=\phi(x),\quad\forall\,\phi\in
W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega).$$ Actually, by virtue of (\[MS\]), $\delta_{x}$ belongs to the dual of $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega),$ commonly denoted by $W^{-1,p^{\prime}}(\Omega),$ $(1/p)+(1/p^{\prime})=1.$
\[mumin\]Let $x\in\Omega$ be fixed. There exists $v\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ such that $$\mu_{p}(x)=\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert _{p}^{p}. \label{aux4}$$
Let $\left\{ v_{n}\right\} \subset\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ be such that $\left\Vert \nabla v_{n}\right\Vert _{p}^{p}\rightarrow\mu_{p}(x).$ As $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ is reflexive and compactly embedded in $C(\overline
{\Omega})$ we can assume, without loss of generality, that$$v_{n}\rightharpoonup v\quad\mathrm{weakly\,in\,}W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega
)\mathrm{\quad and\quad}v_{n}\rightarrow v\quad
\mathrm{uniformly\mathrm{\,in\,}}C(\overline{\Omega}),$$ for some $v\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)\cap C(\overline{\Omega}).$ As $\left\Vert
v_{n}\right\Vert _{\infty}=\left\vert v_{n}(x)\right\vert =1,$ the uniform convergence implies that $v\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x).$ Hence, (\[aux4\]) follows since the weak convergence yields $$\mu_{p}(x)\leq\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert _{p}^{p}\leq\liminf
_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\Vert \nabla v_{n}\right\Vert _{p}^{p}=\mu_{p}(x).$$
\[prop0\]Let $x\in\Omega$ be fixed and let $u_{p}\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ be the only weak solution of the Dirichlet problem $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{rrll}-\Delta_{p}u & = & \mu_{p}(x)\delta_{x} & \mathrm{in}\,\Omega\\
u & = & 0 & \mathrm{on}\,\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right. \label{updir}$$ Then, $u_{p}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x),$ is strictly positive in $\Omega,$ attains its maximum value only at $x$ and $$\mu_{p}(x)=\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p}.$$
The existence and the uniqueness of $u_{p}$ follow from the bijectivity of the duality mapping (see [@DJM]) from $W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ into $W_{0}^{-1,p^{\prime}}(\Omega)$ given by$$\begin{array}
[c]{cll}u & \mapsto & \left\langle -\Delta_{p}u,\phi\right\rangle :=\int_{\Omega
}\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert ^{p-2}\nabla u\cdot\nabla\phi\mathrm{d}x.
\end{array}$$ Thus, since $\mu_{p}(x)\delta_{x}\in W^{-1,p^{\prime}}(\Omega)$, there exists a unique function $u_{p}\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ satisfying$$\int_{\Omega}\left\vert \nabla u_{p}\right\vert ^{p-2}\nabla u_{p}\cdot
\nabla\phi\mathrm{d}y=\mu_{p}(x)\phi(x),\quad\forall\,\phi\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega),\label{weakup}$$ which means that $u_{p}$ is the only weak solution of (\[updir\]).
Taking an arbitrary nonnegative test function $\phi$ in (\[weakup\]) we conclude, by the weak comparison principle, that $u_{p}\geq0$ in $\Omega.$ Since $\mu_{p}(x)>0,$ the identity (\[weakup\]) also guarantees that $u_{p}$ is not the null function. Using $\phi=u_{p}$ in (\[weakup\]) we obtain$$\mu_{p}(x)u_{p}(x)=\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p}. \label{prop0a}$$
Moreover, considering in (\[weakup\]) an arbitrary test function $\phi$ supported in the punctured domain $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} $ we can see that $u_{p}$ is $p$-harmonic in this domain (i.e. $\Delta_{p}u_{p}=0$ in $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} $ in the weak sense). It follows that the minimum and maximum values of $u_{p}$ are necessarily attained on the boundary $\partial\Omega\cup\left\{ x\right\} $ of $(\Omega\setminus\left\{
x\right\} )$ (see [@Lq]). Consequently (recalling that $u_{p}=0$ on $\partial\Omega$), $$0<u_{p}(y)<u_{p}(x)=\left\Vert u_{p}\right\Vert _{\infty}\quad\forall
\,y\in\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} .$$
Combining (\[prop0a\]) with the definition of $\mu_{p}(x)$ in (\[lampS1\]) and observing that $u_{p}/\left\Vert u_{p}\right\Vert _{\infty}\in
\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ we arrive at$$\frac{\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p}}{u_{p}(x)}=\mu_{p}(x)\leq\frac{\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p}}{\left\Vert
u_{p}\right\Vert _{\infty}^{p}},$$ from which follows that $\left\Vert u_{p}\right\Vert _{\infty}\leq1.$
Now, let $v\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ such that $\mu_{p}(x)=\left\Vert \nabla
v\right\Vert _{p}^{p}$ (the existence of $v$ comes from the previous proposition). As $\left\vert v\right\vert \in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ and $\left\Vert \nabla\left\vert v\right\vert \right\Vert _{p}=\left\Vert \nabla
v\right\Vert _{p}=\mu_{p}(x)$ we can take $\phi=\left\vert v\right\vert $ in (\[weakup\]) and use Hölder inequality to find $$\mu_{p}(x)=\int_{\Omega}\left\vert \nabla u_{p}\right\vert ^{p-2}\nabla
u_{p}\cdot\nabla\left\vert v\right\vert \mathrm{d}y\leq\left\Vert \nabla
u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p-1}\left\Vert \nabla\left\vert v\right\vert
\right\Vert _{p}=\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p-1}(\mu
_{p}(x))^{1/p}. \label{prop0c}$$ Consequently, $$\mu_{p}(x)\leq\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p},$$ an inequality that, in view of (\[prop0a\]), implies that $u_{p}(x)\geq1.$ It follows that $\left\Vert u_{p}\right\Vert _{\infty}=1$ (recall that $\left\Vert u_{p}\right\Vert _{\infty}=u_{p}(x)$ and $\left\Vert
u_{p}\right\Vert _{\infty}\leq1$). This shows that $u_{p}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ and, in view of (\[prop0a\]), yields $$\mu_{p}(x)=\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p}.$$ Hence, Hölder’s inequality in (\[prop0c\]) becomes an equality and this implies that $u_{p}=\left\vert v\right\vert .$ As $u_{p}>0$ in $\Omega,$ we conclude that $v$ does not change sign in $\Omega,$ so that either $v=u_{p}$ or $v=-u_{p}.$
In the sequel, $s_{p}$ denotes the best function in the pointwise inequality (\[sMS\]), defined by (\[spx\]).
One has $$s_{p}(x)=(\mu_{p}(x))^{-1/p},\quad\forall\,x\in\Omega.$$
Let $u_{p}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ given by Proposition \[prop0\] and take and arbitrary $v\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)\setminus\left\{ 0\right\} .$ We have, by Hölder inequality,$$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{p}(x)\left\vert v(x)\right\vert & =\left\vert \mu_{p}(x)v(x)\right\vert
\\
& =\left\vert \int_{\Omega}\left\vert \nabla u_{p}\right\vert ^{p-2}\nabla
u_{p}\cdot\nabla v\mathrm{d}y\right\vert \leq\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}^{p-1}\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert _{p}=(\mu_{p}(x))^{1-\frac{1}{p}}\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert _{p}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $(\mu_{p}(x))^{-1/p}\geq\left\vert v(x)\right\vert /\left\Vert
\nabla v\right\Vert _{p}.$ The arbitrariness of $v$ and (\[spx\]) imply that $(\mu_{p}(x))^{-1/p}\geq s_{p}(x).$
Recalling that $(\mu_{p}(x))^{-1/p}=\left\vert u_{p}(x)\right\vert /\left\Vert
\nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}$ and that $\left\vert u_{p}(x)\right\vert
/\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}\leq s_{p}(x)$ we conclude that $s_{p}(x)=(\mu_{p}(x))^{-1/p}.$
\[Regularity\]One has $$\left\vert s_{p}(x)-s_{p}(y)\right\vert \leq C_{p,N}\left\vert x-y\right\vert
^{1-(N/p)},\quad\forall\,x,y\in\overline{\Omega}, \label{spHolder}$$ for every constant $C_{p,N}$ satisfying (\[MorreyRN\]). Consequently, $s_{p}\in C_{0}^{0,1-(N/p)}(\overline{\Omega}).$
Obviously, (\[spHolder\]) implies that $s_{p}\in C_{0}^{0,1-(N/p)}(\overline{\Omega}).$ So, let us prove (\[spHolder\]).
Let $x,y\in\overline{\Omega}.$ If $y\in\partial\Omega,$ then (\[sharpness\]) yields$$\left\vert s_{p}(x)-s_{p}(y)\right\vert =s_{p}(x)\leq C_{p,N}\left(
d_{\Omega}(x)\right) ^{1-(N/p)}\leq C_{p,N}\left\vert x-y\right\vert
^{1-(N/p)}.$$ Likewise, (\[spHolder\]) holds if $x\in\partial\Omega.$
Now, we assume that $x,y\in\Omega.$ Let $u\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ be a positive function such that $$u(x)=s_{p}(x)\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{p}$$ (take $u$ a positive multiple of the function $u_{p}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ given by Proposition \[prop0\]). As $$u(y)\leq s_{p}(y)\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{p}$$ we have, in view of (\[MorreyRN\]),$$(s_{p}(x)-s_{p}(y))\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{p}\leq u(x)-u(y)\leq
\left\vert u(x)-u(y)\right\vert \leq C_{p,N}\left\vert x-y\right\vert
^{1-(N/p)}\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{p}.$$ As $\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{p}>0$ we get$$s_{p}(x)-s_{p}(y)\leq C_{p,N}\left\vert x-y\right\vert ^{1-(N/p)}.$$
Analogously, by taking a function $v\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ such that $v(y)=s_{p}(y)\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert _{p}$ we arrive at the inequality$$s_{p}(y)-s_{p}(x)\leq C_{p,N}\left\vert x-y\right\vert ^{1-(N/p)},$$ completing thus the proof.
We summarize the main results above in the following theorem.
\[Main1\]Let $x\in\Omega$ be fixed and let $u_{p}\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ be the only weak solution of $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{rrll}-\Delta_{p}u & = & (s_{p}(x))^{-p}\delta_{x} & \mathrm{in}\,\Omega\\
u & = & 0 & \mathrm{on}\,\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right. \label{edpsp}$$ Then, $u_{p}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x),$ is strictly positive in $\Omega,$ attains its maximum value only at $x,$ and$$s_{p}(x)=(\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p})^{-1}.$$ Moreover,
1. $\left\vert v(x)\right\vert \leq s_{p}(x)\left\Vert \nabla
v\right\Vert _{p},\quad\forall\,(x,v)\in\overline{\Omega}\times W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega);$
2. $\left\vert v(x)\right\vert =s_{p}(x)\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert
_{p}$ if, and only if, $v$ is a scalar multiple of $u_{p};$
3. $s_{p}\in C_{0}^{0,1-(N/p)}(\overline{\Omega}).$
\[corol\]Let $x\in\Omega,$ $u\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ and $\mu>0$ be such that $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{rrll}-\Delta_{p}u & = & \mu\delta_{x} & \mathrm{in}\,\Omega\\
u & = & 0 & \mathrm{on}\,\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.$$ If $u(x)=1$ then, $$u=u_{p}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad\mu=(s_{p}(x))^{-p},$$ where $u_{p}$ denotes the only solution of (\[edpsp\]).
Since $\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{p}^{p}=\mu$ and $s_{p}(x)=(\left\Vert
\nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p})^{-1},$ Hölder’s inequality yields $$\mu=\mu u_{p}(x)=\int_{\Omega}\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert ^{p-2}\nabla
u\cdot\nabla u_{p}\mathrm{d}y\leq\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{p}^{p-1}\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p}=\mu^{\frac{p-1}{p}}(s_{p}(x))^{-1},$$ so that $~\mu^{1/p}\leq(s_{p}(x))^{-1}.$ Using this and recalling that $u(x)=1$ we have$$1=u(x)\leq s_{p}(x)\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{p}=s_{p}(x)\mu^{1/p}\leq1.$$
Therefore, $\mu=(s_{p}(x))^{-p}$ and, by uniqueness, $u=u_{p}.$
\[Green\]For each $x\in\Omega$ let $G_{p}(\cdot;x)$ denote the Green function of the $p$-Laplacian in $\Omega$ with pole at $x.$ That is, $G_{p}(\cdot;x)$ is the (only) solution of $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{rrll}-\Delta_{p}u & = & \delta_{x} & \mathrm{in}\,\Omega\\
u & = & 0 & \mathrm{on}\,\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\delta_{x}$ denotes the Dirac delta distribution supported at $x.$ Since $G_{p}(x;x)/G_{p}(x;x)=1$ and $$-\Delta_{p}(G_{p}(\cdot;x)/G_{p}(x;x))=G_{p}(x;x))^{1-p}\delta_{x}$$ an immediate consequence of Proposition \[corol\] is that $$s_{p}(x)=(G_{p}(x;x))^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad u_{p}(y)=\frac{G_{p}(y;x)}{G_{p}(x;x)},\quad\forall\,y\in\Omega.$$
In the unidimensional case, $s_{p}$ and $u_{p}$ are given by explicit expressions, as the following corollary shows.
\[1d\]Let $p>N=1$ and $\Omega=(a,b).$ For each $x\in(a,b)$ one has $$s_{p}(x)=\left( (x-a)^{1-p}+(b-x)^{1-p}\right) ^{-1/p} \label{spunid}$$ and$$u_{p}(y):=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}(y-a)(x-a)^{-1} & \mathrm{if} & a\leq y\leq x\\
(b-y)(b-x)^{-1} & \mathrm{if} & x\leq y\leq b.
\end{array}
\right. \label{un=1}$$
Let $\mu$ be the right-hand side of (\[spunid\]) raised to $-p,$ that is, $$\mu=\left( (x-a)^{1-p}+(b-x)^{1-p}\right) .$$ Let $u$ be expressed by the right-hand side of (\[un=1\]). Clearly, $\mu>0$ and $u(x)=1.$
For $\phi\in W_{0}^{1,p}((a,b))$ given, we have$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{a}^{b}\left\vert u^{\prime}\right\vert ^{p-2}u^{\prime}\phi^{\prime
}\mathrm{d}y & =\int_{a}^{x}(x-a)^{1-p}\phi^{\prime}\mathrm{d}y-\int_{x}^{b}(b-x)^{1-p}\phi^{\prime}\mathrm{d}y\\
& =(x-a)^{1-p}\int_{a}^{x}\phi^{\prime}\mathrm{d}y-(b-x)^{1-p}\int_{x}^{b}\phi^{\prime}\mathrm{d}y\\
& =\left( (x-a)^{1-p}+(b-x)^{1-p}\right) \phi(x)=\mu\phi(x).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, according to Proposition \[corol\], $\mu=(s_{p}(x))^{-p}$ and $u=u_{p}.$
(Note that $s_{p}$ is symmetric with respect to $\overline{x}:=(a+b)/2$ . It is also simple to check that $s_{p}$ is concave.)
We end this section with some remarks on the case where $\Omega=B_{R}(0),$ the $N$-dimensional ball ($N\geq2$) centered at the origin with radius $R.$ In this case, the function $x\mapsto s_{p}(x)$ is radially symmetric: $s_{p}(x)=s_{p}(y)$ whenever $\left\vert x\right\vert =\left\vert y\right\vert
.$ Indeed, by using an orthogonal change of variable one can see that the only positive maximizer of $s_{p}(x)$ in $\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ is a rotation of the only positive maximizer of $s_{p}(y)$ in $\mathcal{M}_{p}(y).$ Note that the function $u_{p}$ corresponding to $x\not =0$ cannot be radial since $x$ is its unique maximum point.
On the other hand, $u_{p}$ is radial when $x=0.$ By the way,$$s_{p}(0)=\frac{R^{1-(N/p)}}{\sqrt[p]{N\omega_{N}}}\left( \frac{p-1}{p-N}\right) ^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad u_{p}(y)=1-\left(
\left\vert y\right\vert /R\right) ^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}}\quad\forall\,y\in
B_{R}(0),$$ since the best constant in the Morrey-Sobolev inequality (\[MS\]) for $B_{R}(0)$ is given by the first expression above and its corresponding extremal functions are scalar multiples of the function given by the second expression above (see [@EP; @Lq]).
As consequence of Theorem \[convex1\] (Section \[Sec4\]), the function $s_{p}$ is concave and assumes its maximum value uniquely at $0.$ Hence, we conclude that $s_{p}$ is radially decreasing.
Even knowing these properties of $s_{p}$ it seems to be very difficult to compute this function explicitly (at $x\not =0$). Note that the Green function $G_{p}$ of the $p$-Laplacian for a ball is not known if $p>2.$
Asymptotics as $p\rightarrow\infty$\[Sec3\]
===========================================
An immediate lower bound to the function $s_{p}$ comes from its definition (\[spx\]), by taking $v=d_{\Omega}$ (and recalling that $\left\vert \nabla
d_{\Omega}\right\vert =1$ in $\Omega$):$$d_{\Omega}(x)\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{-\frac{1}{p}}\leq s_{p}(x),\quad\forall\,x\in\overline{\Omega}. \label{lowsp}$$
For each fixed $x\in\overline{\Omega},$ the function $p\mapsto s_{p}(x)\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{p}}$ is nonincreasing and$$d_{\Omega}(x)\leq s(x):=\lim_{p\rightarrow\infty}s_{p}(x)=\inf_{q>N}s_{q}(x)\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{q}}. \label{est+}$$
Let $N<p_{1}<p_{2}.$ For $i\in\left\{ 1,2\right\} $ let $u_{i}\in
\mathcal{M}_{p_{i}}(x)$ be such that$$\mu_{p_{i}}(x)=\left\Vert \nabla u_{i}\right\Vert _{p_{i}}^{p_{i}}.$$ Since $\mathcal{M}_{p_{2}}(x)\subset\mathcal{M}_{p_{1}}(x)$ we obtain, by Hölder’s inequality, $$\mu_{p_{1}}(x)\leq\left\Vert \nabla u_{2}\right\Vert _{p_{1}}^{p_{1}}\leq\left\Vert \nabla u_{2}\right\Vert _{p_{2}}^{p_{1}}\left\vert
\Omega\right\vert ^{1-\frac{p_{1}}{p_{2}}}=\left( \mu_{p_{2}}(x)\right)
^{p_{1}/p_{2}}\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1-\frac{p_{1}}{p_{2}}}.$$ This means that $$s_{p_{2}}(x)\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1/p_{2}}=\left( \mu_{p_{2}}(x)\right) ^{-1/p_{2}}\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1/p_{2}}\leq\left(
\mu_{p_{1}}(x)\right) ^{-1/p_{1}}\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1/p_{1}}=s_{p_{1}}(x)\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1/p_{1}}.$$
It follows that $$\lim_{p\rightarrow\infty}s_{p}(x)\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1/p}=\inf_{q>N}s_{q}(x)\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1/q}.$$ Hence, since $s_{p}(x)=(s_{p}(x)\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1/p})\left\vert
\Omega\right\vert ^{-1/p},$ the limit $s(x)$ in (\[est+\]) exists and coincides with the above limit. The first inequality in (\[est+\]) then follows by letting $p\rightarrow\infty$ in (\[lowsp\]).
The next result shows that the inequality in (\[est+\]) is, in fact, an equality.
\[uinf\]Let $x\in\Omega$ be fixed and, for each $p>N,$ let $u_{p}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ be the positive function such that $s_{p}(x)=(\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p})^{-1}.$ We claim that every sequence $\left\{ u_{p_{n}}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}},$ with $p_{n}\rightarrow\infty,$ admits a subsequence $\left\{ u_{p_{n_{j}}}\right\}
_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ converging uniformly to a nonnegative function $u_{\infty
}\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap C_{0}(\overline{\Omega})$ such that$$u_{\infty}(x)=\left\Vert u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{\infty}=1\quad\mathrm{and}\quad\left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{\infty}=(d_{\Omega}(x))^{-1}.$$ Moreover,$$\lim_{p\rightarrow\infty}s_{p}(x)=d_{\Omega}(x),\quad\forall\,x\in
\overline{\Omega}. \label{aux3}$$
Let $\left\{ p_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset(N,\infty)$ be such that $p_{n}\rightarrow\infty$ and fix $r>N.$ There exists $n_{0}>N$ such that $p_{n}>r$ for every $n>n_{0}.$ Hence, by Hölder’s inequality and (\[est+\]), $$\left\Vert \nabla u_{p_{n}}\right\Vert _{r}\leq\left\Vert \nabla u_{p_{n}}\right\Vert _{p_{n}}\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{p_{n}}}=(s_{p_{n}}(x))^{-1}\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{-1/p_{n}}\left\vert
\Omega\right\vert ^{1/r},\quad\forall\,n>n_{0}. \label{aux2}$$ That is, $\left\{ u_{p_{n}}\right\} _{n>n_{0}}$ is bounded in $W_{0}^{1,r}(\Omega).$
Therefore, we can assume (passing to a subsequence if necessary) that $u_{p_{n}}$ converges to a nonnegative function $u_{\infty}\in W_{0}^{1,r}(\Omega)\cap C(\overline{\Omega})$ uniformly in $C(\overline{\Omega})$ and weakly in $W_{0}^{1,r}(\Omega).$ The uniform convergence implies that $u_{\infty}(x)=\left\Vert u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{\infty}=1$ (recall that $\left\Vert u_{p_{n}}\right\Vert _{\infty}=u_{p_{n}}(x)=1,$ since $u_{p_{n}}\in S_{p_{n}}^{1}(x)$) whereas the weak convergence and (\[aux2\]) yield$$\left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{r}\leq\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty
}\left\Vert \nabla u_{p_{n}}\right\Vert _{r}\leq\left\vert \Omega\right\vert
^{1/r}(s(x))^{-1}. \label{aux1}$$
Moreover, using Morrey’s inequality (\[MorreyRN\]) with the first expression in (\[CpN\]), we obtain in sequence$$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert u_{p_{n}}(y)-u_{p_{n}}(z)\right\vert & \leq\frac{2Np_{n}}{p_{n}-N}\left\Vert \nabla u_{p_{n}}\right\Vert _{p_{n}}\left\vert
y-z\right\vert ^{1-(N/p)}\\
& =\frac{2Np_{n}}{p_{n}-N}(s_{p_{n}}(x))^{-1}\left\vert y-z\right\vert
^{1-(N/p)},\quad\forall\,y,z\in\overline{\Omega},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\left\vert u_{\infty}(y)-u_{\infty}(z)\right\vert \leq2N(s(x))^{-1}\left\vert
y-z\right\vert ,\quad\forall\,y,z\in\overline{\Omega}.$$ It follows that $u_{\infty}\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\cap C_{0}(\overline
{\Omega}),$ so that its Lipschitz constant is $\left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty
}\right\Vert _{\infty}.$
The arbitrariness of $r>N$ allows us to let $r\rightarrow\infty$ in (\[aux1\]) to conclude that $$\left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{\infty}=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty
}\left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{r}\leq\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty
}\left\vert \Omega\right\vert ^{1/r}(s(x))^{-1}=(s(x))^{-1}. \label{est1}$$
Now, picking $y\in\partial\Omega$ such that $d_{\Omega}(x)=\left\vert
x-y\right\vert ,$ we obtain from (\[est1\])$$1=u_{\infty}(x)=u_{\infty}(x)-u_{\infty}(y)\leq\left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty
}\right\Vert _{\infty}\left\vert x-y\right\vert =\left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty
}\right\Vert _{\infty}d_{\Omega}(x)\leq d_{\Omega}(x)(s(x))^{-1}\leq1,$$ from which follows that $s(x)=d_{\Omega}(x)=(\left\Vert \nabla u_{\infty
}\right\Vert _{\infty})^{-1}.$
It is known that $d_{\Omega}$ is concave whenever $\Omega$ is convex. This fact can be proved directly, but it also follows from Theorem \[convex1\] (Section \[Sec4\]) and (\[aux3\]).
Following step by step the proof of Theorem 3.11 of [@EP] we can show that $u_{\infty}$ is a viscosity solution of $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{rrll}\Delta_{\infty}u & = & 0 & \mathrm{in}\,\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} \\
u & = & d_{\Omega}/d_{\Omega}(x) & \mathrm{on}\,\partial\Omega\cup\left\{
x\right\} ,
\end{array}
\right. \label{infdiric}$$ where $$\Delta_{\infty}u:=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}u_{x_{i}}u_{x_{j}}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}$$ is the infinity Laplacian operator. (We refer to [@Lq1] to the concept of viscosity solution.)
It turns out that (\[infdiric\]) has a unique viscosity solution $u\in
C(\overline{\Omega}).$ This uniqueness result follows from the comparison principle for the $\infty$-harmonic equation in the domain $\Omega
\setminus\left\{ x\right\} ,$ which can be quoted from [@BB; @Jensen].
Therefore, $u_{\infty}$ is the uniform limit of the family $\left\{
u_{p}\right\} _{p>N},$ as $p\rightarrow\infty$ (which means: $u_{p_{n}}\rightarrow u_{\infty}$ uniformly in $\overline{\Omega},$ for any sequence $\left\{ u_{p_{n}}\right\} $ with $p_{n}\rightarrow\infty$). Actually, we have the following theorem.
\[Main2\]Let $x\in\Omega$ be fixed and, for each $p>N,$ let $u_{p}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x)$ be the positive function such that $s_{p}(x)=(\left\Vert \nabla u_{p}\right\Vert _{p})^{-1}.$ The function $u_{\infty
}\in C_{0}(\overline{\Omega})\cap W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ is the uniform limit in $\overline{\Omega}$ of the family $\left\{ u_{p}\right\} ,$ as $p\rightarrow\infty.$ Moreover, $u_{\infty}$ is strictly positive in $\Omega,$ attains its maximum value $1$ uniquely at $x$ and is the only viscosity solution of (\[infdiric\]).
Since $u_{\infty}(x)=1>0$ and $u_{\infty}=0\ $on $\partial\Omega,$ the strict positiveness of $u_{\infty}$ in $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} $ follows from the Harnack’s inequality for the $\infty$-harmonic equation in balls contained in $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} ,$ as proved in [@LqManf].
To prove that $u_{\infty}$ attains its maximum value $1$ uniquely at $x$ we apply the comparison principle for the $\infty$-harmonic equation by using the function $$v(y):=1-m^{-1}\left\vert y-x\right\vert ,\quad y\in\Omega$$ where $m:=\max\left\{ \left\vert y-x\right\vert :y\in\partial\Omega\right\}
.$
In fact, as it is easy to check, $\Delta_{\infty}v=0$ in $\Omega
\setminus\left\{ x\right\} $ and $u_{\infty}\leq v$ on $\partial
(\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} )=\left\{ x\right\} \cup\partial\Omega.$ Therefore, since $\Delta_{\infty}u_{\infty}=0$ in $\Omega\setminus\left\{
x\right\} $ the comparison principle yields $$u_{\infty}(y)\leq v(y)=1-m^{-1}\left\vert y-x\right\vert <1=\left\Vert
u_{\infty}\right\Vert _{\infty},\quad\forall\,y\in\Omega\setminus\left\{
x\right\} .$$
When $\Omega$ is convex $u_{p}$ is nondecreasing with respect to $p$ in $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} $ (see [@Jan Lemma 2.4]): if $N<p_{1}<p_{2}$ then $u_{p_{1}}(y)\leq u_{p_{2}}(y)$ for all $y\in
\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} $. Thus, in this case, the convergence of $u_{p}\rightarrow u_{\infty}$ is also monotone.
As for the unidimensional case, we observe from (\[un=1\]) that $u_{p}=u_{\infty}$. So, we can verify directly that $\Delta_{\infty}u_{\infty
}=0$ in $(a,x_{0})\cup(x_{0},b).$
Concavity\[Sec4\]
=================
In this section we assume that $\Omega$ is convex and, based on the arguments developed in Section 4 of [@HL], we show that the function $s_{p}$ is concave. The case $N=1$ follows from a simple analysis of the expression \[spunid\]. So, we consider $p>N\geq2$ in this section.
\[prop2.8HL\]As we are assuming that $\Omega$ is convex, for each $x\in\Omega$ the punctured domain $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} $ fits in the definition of convex ring considered by Lewis in [@Lew]. As mentioned in the Introduction, the positive minimizer $u_{p}$ of $\mu_{p}(x)$ on $\mathcal{M}_{p}(x),$ given by Proposition \[mumin\], is the $p$-capacitary function of $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} .$ Thus, according to Theorem 1 of [@Lew], $u_{p}$ is real analytic in $\Omega\setminus\left\{ x\right\} $ and $\left\vert \nabla u_{p}\right\vert
\not =0$ in this domain. Moreover (see Proposition 2.8 and Remark 2.9 of [@HL])$$\lim_{y\rightarrow x}\frac{\left\vert u_{p}(y)-1\right\vert }{\left\vert
y-x\right\vert ^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}}}=\frac{p-1}{p-N}\left( \frac{\mu_{p}(x)}{N\omega_{N}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-1}}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad
\lim_{y\rightarrow x}\left\vert \nabla u_{p}(y)\right\vert \left\vert
y-x\right\vert ^{\frac{N-1}{p-1}}=\left( \frac{\mu_{p}(x)}{N\omega_{N}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-1}}.$$
\[convex1\]If $\Omega$ is a bounded, convex domain of $\mathbb{R}^{N}$, then the function $s_{p}$ is concave in $\Omega.$
Since $$s_{p}=(\mu_{p})^{-1/p}=\left( (\mu_{p})^{-1/(p-N)}\right) ^{(p-N)/p}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad(p-N)/p\in(0,1)$$ the concavity of $s_{p}$ follows once we prove that $(\mu_{p})^{-1/(p-N)}$ is concave.
Thus, in order to prove the concavity of $(\mu_{p})^{-1/(p-N)}$ we fix $x_{0},x_{1}\in\Omega$ and $\rho\in(0,1)$ and define$$x_{\rho}:=(1-\rho)x_{0}+\rho x_{1}.$$
Let $u_{0}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x_{0}),$ $u_{1}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x_{1})$ and $u_{\rho}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x_{\rho})$ denote the normalized, positive minimizers of $\mu_{p}(x_{0}),$ $\mu_{p}(x_{1})$ and $\mu_{p}(x_{\rho}),$ respectively.
In the sequel we consider the $\rho$-Minkowski combination of $u_{0}$ and $u_{1},$ defined by $$v_{\rho}(z):=\sup\left\{ \min\left\{ u_{0}(x),u_{1}(y)\right\}
:z=(1-\rho)x+\rho y,\quad x,y\in\overline{\Omega}\right\} .$$
It is known that $v_{\rho}\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega).$ Actually, $v_{\rho}\in\mathcal{M}_{p}(x_{\rho})$ since $v_{\rho}(x_{\rho})=\left\Vert v_{\rho
}\right\Vert _{\infty}=1$ (which is easy to verify). Hence,$$\mu_{p}(x_{\rho})\leq\left\Vert \nabla v_{\rho}\right\Vert _{p}^{p}.$$
Following the first three steps of the proof of Lemma 4.2 of [@HL] we can show that $$\mu_{p}(x_{\rho})\leq\liminf_{r\rightarrow0^{+}}\int_{\partial B_{r}(x_{\rho
})}\left\vert \nabla v_{\rho}\right\vert ^{p-1}\mathrm{d}\sigma\label{gauss1}$$ and$$v_{\rho}\leq u_{\rho}\quad\mathrm{in}\,\Omega. \label{v<u}$$
Now, by adapting the remaining of the proof of Lemma 4.2 of [@HL] we prove in the sequel that $$\limsup_{x\rightarrow x_{\rho}}\left\vert \nabla v_{\rho}(x)\right\vert
^{p-1}\left\vert x-x_{\rho}\right\vert ^{N-1}\leq\left[ N\omega_{N}(\mu
_{p}(x_{\rho}))^{\frac{N-1}{p-N}}\left( \frac{1-\rho}{(\mu_{p}(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}}}+\frac{\rho}{(\mu_{p}(x_{1}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}}}\right)
^{p-1}\right] ^{-1}. \label{step2}$$
Assuming this for a moment, noticing that$$\liminf_{r\rightarrow0^{+}}\int_{\partial B_{r}(x_{\rho})}\left\vert \nabla
v_{\rho}\right\vert ^{p-1}\mathrm{d}\sigma\leq\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty
}N\omega_{N}\left\vert \nabla v_{\rho}(z)\right\vert ^{p-1}\left\vert
z-x_{\rho}\right\vert ^{N-1},$$ and taking (\[gauss1\]) and (\[step2\]) into account we arrive at$$\mu_{p}(x_{\rho})\leq\left[ (\mu_{p}(x_{\rho}))^{\frac{N-1}{p-N}}\left(
\frac{1-\rho}{(\mu_{p}(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}}}+\frac{\rho}{(\mu_{p}(x_{1}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}}}\right) ^{p-1}\right] ^{-1},$$ which leads to $$\left( \mu_{p}(x_{\rho})\right) ^{-1}\geq(\mu_{p}(x_{\rho}))^{\frac
{N-1}{p-N}}\left( \frac{1-\rho}{(\mu_{p}(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}}}+\frac{\rho
}{(\mu_{p}(x_{1}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}}}\right) ^{p-1},$$ or, equivalently, to $$\left( \mu_{p}(x_{\rho})\right) ^{-\frac{1}{p-N}}\geq(1-\rho)(\mu_{p}(x_{0}))^{-\frac{1}{p-N}}+\rho(\mu_{p}(x_{1}))^{-\frac{1}{p-N}}.$$ This shows that the function $x\mapsto(\mu_{p})^{-1/(p-N)}$ is concave.
To prove (\[step2\]) let us take $z_{n}\rightarrow x_{\rho}$ with $z_{n}\not =x_{\rho}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ large enough. Properties of the function $v_{\rho}$ (see Proposition 4.1 of [@HL]), guarantee the existence of sequences $\left( x_{n}\right) $ and $\left( y_{n}\right) $ such that$$z_{n}=(1-\rho)x_{n}+\rho y_{n}$$$$v_{\rho}(z_{n})=u_{0}(x_{n})=u_{1}(y_{n}) \label{v=u0=u1}$$ and$$\frac{1}{\left\vert \nabla v_{\rho}(z_{n})\right\vert }=\frac{1-\rho
}{\left\vert \nabla u_{0}(x_{n})\right\vert }+\frac{\rho}{\left\vert \nabla
u_{1}(y_{n})\right\vert }.$$
Since $\Omega$ is bounded, we can assume that the sequences $\left(
x_{n}\right) $ and $\left( y_{n}\right) $ are convergent, say $x_{n}\rightarrow\overline{x}$ and $y_{n}\rightarrow\overline{y}.$ It follows from (\[v=u0=u1\]) that$$1=v_{\rho}(x_{\rho})=u_{0}(\overline{x})=u_{1}(\overline{y})$$ where the first equality comes from the fact that $z_{n}\rightarrow x_{\rho}.$ Noting that $1$ is the maximum value of both $u_{0}$ and $u_{1},$ assumed only at $x_{0}$ and $x_{1},$ respectively, we conclude that $\overline{x}=x_{0}$ and $\overline{y}=x_{1}.$ Thus, $x_{n}\rightarrow x_{0}$ and $y_{n}\rightarrow
x_{1}.$
Combining (\[v<u\]) with (\[v=u0=u1\]) we have$$\frac{\left\vert x_{n}-x_{0}\right\vert ^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}}}{1-u_{0}(x_{n})}\frac{1-u_{\rho}(z_{n})}{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert ^{\frac
{p-N}{p-1}}}\leq\frac{\left\vert x_{n}-x_{0}\right\vert ^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}}}{1-u_{0}(x_{n})}\frac{1-v_{\rho}(z_{n})}{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert
^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}}}=\left( \frac{\left\vert x_{n}-x_{0}\right\vert
}{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert }\right) ^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}}.$$ Thus, it follows from Remark \[prop2.8HL\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \left( \mu_{p}(x_{0})\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-1}}\right) ^{-1}\left(
\left( \mu_{p}(x_{\rho})\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-1}}\right) & =\lim
_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\left\vert x_{n}-x_{0}\right\vert ^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}}}{1-u_{0}(x_{n})}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1-u_{\rho}(z_{n})}{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert ^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}}}\\
& \leq\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left( \frac{\left\vert x_{n}-x_{0}\right\vert }{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert }\right)
^{\frac{p-N}{p-1}},\end{aligned}$$ so that$$\left( \frac{\mu_{p}(x_{\rho})}{\mu_{p}(x_{0})}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-N}}\leq\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\left\vert x_{n}-x_{0}\right\vert
}{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert }.$$
Likewise, we obtain$$\left( \frac{\mu_{p}(x_{\rho})}{\mu_{p}(x_{1})}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-N}}\leq\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\left\vert y_{n}-x_{1}\right\vert
}{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert }.$$
Hence, as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\left\vert \nabla v_{\rho}(z_{n})\right\vert \left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert ^{\frac{N-1}{p-1}}} & =\frac{1-\rho}{\left\vert \nabla
u_{0}(x_{n})\right\vert \left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert ^{\frac{N-1}{p-1}}}+\frac{\rho}{\left\vert \nabla u_{1}(y_{n})\right\vert \left\vert
z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert ^{\frac{N-1}{p-1}}}\\
& =\left( \frac{\left\vert x_{n}-x_{0}\right\vert }{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert }\right) ^{\frac{N-1}{p-1}}\frac{1-\rho}{\left\vert
\nabla u_{0}(x_{n})\right\vert \left\vert x_{n}-x_{0}\right\vert ^{\frac
{N-1}{p-1}}}\\
& +\left( \frac{\left\vert y_{n}-x_{1}\right\vert }{\left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert }\right) ^{\frac{N-1}{p-1}}\frac{\rho}{\left\vert \nabla
u_{1}(y_{n})\right\vert \left\vert y_{n}-x_{1}\right\vert ^{\frac{N-1}{p-1}}},\end{aligned}$$ Remark \[prop2.8HL\] yields$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left\vert \nabla v_{\rho}(z_{n})\right\vert \left\vert z_{n}-x_{\rho}\right\vert ^{\frac{N-1}{p-1}}}
& \geq\left( \frac{\mu_{p}(x_{\rho})}{\mu_{p}(x_{0})}\right) ^{\frac
{1}{p-N}\frac{N-1}{p-1}}\left( \frac{N\omega_{N}}{\mu_{p}(x_{0})}\right)
^{\frac{1}{p-1}}(1-\rho)\\
& +\left( \frac{\mu_{p}(x_{\rho})}{\mu_{p}(x_{1})}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-N}\frac{N-1}{p-1}}\left( \frac{N\omega_{N}}{\mu_{p}(x_{1})}\right)
^{\frac{1}{p-1}}\rho\\
& =(N\omega_{N})^{\frac{1}{p-1}}(\mu_{p}(x_{\rho}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}\frac
{N-1}{p-1}}\left( \frac{1-\rho}{(\mu_{p}(x_{0}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}}}+\frac{\rho
}{(\mu_{p}(x_{1}))^{\frac{1}{p-N}}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$
Inequality (\[step2\]) then follows from the arbitrariness of $z_{n}\rightarrow x_{\rho}.$
Acknowledgments
===============
The first author thanks the support of Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais - Fapemig/Brazil (CEX-APQ-03372-16 and PPM-00137-18) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq/Brazil (306815/2017-6 and 422806/2018-8). The second author thanks the support of Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Capes/Brazil (Finance Code 001).
[99]{}
Barles, G., Busca, J.: Existence and comparison results for fully nonlinear degenerate elliptic equations without zeroth-order term, Comm. PDE **26** (2001) 2323–2337.
Dinca, G., Jebelean, P., Mawhin, J.: Variational and topological methods for Dirichlet problems with p-Laplacian, Port. Math. **58** (2001) 339–378.
Ercole, G., Pereira, G.: Asymptotics for the best Sobolev constants and their extremal functions, Math. Nachr. **289** (2016) 1433–1449.
Hynd, R., Lindgren, E.: Extremal functions for Morrey’s inequality in convex domains, Math. Ann. **375** (2019) 1721–1743.
Janfalk, U.: Behaviour in the limit, as $p\rightarrow\infty,$ of minimizers of functionals involving p-Dirichlet integrals. SIAM J. Math. Anal., **27** (1996) 341–360.
Jensen, R.: Uniqueness of Lipschitz extensions: minimizing the sup norm of the gradient, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. **123** (1993) 51–74.
Lewis, J.: Capacitary functions in convex rings, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. **66** (1977) 201–224.
Lindqvist, P.: Notes on the infinity Laplace equation. SpringerBriefs in Mathematics. BCAM Basque Center for Applied Mathematics, Springer, Bilbao, 2016.
Lindqvist, P.: Notes on the p-Laplace equation (2nd edition). No. 161. University of Jyväskylä,Jyväskylä, 2017.
Lindqvist, P., Manfredi, J.: The Harnack inequality for $\infty$-harmonic functions, Electron. J. Differential Equations 1995 No. 4 (1995) 1–5.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have found experimentally that the shot noise of the tunneling current $I$ through an undoped semiconductor superlattice is reduced with respect to the Poissonian noise value $2eI$, and that the noise approaches 1/3 of that value in superlattices whose quantum wells are strongly coupled. On the other hand, when the coupling is weak or when a strong electric field is applied to the superlattice the noise becomes Poissonian. Although our results are qualitatively consistent with existing theories for one-dimensional mulitple barriers, the theories cannot account for the dependence of the noise on superlattice parameters that we have observed.'
author:
- 'W. Song'
- 'A.K.M. Newaz'
- 'J. K. Son'
- 'E.E. Mendez'
date:
- 'Version: '
-
title: Drastic Reduction of Shot Noise in Semiconductor Superlattices
---
The tunneling of electrons through a potential barrier, although itself a wave-mechanics phenomenon, also reveals the particle-like character of the charge. Thus the fluctuations of an average current, $I$, of uncorrelated electrons that tunnel through a single barrier are governed by Poisson statistics, whose out-of-equilibrium noise ([*[shot noise]{}*]{}) power spectrum $S$ is given by $S_P = 2eI$, as in a vacuum tube or in the space-charge region of a $p-n$ semiconductor junction. On the other hand, significant deviations from the Poissonian value occur when tunneling takes place through two or more barriers, as a result of correlations in the motion of the electrons.
It has been found that the shot noise of a double-barrier resonant-tunneling diode is reduced or enhanced relative to $S_P$ depending on whether the diode is in the quasi-linear or in the negative-differential-conductance (NDC) region of its current-voltage $(I-V)$ characteristic - a non-Poissonian behavior that results from charge accumulation in the well [@Li90; @Ian98; @Kuz98; @Blanter00]. In the quasi-linear region, the ratio $S / S_P$ (frequently called Fano factor, $F$) determined experimentally has typically ranged from 1/2 (if the tunneling probabilities through the individual barriers are the same) to 1 (when those two probabilities are very different from each other). Most calculations have accounted for that range, regardless of whether the analysis is semiclassical or quantum-mechanical and of whether the tunneling process is sequential or coherent[@Chen91]. There have been some calculations, however, that predict that in a fully coherent process the Fano factor can be significantly smaller than 1/2 (Ref. 6), a conclusion that seems to be substantiated by a few experimental results[@Brown92].
Theorists have generalized their calculations to multiple-barrier structures, using them to analyze the current fluctuations in mesoscopic metals. It has been observed that in a diffusive conductor shorter than its inelastic mean free path the Fano factor of the noise spectrum is $F = 1/3$ (Ref. 8), and calculations using either a full quantum-mechanical[@Been92] or a semiclassical[@Nag92] formalism have accounted for that value, with the implication that phase coherence is not essential for noise suppresion. In particular, a semiclassical model in which a metal is envisioned as an array of many potential barriers predicts that the larger the number, $N$, of tunneling barriers the larger the noise suppression; when all the barriers are identical, in the $N\rightarrow\infty$ limit the shot noise should approach 1/3 of the Poissonian value[@De95].
Somewhat surprisingly, until now there has been no attempt to assess experimentally the limits of such a model using, for example, multi-barrier structures made out of two semiconductors, whose barrier height, width, and spacing can be controlled at will. For example, by varying the separation between barriers (or any of the other two parameters) it should be possible to probe the transition from coherent to sequential tunneling, and by applying an electric field the effective number of barriers that electrons tunnel can be varied in a controlled way.
We report here that the shot noise of a semiconductor superlattice, consisting of many (typically more than 20) alternating barriers and wells, approaches the $F = 1/3$ limit, provided the separation between barriers is small (1.5 nm) and the heterostructure is not driven very far from equilibrium, so that the barriers remain almost identical to each other (low-electric-field regime). On the other hand, in the high-field regime the shot noise is Poissonian, as expected when tunneling occurs through very different barriers. The shot noise observed in the transition region from one regime to another, however, goes beyond the simple predictions for a one-dimensional chain of barriers[@De95].
Traditionally, electronic noise in tunneling transport has been studied by injecting electrons into an undoped (or intrinsic, $i$) semiconductor heterostructure via a voltage applied between $n$-type electrodes at the two ends of it. When the focus is on field effects, it is advantageous to work with a $p-i-n$ configuration in which the structure of interest is placed in the space-charge region of a $p-n$ diode, where large fields can be reached by applying a reverse bias to the diode without drawing any significant current. However, this creates a problem when trying to measue the current noise. We have circumvented this drawback by injecting carriers into the conduction band of the $i$ region via optical excitation of electrons from the valence band. In short, we have measured the shot noise of the photocurrent generated in a $p-i-n$ diode whose intrinsic region is formed by superlattice.
Electronic transport in a superlattice is a complex process, but for the purpose of this work it can be simplified into three regimes, in relation to a localization electric field $E_c$ defined by $E_c = \Delta/ eD$, where $\Delta$ is the width of the miniband of allowed energies and $D$ is the superlattice period[@Mendez88]. The two extreme regimes are sketched in Fig.1. At very low fields $(E \ll Ec)$, the superlattice miniband has not yet been destroyed by the electric field and optically injected carriers reach the $n$ electrode (“reverse” current) through miniband transport. At very high fields $(E \gg Ec)$, all interwell coupling is destroyed, the quantum states are localized to individual wells and electrons tunnel from one well to another until they reach the collecting electrode. At intermediate fields, the miniband is replaced by a Wannier-Stark ladder and electron transport evolves gradually toward hopping as the coupling between wells diminishes[@De95].
The heterostructures from which the photodiodes were made were grown by molecular beam epitaxy using $n^+$GaAs as a substrate. In each heterostructure an undoped region consisting of a superlattice terminated by 600 Å of Ga$_{0.65}$Al$_{0.35}$As on each side was clad by heavily doped ($2\times 10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$) $n^+$ and $p^+$ GaAs electrodes. The superlattice was formed by a large number of periods (twenty to seventy, depending on the sample) of alternating GaAs wells and Ga$_{0.65}$Al$_{0.35}$As barriers, with thickness ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 nm for the wells and from 1.5 to 4.0 nm for the barriers. The extreme values for $D$ were 5.5 nm and 8.5 nm and their miniband widths were 98 meV and 15 meV, respectively. The corresponding characteristic fields were 190 and 20 kV/cm, respectively. In total, nine different heterostructures were prepared, from which 400 $\mu$m-diameter photodiodes were fabricated using standard processing techniques.
Optical excitation was provided by the light from a tungsten lamp passed through a monochromator whose spectral resolution was somewhat sacrificed in order to achieve photocurrent levels sufficient to make noise measurements reliable. A light blocker was placed in front of an optical cryostat where the samples were maintained at a temperature of 6K. Because of the low photocurrent (of the order of nanoamperes) and the high capacitance (about 80 pF) of the diodes, the current was amplified by a special voltage amplifier, whose output was fed to a spectrum analyzer and a lock-in amplifier in parallel. The photocurrent noise was determined differentially, that is, by subtracting the spectral density outputs from the spectrum analyzer when the light blocker was in and out of the path of the light.
The photocurrent of several superlattices as a function of the total voltage applied to the $p-i-n$ diodes is shown in Fig.2. (For reasons that will soon become clear, in the figure the current is multiplied by $2e$.) The most salient feature of the $I-V$ characteristic is the presence of several maxima and minima, with regions of positive and negative differential conduction between them. The origin of this oscillatory behavior is well known: a maximum appears in the photocurrent whenever there is resonant absorption of light between a localized quantum-well state in the valence band and a delocalized state in the conduction band of the superlattice[@Agu89].
For a fixed photon energy, there are resonances at certain electric fields, each resonance involving a certain Wannier-Stark state in the conduction band. If $W$ is the length of the depletion region of the $p-i-n$ heterojunction in which the superlattice is immersed and $h\nu$ is the photon energy, then the resonance voltages are approximately given by $V_n = V_b + W(h\nu - E_0)/eDn$, where $V_b$ is the built-in voltage of the junction, $E_0$ is the optical-transition energy in the very high-field limit, and $n$ is the index of the Wannier-Stark state[@Agu89].
The noise spectral power $S$ exhibits an oscillatory behavior similar to that of the photocurrent, with maxima and minima occurring at the same voltages, as shown in Fig.2. Howewer, a direct comparison between $S$ and $2eI$ reveals that the proportionality constant between the two quantities, in general, is not the same throughout the full voltage range. For instance, for the 4.0/1.5 nm superlattice \[Fig.2(a)\] the Fano factor is 1 for $V \leq -0.5$V, but it is significantly smaller for larger voltages, down to $\approx 0.40$ as $V$ approaches $V_b$, independently of the excitation energy \[see Fig.2(b)\]. The voltages of the oscillation’s extrema depend on the excitation energy, but the crossover voltage at which $F$ changes from its minimum to its maximum value does not. The last two frames of Fig.2, (c) and (d), depict the shot noise in comparison with $2eI$ for two superlattices with different well/barrier thicknesses. While for the 4.0/2.0 nm superlattice a noise reduction is still noticeable at positive voltages (although less pronounced than in the 4.0/1.5 nm case), for the 5.0/3.5 nm superlattice the noise is practically Poissonian throughout the entire voltage range.
To establish a meaningful comparison of the behavior of the noise among various superlattices, we have summarized in Fig.3 the dependence of the Fano factor on electric field for superlattices that have the same well width (4.0 nm) but different barrier width, from 1.5 nm to 4.0 nm. The most notable features in the plot are the following. First, for all the superlattices the maximum Fano factor, $F_{max}$, is 1.0, within experimental uncertainty. Second, the value of the minimum Fano factor, $F_{min}$, varies from one superlattice to another, within the range 0.4 to 1.0; the trend is for $F_{min}$ to increase with barrier width. Third, the field region at which the crossover for $F$ occurs is relatively sharp, being slightly sharper the wider the barrier width.
These three features are quite general to the nine superlattices we have studied, if we use the miniband width, $\Delta$, as the single defining parameter: $F_{max}$ is 1.0 regardless of $\Delta$; $F_{min}$ decreases with increasing $\Delta$; and the crossover between $F_{min}$ and $F_{max}$ occurs at lower field, and is sharper, the smaller $\Delta$. There are a few superlattices that deviate from that behavior, though. The most outstanding exception is the 4.0/4.0 superlattice shown ing Fig.3, whose $F_{min}$ was found to be $0.55 \pm 0.08$. In contrast, for a 5.0/3.5 structure (for which the miniband width $\Delta = 0.015$ eV is comparable to that of the 4.0/4.0 structure) we found $F_{min}\approx 1$. Because the nine superlattices were grown in a span of several years, it is difficult to pinpoint the origin of the deviations from the general trend. At this point, we can only say that superlattice “quality", evidenced experimentally by several oscillations in the photocurrent[@Agu89], does not seem to be the determining factor for $F_{min}$.
The two limits, $F_{min}$ and $F_{max}$, of the Fano factor can be understood qualitatively by considering the potential profile of a superlattice in the extreme-field regimes. At very high fields, the profile is “tilted” so much that electrons injected optically into a quantum well in the conduction band in practice tunnel through a single barrier (see Fig.1). In this case, the transport process is uncorrelated, and the Fano factor should be one, as we have found experimentally. At low fields, the wells are barely tilted so that electrons tunnel through a large set of almost identical barriers, and the Fano factor should be drastically reduced, down to 1/3 as the number of barriers approaches infinity[@De95].
Beyond this qualitative understanding, the agreement between experiment and theory breaks down. First of all, experimentally the $F\rightarrow 1$ limit is reached at fields quite below the high-field regime. For instance, for the 4.0/1.5 superlattice $F$ is already 1 when the field is about 90 kV/cm (see Fig.3), which is significantly lower than $E_c$ (190 kV/cm) for that superlattice. At that comparatively moderate field, optically pumped electrons effectively “see” several quantum barriers ahead of them as they tunnel through; consequently, the Fano factor should still be significantly smaller than one. In the low-field limit, existing theories predict that $F$ should approach 1/3 as long as the barriers are identical and their number large, regardless of the barrier width[@De95]. Experimentally, this seems to be true mostly when the barriers are narrow and, therefore, the interwell coupling strong, but when the barriers are relatively wide $F$ is still close to one at very low fields.
It could be argued that the assumption of identical barriers is not really applicable to our experiments. After all, the field not only reduces the number of barriers that participate in a tunneling event but it also makes them dissimilar as far as tunneling is concerned. For a better comparison with the results summarized in Fig.3, we have adapted an existing one-dimensional calculation \[11\] to determine the Fano factor of a multi-barrier structure as a function of electric field. We proceeded the following way: for a given field, first we used the transfer-matrix method to determine the tunneling probability of an electron through each of $N (N = 8)$ barriers, individually. At zero field the shape of all the barriers is identical, but since the field displaces them ”vertically” with respect to each other, a tunneling electron will see each barrier differently, experiencing an increasing tunneling probability as it encounters successive barriers in its motion against the field. Once we had determined the individual probabilities, we used theoretical expressions [@De95] to compute $F$.
A summary of our calculations for three different superlattices with 4.0 nm well width is shown in Fig.3(b). As expected, when $N$ is relatively large and all the barriers are identical, at zero field the Fano factor is 1/3, regardless of the superlattice period. As the field increases, F increases monotonically, but the rate of increase is the faster the larger the period (or, equivalently, the smaller $\Delta$). For the superlattice with the longest period, at 200 kV/cm $F$ is 0.9, whereas for that with the shortest period $F$ is 0.8, and approaches saturation very slowly. We note that the critical fields for the superlattices are 20 kV/cm and 190 kV/cm, respectively, so that even when $E$ is ten times $E_c$, the calculated value of $F$ is still less than one. This result is in sharp contrast with our experimental finding (Fig.3(a)) that $F$ is already one even when $E$ is smaller than $E_c$. The other crucial difference, as discussed above, is that, experimentally, at zero field $F\!\!\rightarrow\!{1/3}$ only for the superlattice with the shortest period.
At the moment we do not have an explanation for these discrepancies, which suggest that something is amiss in the simple model we have used when trying to account for the behavior of three-dimensional heterostructures. The measurements described above also show that by substituting a superlattice for the light-absorbing well of a quantum-well photodiode it is in principle possible to reduce significantly the shot noise of the device. We have found that reduction to be the largest at zero field because it is then that the tunneling probability is the same for all barriers. It should be possible to design a multi-barrier structure in which the individual barrier widths and/or heights are arranged in such a way that the optimum noise condition is achieved for an operating field different from zero.
We are grateful to J. M. Hong, who prepared the heterostructures whose noise properties we have reported here. This work has been sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-0305384.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
For a comprehensive review see , ****, ().
, ****, (); , ****, (); , ****, (); , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (); , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Mannque <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rho</span>$^{1,}$[^1]'
title: |
Hidden Local Symmetry and the Vector Manifestation\
of Chiral Symmetry in Hot and/or Dense Matter[^2]
---
Introduction
============
In the current understanding of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), nearly all of the masses of low-lying hadrons (e.g., $\sim 98$% of the proton mass) come from spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry. A hot issue raised currently by hadron/nuclear physicists is: How to un-break the broken symmetry in terrestrial laboratories or in compact stellar systems and figure out how the mass is generated to start with. I would like to address this issue in this talk using the framework Gerry Brown and I have been developing since some time, specifically, ideas based on hidden local symmetry, the “vector manifestation" of chiral symmetry and Brown-Rho scaling.
The above question belongs broadly to a class of issues connected to the origin of mass. In a glaring departure from molecules, atoms and nuclei whose masses are nearly fully, say, more than 99%, accounted for by their “elementary" constituents, the bulk of the mass of the nucleon is not given by the masses of its constituents, namely, the quarks. Thus this sets the beginning of a series of mysteries related to the question “where does the mass come from?"
The clue to the origin of the mass of quarks and leptons, the truly fundamental issue, will probably be revealed in the coming years, perhaps at LHC/CERN. What we are concerned with here is the issue – perhaps less fundamental – we can address with what we already have at our disposal and will have in the near future and deals with strongly interacting matter when it is heated to several hundred MeV in temperature or is compressed to several times the density of the nuclear matter.
The Origin of Hadron Mass
=========================
Let us take the proton as a typical hadron. The argument goes in a similar way for, say, the $\rho$ meson mass which is currently a hot topic of experimental efforts. The simplest way to proceed is to think in terms of constituent quarks whose masses are dynamically generated by the complex vacuum.
In QCD, the proton is made up of three light (“chiral") quarks, the total mass of which is tiny, a few MeV, compared with the proton mass which is $\sim$ 1000 MeV. It is believed - and the evidence is strong - that most of the proton mass comes from the “spontaneous" breaking of chiral symmetry by the vacuum, with the order parameter given by the quark condensate $\la\bar{q}q\ra$. The mass so generated must therefore be connected intimately to the quark condensate. So in the chiral limit, one should be able to write the hadron mass as a function of the condensate as m=F(|[q]{}q). As an order parameter, the condensate $\la\bar{q}q\ra$ will be assumed to go to zero when chiral symmetry is restored. It may go to zero either in a smooth way or in a discontinuous way when the system is driven by the external condition - temperature or density - to the critical point. Now even if the condensate goes to zero smoothly, the $F$ which could be a complicated function of the condensate may go to zero in a discontinuous way. At present, there is no known analytical way to settle this issue using QCD proper. So how $F$ behaves as the critical point is reached is not known. But it seems very natural to expect that F(|[q]{}q)0 [as]{} |[q]{}q)0. This is basically the basis of Brown-Rho scaling [@BR:91] and is supported by Harada-Yamawaki’s hidden local symmetry theory with the “vector manifestation" fixed point [@HY:PR]. We will call this Harada-Yamawaki theory “HLS/VM" for short.
We should however mention that this is not the only possibility. In fact, certain models can admit a non-zero $F(0)$, hence a non-zero mass, and still preserve chiral symmetry and allow a Goldstone-Wigner phase transition. For instance, one can have a linear sigma model with parity-doublet fermion fields [@parity-doublet]. In this model, the fermion mass can be non-zero in both the Goldstone and Wigner phases. The fermions can be baryons or constituent (quasi) quarks. In the former case, one can have massless mesons while having massive baryons at the critical point. In the latter case, both mesons and baryons as (weakly) bound states of quasiquarks could remain massive at the critical point with the chiral symmetry preserved. At present, neither theory nor experiment can rule out this scenario. However we find it unnatural within the HLS framework we are adopting. We shall not pursue this alternative scenario.
Hidden Local Symmetry (HLS)
===========================
The well-established perturbative QCD cannot access the highly nonperturbative and strong-coupling regime at low energy we are concerned with. The only tool available at present is effective theories that meet Weinberg’s “folk theorem" [@weinberg-folk] on effective field theories. There is some help from lattice calculations but at the present stage, not much on what happens to light-quark hadrons, e.g., nucleons, vector mesons, pions etc. when they are immersed in hot and/or dens medium.
The question we are interested in answering is: If the hadron mass vanishes at the phase transition, how can one “see" it or what is the appropriate tool for it?
In what follows, we shall mostly deal with the chiral limit. Our principal theme in addressing the above question is that [*the most important ingredient in an effective field theory that enables one to probe the regime where the effective mass of the vector meson can drop to that of the pion mass is hidden local symmetry.*]{} Our theme is anchored on the argument by Harada and Yamawaki [@HY:PR] that without hidden local symmetry, there is no consistent [*as well as*]{} simple way to allow the vector mass become as light as the pion mass. We suggest that the lack of hidden gauge symmetry is the reason why phenomenological models often used in the literature fail to observe dropping masses in hot/dense matter.
HLS as emergent gauge symmetry
------------------------------
At very low energy $E\ll \Lambda_\chi$ where $\Lambda_\chi\approx
4\pi f_\pi\sim 1$ GeV, the only relevant degrees of freedom are the pions, that is, Goldstone bosons, emerging from the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry $SU(N_f)_L\times SU(N_f)_R$ to $SU(N_f)_{L+R}$. The dynamics involving the pion field, $U=exp(2i\pi/F_\pi)$ [^3] is encoded in a chiral Lagrangian expanded in derivatives, the leading term of which is given by low-energy theorems. Now we make the most obvious and “trivial" observation that one can always write the $U$ field in a product form if one is willing to introduce a redundant field. Define the L/R chiral fields with the redundant field $\sigma$ \_[L,R]{}=e\^[i/F\_]{}e\^[i/F\_]{}\[chifields\] $U$ can then be rewritten as U=\_L\^\_R. In this form, we unearth a local symmetry \_[L,R]{}h(x)\_[L,R]{} with $h(x)\in SU(N_f)_V$. As it stands, we have not done anything new, so there is no new physics here. However if we elevate the local symmetry to a local gauge symmetry by introducing a gauge field – which we will denote by $V_\mu \in SU(N_f)_V$ – and endow it with a kinetic energy term, then it becomes quite a different story. First of all, this procedure allows one to go up systematically in some expansion scheme (such as chiral expansion) in energy from the low energy scale where the pionic chiral Lagrangian is applicable to a scale at which new degrees of freedom set in [@georgi-idea], thereby circumventing the breakdown of the pionic chiral theory and going beyond to the next energy scale. In our case, the scale is brought above the mass of the vector mesons $\rho$, $\omega$, $a_1$ etc. Furthermore. what is more important for our case is that thanks to local gauge symmetry, one can do a systematic chiral perturbation calculation with the vector mesons put on the same scale as the pions and access the regime where the vector mass is comparable to the pion mass.
The hidden local symmetry theory of Harada and Yamawaki[@HY:PR] – which is based on the earlier work of Bando et al. [@bandoetal] – was constructed in this way with the vector mesons $\rho$ and $\omega$ (which we label as $V_1$) as the hidden local fields together with the Goldstone pions.
This strategy of introducing a hidden gauge field can be extended to as many gauge fields as required by the energy scales one wants to deal with. There is however one important caveat here. Introducing gauge degrees of freedom in this way as a way of going up in energy scales does not necessarily lead to a unique gauge theory [@weinberg-largeNc]. Different constructions could give rise to different gauge structures at higher energies. One way that is both simple and phenomenologically appealing is the linear “moose" construction [@georgi-idea]. A version of this class of construction in which an infinite tower of gauge fields are incorporated was proposed as a “dimensionally deconstructed QCD" [@son-stephanov1]. In order to make the construction correctly represent nature up to a given scale, the theory has to be matched to a fundamental theory and “ultraviolet-completed" to go beyond.
As we will elaborate further later, if one wants to study what happens to the vector mesons in medium, this strategy is definitely needed. On a more fundamental level, one can view this as a generic phenomenon of the “emergence" of local gauge degrees of freedom. Examples are numerous, e.g., emergent gravity, emergent space-time, spin-charge separation in high-T superconductivity etc [@horowitz-polchinski].
HLS from string theory
----------------------
A novel recent development in both string theory and hadronic physics is that HLS $descends$ naturally via AdS/CFT duality from string theory to holographic QCD. This is a top-down approach to hidden local symmetry theory of QCD. One such theory which astutely implements the spontaneous breaking of chiral $SU(N_f)\times
SU(N_f)$ symmetry was constructed by Sakai and Sugimoto [@SS]. The key idea in this approach is that the strongly-coupled and hence highly non-perturbative aspect of QCD in four dimensions in the limits $\lambda\equiv g^2_{YM}N_c\rightarrow \infty$ (“’t Hooft limit") and $N_c\rightarrow \infty$ (“large $N_c$ limit") can be approximated by a readily calculable weakly-coupled gravity solution in five dimensions. Since a dimensional reduction is involved, there is a Kaluza-Klein scale $M_{KK}$ that sets the energy scale of the effective theory. What results is a pure Yang-Mills theory in five dimensions dual to strongly-coupled QCD which when reduced to four dimensions can be cast in terms of an infinite tower of local vector fields coupled gauge invariantly to the pions. Thus as in the emergent case, the same type of hidden local symmetry (with an infinite tower of vector mesons and the pions) arises from top down. Remarkably this theory describes the meson sector [@SS] as well as the baryon sector [@HRYY-PRL; @HSSY] quite well.
Perhaps the most important outcome of the development is the appearance of baryons in the theory. The hidden local symmetry theory (with the infinite tower which we will label as $V_\infty$ whenever unambiguous) is the full theory of hadrons at the scale defined by the KK mass $M_{KK}$. Since there are no explicit baryons in the theory, baryons must arise through topology, namely, solitons. In five dimensions, the soliton is an instanton but reduced to four dimensions where the baryon lives, it is a skyrmion [@skyrme]. What makes this skyrmion different from the skyrmion in the Skyrme model [@skyrme] is that the soliton involves the infinite tower of vector mesons in addition to the pions encapsulated in an instanton. The geometry in five dimensions represents the dynamics of the infinite tower of vector mesons. The bulk theory is weak-coupling and manageable in the limit $\lambda\rightarrow \infty$ and $N_c\rightarrow \infty$ and provides baryon chiral dynamics anchored on hidden gauge structure.
There is a simple prediction of the theory that can be checked against experiments. Viewed in terms of the instanton, the nucleon axial coupling $g_A$ is independent of $\lambda$ and the KK scale $M_{KK}$, so it is independent of the pion decay constant. One can also calculate in the same limit the anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon $\mu_{an}=\mu_p -\mu_n -1$ in nuclear magneton. Both are linear in $N_c$. The ratio $R=g_A/\mu_{an}$ is therefore independent of $N_c$ in the ’t Hooft and large $N_c$ limit. The instanton calculation [@HRYY-PRL] is found to give $
g_A\approx 0.69\frac{N_c}{3} +{\cal O}(N_c^0)$ and $\mu_{an}\approx 2.16\frac{m_N}{M_{KK}}\frac{N_C}{3}+{\cal
O}(N_c^0)$. With the ${\cal O}(1)$ term ignored for the moment, the predicted ratio for $M_{KK}\approx m_N$ as required in the meson sector [@SS] comes out to be $R\approx 0.32$. The experimental values are $g_A=1.26$ and $\mu_{an}=3.7$, so the empirical ratio $R=0.34$ gives a support to the prediction.
One can go one step further and estimate the ${\cal O}(1)$ correction with no sweat. In fact, one can argue that $1/N_c$ corrections from non-planar loop contributions come only at ${\cal
O}(1/N_c)$ and higher. The ${\cal O}(1)$ corrections are common in both $g_A$ and $\mu_{an}$ and they arise in a simple book-keeping of the spin-flavor operators involved in the hedgehog configuration that is totally independent of dynamics. The leading correction is given simply by the replacement $N_c\rightarrow N_c+2$. Thus the final prediction for $N_c=3$ is $g_A \approx 1.15$ and $\mu_{an}\approx 3.6$ in close agreement with the experimental values [^4]
Another remarkable prediction of the instanton baryon description [@HRYY-long] is that the nucleon EM form factors are completely vector-dominated just as the pionic form factor is. The photon can couple directly to the soliton which ia an extended baryon but by a suitable field re-definition, one can “eliminate" the direct photon coupling and express the form factors entirely vector-dominated with the infinite tower of vector mesons entering into the formula. This result may offer a precise meaning to what was previously considered as a “intrinsic core" attributed to a quark-gluon structure in the two-component model of the nucleon structure [@2comp-NFF; @petronzio]. It furthermore brings a basically new aspect to the solitonic structure of the baryon which is now governed by the vector mesons, not by the Goldstone (pion) field as in the skyrmion with the Skyrme model. What happens to this instanton baryon in hot/dense medium is totally unknown.
At the present stage of our understanding, the holographic approach can make predictions only in the large $\lambda$ and $N_c$ limit, restricted to the zero temperature and matter-free environment. In studying hadron properties in medium, however, it is clear that one has to be able to calculate $1/N_c$ corrections since the hadron masses are locked to the quark condensate as we argued above and in the large $N_c$ limit, the quark condensate is known to be temperature-independent [@large-N-condensate]. At present, one does not know how to compute higher-order $1/N_c$ terms in the bulk sector. Clearly further progress in this direction is needed for the approach to describe what happens in the vicinity of the chiral restoration, a matter of prime importance in the field.
Vector Manifestation
====================
HLS à la Harada and Yamawaki
----------------------------
Since one cannot yet adequately exploit the dynamics of the infinite tower in confronting nature, we will rely on the HLS theory of Harada and Yamawaki (HY) [@HY:PR] which involves only the lowest members $\rho$ (and $\omega$) of the infinite tower. Let us call it HLS$_1$ in contrast to the infinite-tower HLS theory of Sakai and Sugmoto which we will call HLS$_\infty$. The HLS$_1$ theory can be interpreted as a truncated version of HLS$_\infty$ in the following sense. One picks the scale $\Lambda_M$ as a matching scale, integrates out all the members of the tower except the lowest member $V_1$ lying below $\Lambda_M$, writes HLS Lagrangian with the $V_1$ and the pion and Wilsonian-matches at $\Lambda_M$ the HLS correlators to the QCD correlators. One can obviously include in the theory other vector mesons as for instance the axial vector meson $a_1$ etc. This gives a $bare$ Lagrangian whose parameters are given by QCD variables such as the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$, the quark condensate $\la\bar{q}q\ra$, the gluon condensate $\la
G^2_{\mu\nu}\ra$ etc. Quantum calculations are done with the bare HLS Lagrangian so determined by renormalization group equations.
An important point to note here: [*Since the condensates in the QCD sector are background-dependent, that is, dependent on temperature, density etc, the bare Lagrangian HLS$_1$ is endowed with “intrinsic (background) dependence."*]{}
The fixed point of HLS$_1$
--------------------------
In the chiral limit and with $V_1=\rho$, there are three parameters in the HLS$_1$ Lagrangian, $g$, $F_\pi$ and $a$ where $g$ is the gauge coupling constant of HLS$_1$, $F_\pi$ is the parametric pion decay constant [^5] and $a=(F_\sigma/F_\pi)^2$ figuring in the chiral fields (\[chifields\]). Harada and Yamawaki showed that the RGEs for these parameters have the fixed point consistent with QCD [^6] g\^\*=0, a\^\*=1.\[fixed\] This was explicitly shown to one-loop order but one can readily convince oneself that it should hold to all loop orders. This fixed point dictates how the hadronic system makes a phase transition from the chiral symmetry broken phase to the restored phase. [*The fixed point (\[fixed\]) – referred to as “vector manifestation (VM) fixed point" – is reached when the quark condensate vanishes.*]{}
In HLS$_1$ (as well as HLS$_\infty$) theory, the vector meson masses are generated by the Higgs mechanism, with the scalar $\sigma$ eaten by the vector mesons. The mass formula therefore is m\_V\^2=g\^2 F\_\^2=a g\^2 F\_\^2. It has been shown that near the critical point, either $T_c$ or $n_c$, the coupling $g$ goes to zero proportionally to $\la\bar{q}q\ra$. Therefore at the chiral restoration, the parametric mass behaves m\_V\~g\~|[q]{}q0. This is consistent with Brown-Rho scaling. The physical mass of $V_1$ also vanishes at the critical point.
The parametric pion decay constant does not exhibit any special feature as $\la\bar{q}q\ra\rightarrow 0$. However the physical pion decay constant $f_\pi=F_\pi +\delta f_\pi$ must go to zero as dictated by the low-energy theorem.
Vector dominance violation
--------------------------
An important consequence for the problem we are concerned with of the VM fixed point is that the vector dominance in the EM form factors of hadrons is drastically affected. To see this, we look at the pion EM form factor. In the HLS$_1$ theory, the photon couples to the point-like pion with a coefficient $(1-a/2)$ and through the $V_1=\rho$ meson with a coefficient $a/2$. In matter-free space, $a\approx 2$, so the form factor is vector-dominated with the direct coupling vanishing. What Harada and Yamawaki found was that the $a=2$ point sitting in free space is purely $accidental$, with $a$ lying on a RG trajectory that does not contain $a=2$. Thus if the system is slightly perturbed, $a$ quickly flows from 2 toward 1. At the VM fixed point, therefore the standard vector dominance is $strongly$ violated [^7].
“Seeing" the Dropping Mass
==========================
On-shell probes
---------------
There is a flurry of activities, both in theory and experiment, to “see" evidence for the manifestation of chiral symmetry in the behavior of masses and coupling constants in hot and/or dense medium. One would first like to observe it at a density and/or temperature readily available in laboratories before reaching the critical point and then ultimately go to the critical point. The former is looked for in precursor phenomena to the chiral phase transition. The idea is to create a hot/dense environment in which the produced particles propagate and look for signals that take a “snap-shot" of the particle propagation in the medium that is as free as possible from subsequent interactions with the medium.
Among the weakly interacting probes, the most frequently used is the electromagnetic one. There are two classes of processes that have been studied: One mediated by the $normal$ component of the chiral Lagrangian and the other by the $anomalous$ component.
The lepton pair production via virtual photon V\^\*l\^+ l\^-\[V\] where $V=\rho, \ \omega$ and $l=e, \ \mu$ is governed by the $normal$ component of the HLS$_1$ Lagrangian. Most of the past efforts to unravel chiral dynamics of hadrons in medium were directed to this process. Several heavy-ion experiments have been dedicated at CERN-SPS to expose $directly$ in-medium properties of the $\rho$ meson in hot and dense medium. The most recent and comprehensive review on the current situation regarding this class of experiments can be found in the articles by van Hees and Rapp [@rapp]. We will argue below that within the HLS/VM theory that we believe is suited to the problem, the lepton pairs in heavy-ion processes are [*neither efficient nor specific*]{} for exposing in-medium properties of the $\rho$ meson bearing on chiral symmetry, in particular, on the “dropping mass" effect.
The other class involves processes that are mediated by the $anomalous$ Wess-Zumino term in chiral Lagrangians. The process studied in this category [@metag] involves the in-medium $\omega$ meson in +A+X\^0+ X\^.\[Metag\] The coupling $\omega\pi^0\gamma$ is significant in that it arises from a chiral anomaly and is expected to behave differently in medium from that of the normal process (\[V\]) as certain anomalous processes (e.g., those involving triangle diagrams) are.
Off-shell probes
----------------
There are indirect probes that indicate how hadron masses and coupling constants behave in dense medium. A recent discussion on this matter can be found in the review by Brown et al [@BHLR06]. Most of the relevant arguments given there have been developed in a series of articles that date way back to early 1990’s [@BR:PR].
If one looks for a signal at zero temperature but at a matter density near that of the normal nuclear matter, then the mass scaling (n)=m\^\*/m m(n)/m(0) is a $parameter$ in an effective theory because what one is dealing with here is an off-shell quantity. It can however be related to the quark condensate, albeit indirectly, and hence could signal for a chiral symmetry manifestation. In order to “see" the effect in an unambiguous way, one would have to formulate the effective theory in a way consistent with chiral symmetry [*for all scales*]{} involved in the process. There are a vast variety of such formulations in the literature and a direct comparison with them is not our aim here. As an indication of the subtlety involved in the problem, let us take an exemplary case discussed by us[@BR:PR], i.e., the effective chiral Lagrangian in the mean field that can be recast in Landau Fermi-liquid theory for nuclear matter. There the scaling $\Phi (n)$ for $n\approx n_0$ (where $n_0$ is the nuclear matter density) can be related to the Landau parameter $\tilde{F}_1$ [^8] as[^9] \_1 -\_1\^3(1-1/)\[LandauF\] where $\tilde{F}_1^\pi$ is the contribution to the Landau parameter from the pion exchange which is completely fixed by chiral dynamics. One can get $\tilde{F}_1$ from the anomalous gyromagnetic ratio of the proton $ \delta g_l$ measured experimentally by using the Migdal formula that relates the two quantities [@Migdal]. Using (\[LandauF\]), one finds [@Friman-Rho] (n\_0)0.78.\[Phivalue\] In HLS$_\infty$ theory, the Landau parameter $F_1$ must be receiving contributions from all of the $V_\infty$ in the $\omega$ channel. However assuming that the lowest $\omega$ dominates, we can interpret (\[Phivalue\]) as m\_(n\_0)/m\_0.78. While this is valid only near the nuclear matter density for the “$\omega$" meson in the average sense, it is comparable – as predicted by Brown-Rho scale valid up to $\sim n_0$ – to the ratio $f_\pi (n_0)/f_\pi(0)\approx 0.80\approx \sqrt{\frac{\la\bar{q}q\ra
(n_0)}{\la\bar{q}q\ra}}$ found in deeply bound pionic atoms.
Other indirect indications for the dropping masses, such as for example the reduction of the nuclear tensor force etc., are summarized in the reviews [@BR:PR]. What may be a bit surprising is that nuclear physics has fared so successfully without ever invoking Brown-Rho scaling even though the vacuum change due to density is expected. As suggested in [@BR:PR], this may be understood in terms of a web of intricate “dualities" at low energy known variously as “quark-hadron continuity," “Cheshire Cat principle" etc., concepts that are yet to be put on a solid basis.
The import of the discussion in this subsection is that it illustrates how chiral symmetry property which is a basic property of QCD and Fermi-liquid property which is a mundane many-body effect can be compounded in $ordinary$ nuclear processes.
What the dileptons see
----------------------
Experimentalists in heavy ion physics purport to extract an in-medium “spectral function" of a vector meson quantum number, say, $\rho$ or $\omega$ as a function of invariant mass. This quantity is intended to tell us how the properties of vector mesons change when they are embedded in medium. An “ideal" snapshot for this is thought to be the dileptons mentioned above. In order to expose the effect of dense and/or hot medium, one tries to subtract all possible “trivial effects" that take place in zero-temperature, zero-density environment (e.g., “cocktail events"). Whether this can be done in a fully consistent way is not clear. The discussion given in the preceding subsection indicates that the distinction between what is trivial and what is non-trivial in the context of chiral symmetry can be highly problematic [*unless one can probe exclusively the vicinity of the VM fixed point.*]{} Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that $all$ such trivial effects can be taken out of the given experimental results and theorists are given what we shall call in-medium “ESF" (experimental spectral function). The question is: [*Can the ESF so obtained be used to verify or falsify Brown-Rho scaling or equivalently see evidence for partial or complete chiral symmetry restoration?*]{}
As stressed above, to properly address this question, it would be necessary to have at one’s disposal one complete self-consistent theoretical framework in which calculations can be done for all processes involved, avoiding mixing different models for different steps. Furthermore one should express the spectral function in terms of variables that track the chiral property of the system in terms of the order parameter, i.e., the quark condensate.
HLS$_1$ theory provides one such framework, with its local gauge invariance enabling one to access the vector fields whose mass scale can drop as low as that of the pion near the critical point.
The theoretical ingredients necessary within the framework of HY’s HLS$_1$ theory were spelled out in two unpublished articles [@BR:NA60]. They are (1) the intrinsic background (temperature, density) dependence demanded by matching to QCD [@HY:PR], (2) the violation of the vector dominance in the pion EM form factor in hot and/or dense medium that results from the vector manifestation of chiral symmetry in the HLS/VM theory [@HS:VD] and (3) many-body correlations generated by the presence of the Fermi surface, which may be considered as a quantum critical phenomenon [@BHLR06].
In order to implement all three ingredients in a consistent way, baryonic degrees of freedom are mandatory. In HLS$_\infty$ theory, they are skyrmions in an infinite tower of vector mesons if viewed in four dimensions. No such formulation exists at the moment. [^10] There is no reason why such a formulation cannot be made, so we shall assume that we have a spectral function calculated in that formulation as function of temperature/density and kinematics, and call it “TSF" (theoretical spectral function). Unfortunately, having such a TSF is not enough to directly confront the ESF. One also has to know precisely what the conditions with which the measurement of the ESF is made are. The heavy-ion experiment typically involves summing over the dilepton emissions as the system evolves in temperature and density as it expands. Many subtle and complex effects, such as for instance the “memory effects" pointed out in [@C-Greiner], will have to be all taken into account. These are formidable complications, one of the major obstructions to meaningfully confronting HLS/VM with experimental data. It is not clear that the theorists have the full control on all these.
Up to date, no one has succeeded in constructing a spectral function as a function of temperature and density that takes fully into account the three ingredients listed above. Presently available is a partial spectral function obtained by Harada and Sasaki [@HS:spectral] in which only the temperature effects in the ingredients (1) and (2) were taken into account. Lacking the crucial density dependence and also the ingredient (3), one cannot confront the Harada-Sasaki spectral function with the experimental data even if one had at one’s disposal a reliable evolution code – which one does not – and a reliable control on the experimental conditions. Even so, the analysis of Harada and Sasaki gives a clear indication as to what the dileptons might be “seeing" in hot and dense medium. First of all, mass shifts in the TSF cannot occur without the intrinsic background dependence (IBD) taken into account: Hadronic (thermal and dense) quantum (loop) corrections can broaden the spectra but do not shift the invariant mass. Next as a consequence of the IBD, a finite temperature and density take the parameter $a$ away from the vector dominance point $a=2$ which is sitting on an unstable trajectory and makes the VD violated, maximally at the VM fixed point with $a=1$. Lepton pairs will be produced more or less equally from the pions by direct coupling and through vector mesons, thereby modifying the spectral structure from that in which vector dominance is assumed, a procedure which is practiced in the field. The HLS/VM predicts unequivocally that the vector mass is shifted and the width of the vector meson gets narrower in the close vicinity of the VM fixed point. However as measured by the lepton pairs that come from both direct pions and vector mesons in the system that evolves both in temperature and density, the width will be smeared while the strength will be cut down by a factor $\sim (a/2)^2$. Since the chiral restoration effect is operative only above the “flash temperature" [@BR:PR] $T_{flash}\sim 120$ MeV (and/or the “flash density" $n_{flash}\lsim
2 n_0$), the dileptons emitted carrying the imprint of chiral restoration – at which the $\rho\pi\pi$ coupling will be near zero due to the VM – will be highly diluted, if not totally swamped, by dileptons coming from near on-shell. Unless the probe pinpoints the kinematic regime above the flash points, it is difficult to imagine how chiral properties can be clearly sorted out.
In sum, our answer to the question posed above is the $negative$ at the present stage of experimental as well as theoretical development. A corollary to this is that the null result in the analyses of [@rapp] – that mundane strong hadronic interactions can more or less explain the available dilepton data – does not necessarily invalidate the HLS/VM scenario as some people have argued. It merely indicates that whatever pertinent signals there may be are masked by the mundane processes that have nothing direct to do – though not in inconsistency – with chiral symmetry. In this regard, our conclusion is in agreement with that arrived at by Dusling, Teaney and Zahed [@zahed-na60].
The Wess-Zumino-term induced process
------------------------------------
The process (\[Metag\]) is mediated by the Wess-Zumino term that arises from the Chern-Simons action in five dimensions in AdS/QCD [@SS]. In AdS/QCD theory, this process is vector-dominated as \^0 | \^0\^\*\[omegadecay\] where $\bar{\rho}=\rho, \rho^\prime, \cdots$. It is noteworthy that the direct coupling $\omega\pi\gamma$ is totally absent. Surprisingly even in HLS$_1$ theory of Harada and Yamawaki which does not exclude this direct coupling on a fundamental ground, an analysis [@HY:PR] showed that the direct coupling in the $\omega\rightarrow \pi^0\gamma$ decay is absent. We may therefore ignore it.
For simplicity, we ignore hadronic loop corrections which do not shift masses and take into account only the IBD (intrinsic background dependent) effects. By putting asterisk for the HLS$_1$ constants with the intrinsic density dependence incorporated, we can write the amplitude for (\[omegadecay\]) as T\^\[(p,),\^0, \^\* (k,)\]\~\^ p\_k\_.\[tree\] We of course need to include hadronic loop corrections (e.g., width for the $\rho$ as well as for the $\omega$) to make a quantitative estimate. However one can note that first of all it has no $a$ dependence, hence no suppression of the type present in the dilepton vertices. Second, the near degeneracy of the $\rho$ and $\omega$ in medium could have an interesting effect, modulo of course the broadening widths associated with hadronic loops. Since anomaly-mediated processes are in general much cleaner than normal processes, it would be interesting to analyze the CBELSA/TAPS experiment taking into account the anomaly structure present in the HLS framework.
Dense Matter and Half-Skyrmions
===============================
Hadronic physics at high density relevant to the interior of compact stars is poorly understood at present. In fact we don’t know much about how hadronic matter transforms into a quark matter. Lattice QCD cannot yet access high enough density and analytic tools of QCD cannot handle the nonperturbative regime at a density which is not high enough for the color-flavor locking mechanism to dominate. Given the paucity of model-independent tools, we can be allowed to speculate on an intriguing and hitherto unexplored scenario for the transition to quark matter at high density based on the instanton/skyrmion structure in holographic QCD.
It has been observed in the study of dense baryonic matter at high density in terms of the Skyrme model put on crystals [@BYP] that a skyrmion immersed in dense medium fractionizes at a certain density $n_{meron}> n_0$ into two half-skyrmions [@halfskyrmions]. At that density, the quark condensate $\la\bar{q}q\ra$ is found to vanish but the pion decay constant remains non-zero. In terms of the condensate written as |[q]{}q=(U+U\^) what happens at $n_{meron}$ can be understood by that $\la{\Tr}(U+U^\dagger)\ra=0$ and $\chi\neq 0$. This means that chiral symmetry is restored but there is a “gap" characterized by $\chi\sim f_\pi\neq 0$. This resembles the pseudogap phenomenon in high -$T_c$ superconductivity [@pseudogap].
In the AdS/QCD picture with hidden local fields, the half-skyrmions correspond to merons, i.e., half-instantons. One can think of what’s happening as the liberation of the merons that are confined inside the instantons at normal density into two deconfined merons at $n_{meron}$, the latter becoming the relevant degrees of freedom in the “pseudogap" phase . This process in the presence of hidden gauge fields resembles what happens in the quantum deconfinement phenomenon in condensed matter physics [@QDP].[^11] If what happens at the chiral transition in dense baryonic matter is of a similar nature to what happens in the magnetic Néel-VBS transition, then there can be a variety of interesting physical phenomena associated with the topological structure of the half-skyrmions. One important immediate consequence is that there could be a strong deviation from Fermi liquid structure. Thus one could expect the “normal" matter from which the transition to a Cooper-paired state at high density takes place to be a non-Fermi liquid state. This would bring a major change to the description of the phase transition to a color-superconducting phase from the hadronic phase which has always been assumed to be in a Fermi-liquid state [@rajagopal].
Summary and Discussions
=======================
We addressed the question of how hadron masses arise and how they can be tweaked by temperature/density to disappear in the framework of hidden local symmetry at low energy. We have argued that in order to theoretically describe dropping vector-meson masses at high temperature and density, hidden local symmetry is indispensable. Furthermore hidden local symmetric fields arise naturally as emergent gauge fields bottom-up in chiral field theory as well as as low-energy degrees of freedom top-down in holographic QCD. In either way, one expects to have an infinite tower of vector fields coupled gauge invariantly to the Goldstone bosons. Baryons must emerge in this theory as skyrmions in the infinite tower of vector mesons in four dimensions encapsulated in instantons in five dimensions.
Although AdS/QCD seems to work well for chiral dynamics of low-lying hadrons in the vacuum, in describing what happens to the hadrons under extreme conditions where the vacuum change must take place for which $1/\lambda$ and $1/N_c$ corrections are crucial, we are compelled to limit ourselves to the lowest member of the tower, namely, the $\rho$ and $\omega$ (and $a_1$ if needed). This corresponds to the HLS$_1$ of Harada and Yamawaki which we interpret as a truncated HLS theory with a Wilsonian matching to QCD at a matching scale commensurate with the chiral scale. This theory has the “vector manifestation fixed point" at which hadron masses vanish (in the chiral limit) in a way equivalent to Brown-Rho scaling. We have argued that certain consequences of the VM fixed point structure must be incorporated in the theoretical framework in confronting heavy-ion experimental data and that in the absence of such analyses, the presently available experimental data can neither validate nor invalidate the scenario associated with the hidden local symmetry with the VM fixed point or Brown-Rho scaling. Finally we have suggested that the structure of baryons in terms of instantons or skyrmions embedded in an infinite tower of vector mesons could bring a drastic change to the phase transition scenario at high density.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Most of the ideas presented in this paper have been developed in collaboration with Gerry Brown who however should not be held responsible for the more speculative parts of the discussions. This work was supported in part by the KRF Grants KRF-2006-209-C00002.
[99]{}
G.E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{} (1991) 720.
See for review, M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, [ Phys. Rept.]{} [**381**]{} (2003) 1.
D. Jido, Y. Nemoto, M. Oka and A. Hosaka, Nucl. Phys. [**A671**]{} (2000) 471; T. Dzschiesche, L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich and R.D. Pisarski, nucl-th/0608044.
S. Weinberg, [*The quantum theory of fields II*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2001) page 196; “What is quantum field theory, and what did we think it is?," hep-th/9702027
M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. [**164**]{} (1988) 217.
S. Weinberg, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**56**]{} (1997) 2303.
N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Georgi and M.D. Schwartz, [Annals Phys.]{} [**305**]{} (2003) 96.
D.T. Son and M.A. Stephanov, [**D69**]{} (2004) 065020.
G. Horowitz and J. Polchinski, “Gauge/gravity duality," gr-qc/0602037.
T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, [Prog. Theor. Phys.]{} [**113**]{} (2005) 843; [Prog. Theor. Phys.]{} [**114**]{} (2006) 1083.
D.K. Hong, M. Rho, H.-U. Yee and P. Yi, “Chiral dynamics of baryons from string theory," submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett., hep-th/0701276.
H. Hata, T. Sakai, S. Sugimoto and S. Yamato, “Baryons from instantons in holographic QCD," hep-th/0701280.
T.H.R. Skyrme, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [**31**]{} (1962) 556.
S.J. Dong, J.-F. Lagae and K.F. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 2096; M. Gurtler et al, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**140**]{} (2005) 707; H.-W. Lin and S. Ohta, “Nucleon structure in lattice QCD with dynamical domain-wall fermions quarks," hep-lat/0610028.
D.K. Hong, M. Rho, H.-U. Yee and P. Yi, “Dynamics of baryons from string theory and vector dominance," to appear.
F. Iachello, A.D. Jackson and A. Lande, Phys. Lett. [**B43**]{} (1973) 191; G.E. Brown, M. Rho and W. Weise, Nucl.Phys. [**A454**]{} (1986) 669.
R. Petronzio, S. Vergata, S. Simula and G. Ricco, Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{} (2003) 094004.
F. Neri and A. Gocksch, [**D28**]{} (1983) 3147; R.D. Pisarski, [**D29**]{} (1984) 3147.
H. van Hees and R. Rapp, “Medium modifications of vector mesons and NA60," hep-ph/0604269; “Interpretation of recent SPS dilepton data," hep-ph/0701167 and references therein.
D. Trnka et al. \[CBELSA/TAPS Coll.\], [**94**]{} (2005) 192303.
G.E. Brown, J.W. Holt, C.-H. Lee and M. Rho, Phys. Rept. [**430**]{} (2007) 161.
G.E. Brown and M. Rho, [Phys. Rep.]{} [**269**]{} (1996) 333; [Phys. Rep.]{} [**363**]{} (2002) 85; [Phys. Rep.]{} [**396**]{} (2004) 1.
A.B. Migdal, [*Theory of finite Fermi systems and applications to atomic nuclei*]{} (Interscience Publishers, New York, 1967).
B. Friman and M. Rho, [**A606**]{} (1996) 303.
G.E. Brown and M. Rho, “NA60 and BR scaling in terms of the vector manifestation: A model approach," nucl-th/0509001; “NA60 and BR scaling in terms of the vector manifestation: Formal consideration," nucl-th/0509002.
M. Harada and C. Sasaki, [**A736**]{} (2003) 300.
B.-Y. Park, D.-P. Min, M. Rho and V. Vento, [**A707**]{} (2002) 381; H.-J. Lee, B.-Y. Park, D.-P. Min, M. Rho and V. Vento, [**A723**]{} (2003) 427.
B. Schenke and C. Greiner Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{} (2007) 022301.
M. Harada and C. Sasaki, [**D74**]{} (2006) 114006.
K. Dusling, D. Teaney and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. [C75]{} (2007) 024908.
A.S. Goldhaber and N.S. Manton, [**B198**]{} (1987) 231.
K. Zarembo, JETP Lett. [**75**]{} (2002) 59 (Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**75**]{} (2002)67).
T. Senthil et al., Nature [**303**]{} (2004) 1490.
For review, K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, [*At the frontier of particle physics: Handbook of QCD*]{} ed by M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001) Vol. 3, p.2061.
[^1]: e-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: Based in part on talks given at [*The 1st Asian Triangle Heavy Ion Conference*]{}, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, 29 June - 1 July 2006 and at [*Yukawa International Seminar on New Frontiers in QCD*]{}, Yukawa Institute, Kyoto, Japan, 3 - 8 December 2006.
[^3]: Notations: $\pi=T^a\pi^a$ and $\Tr
(T^a T^b)=\frac 12 \delta^{ab}$.
[^4]: The instanton baryon gives an additional correction of ${\cal O}(1/(\lambda N_c))$ to $g_A$ which for the value of $\lambda N_c$ fixed in the meson sector by, say, $f_\pi$ etc, comes out to be $g_{A_{min}}\approx 0.15$, so the total $g_A\approx 1.31$ comes even closer to the experiment. The nature of approximations involved in this calculation appears to be quite similar to the quenched approximation in lattice QCD which also predicts $g_A$ close to the experimental value [@quenchedgA].
[^5]: The physical pion decay constant will be written as $f_\pi$.
[^6]: There are other fixed points in the theory but they belong to a different universality class than that of QCD.
[^7]: The violation of the standard vector dominance – phrased in terms of the lowest members $(\rho, \omega)$ of the tower – can be interpreted as the intervention of the higher members of the infinite tower. It is not clear what the “fixed point" $a=1$ in HLS/VM means in the infinite-tower structure of the vector dominance found in AdS/QCD [@HRYY-long]. It is also not clear why $a$ cannot go below 1 at some point in this model.
[^8]: $\tilde{F}$ is related to the Landau parameter $F$ by $\tilde{F}=\frac{m_N}{m_L} F$ where $m_L$ is the Landau quasiparticle mass of the nucleon.
[^9]: It should be stressed that this relation holds only in the vicinity of the nuclear saturation density, i.e., the Fermi-liquid fixed point and cannot be extrapolated to too high a density.
[^10]: Initial attempts in this direction using the Skyrme model were made by Park et al. [@BYP]. But without a proper account of the vector degrees of freedom, the result remains largely incomplete.
[^11]: Briefly, in the phase transition between the magnetically ordered Néel state and a paramagnetic valence-bond solid (VBS) state, it is believed [@QDP] that a skyrmion in (1+2) dimensions made out of the spinon field $\hat{n}$ fractionizes into two half-skyrmions (or “merons") at the phase boundary. The phase transition involves no order parameters but is characterized by new degrees of freedom, i.e., merons, specific to the critical point. Here a crucial role is played by the emergent $U(1)$ gauge degree of freedom present in the spinon field $\hat{n}$ when the latter is written in the so-called CP$^1$ parametrization $\hat{n}=z^\dagger \vec{\sigma}z$ which has a redundancy – here $U(1)$ – in a close analogy to the chiral field $U$ described above. The confinement-deconfinement process of the merons turns out to be intimately connected to the instanton in the $U(1)$ gauge field.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Understanding the scalability of parallel programs is crucial for software optimization and hardware architecture design. As HPC hardware is moving towards many-core design, it becomes increasingly difficult for a parallel program to make effective use of all available processor cores. This makes scalability analysis increasingly important. This paper presents a quantitative study for characterizing the scalability of sparse matrix-vector multiplications (SpMV) on Phytium FT-2000+, an ARM-based HPC many-core architecture. We choose SpMV as it is a common operation in scientific and HPC applications. Due to the newness of ARM-based many-core architectures, there is little work on understanding the SpMV scalability on such hardware design. To close the gap, we carry out a large-scale empirical evaluation involved over 1,000 representative SpMV datasets. We show that, while many computation-intensive SpMV applications contain extensive parallelism, achieving a linear speedup is non-trivial on Phytium FT-2000+. To better understand what software and hardware parameters are most important for determining the scalability of a given SpMV kernel, we develop a performance analytical model based on the regression tree. We show that our model is highly effective in characterizing SpMV scalability, offering useful insights to help application developers for better optimizing SpMV on an emerging HPC architecture.'
author:
- Donglin Chen
- Jianbin Fang
- Chuanfu Xu
- Shizhao Chen
- Zheng Wang
bibliography:
- 'aspmv.bib'
- 'zheng.bib'
title: 'Characterizing Scalability of Sparse Matrix-Vector Multiplications on Phytium FT-2000+ Many-cores'
---
This work was partially funded by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant agreements 2017YFB0202003, the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant agreements 61602501, 61772542, and 61872294; and the Royal Society International Collaboration Grant (IE161012). For any correspondence, please contact Jianbin Fang (Email: [email protected]) and Chuanfu Xu (Email: [email protected]).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Superconducting vortex cores have been extensively studied for magnetic fields applied perpendicular to the surface by mapping the density of states (DOS) through Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM). Vortex core shapes are often linked to the superconducting gap anisotropy—quasiparticle states inside vortex cores extend along directions where the superconducting gap is smallest. The superconductor 2H-NbSe$_2$ crystallizes in a hexagonal structure and vortices give DOS maps with a sixfold star shape for magnetic fields perpendicular to the surface and the hexagonal plane. This has been associated to a hexagonal gap anisotropy located on quasi two-dimensional Fermi surface tubes oriented along the $c$ axis. The gap anisotropy in another, three-dimensional, pocket is unknown. However, the latter dominates the STM tunneling conductance. Here we measure DOS in magnetic fields parallel to the surface and perpendicular to the $c$ axis. We find patterns of stripes due to in-plane vortex cores running nearly parallel to the surface. The patterns change with the in-plane direction of the magnetic field, suggesting that the sixfold gap anisotropy is present over the whole Fermi surface. Due to a slight misalignment between the vector of the magnetic field and the surface, our images also show outgoing vortices. Their shape is successfully compared to detailed calculations of vortex cores in tilted fields. Their features merge with the patterns due to in plane vortices, suggesting that they exit at an angle with the surface. Measuring the DOS of vortex cores in highly tilted magnetic fields with STM can thus be used to study the superconducting gap structure.'
author:
- 'J.A. Galvis'
- 'E. Herrera'
- 'C. Berthod'
- 'S. Vieira'
- 'I. Guillamón'
- 'H. Suderow'
date: 'November 22, 2017'
title: 'Tilted vortex cores and superconducting gap anisotropy in 2H-NbSe$_2$'
---
The superconducting compound 2H-NbSe$_2$ is considered as a prototypical example of a material with highly anisotropic superconducting properties—for instance, the upper critical field is three times larger when the field is applied in-plane than when it is perpendicular to the planes of the hexagonal crystalline structure [@Corcoran94]. The Fermi surface of 2H-NbSe$_2$ has two tubes around the $\Gamma$ and K points due to bands derived from Nb orbitals which are nearly two-dimensional and a small three-dimensional pocket centered on the $\Gamma$ point due to bands derived from Se orbitals [@Corcoran94; @Janssen98; @Kiss07; @Rahn12; @Johannes06]. A charge density wave (CDW) opens below 30 K in 2H-NbSe$_2$, coexisting with superconductivity below $T_c=7.2$K [@Rahn12]. STM measurements in magnetic fields perpendicular to the hexagonal planes provide DOS maps giving sixfold vortex cores and the atomic scale tunneling conductance has a sixfold modulation [@Caroli64; @Hess89; @Hess90; @Hayashi98; @Guillamon08PRB]. Photoemission experiments suggest that the CDW induces the sixfold anisotropic superconducting gap [@Kiss07; @Rahn12]. This is reinforced by STM measurements on the superconducting gap in the isostructural compound 2H-NbS$_2$, which has a similar $T_c$ and no CDW and is isotropic in-plane [@NbS2].
Photoemission experiments also suggest that the superconducting gap anisotropy is located in the Nb tubes and do not address the three dimensional Se derived band [@Kiss07; @Rahn12]. On the other hand, penetration depth studies show that the gap at the Se sheet is large [@Fletcher07]. Furthermore, the Se sheet plays an essential role in most tunneling experiments [@Johannes06]. Tunneling occurs preferentially through the last layer that consists of the hexagonal Se atom lattice [@PhysRevB.92.134510; @Johannes06]. It is however yet unclear what is the contribution of the electronic properties derived from Se to the superconducting gap anisotropy. To study this issue, measurements of the vortex core shape on a surface perpendicular to the $c$ axis would be useful. However, no vortex imaging can then be made, because the surface is highly irregular due to the sheet-like structure of samples of 2H-NbSe$_2$. Here we study the usual surface of 2H-NbSe$_2$, parallel to the hexagonal plane, and apply the magnetic field perpendicular to the $c$ axis, nearly parallel to the surface. We visualize the DOS patterns produced on the surface by in-plane vortex cores and relate these to the out of plane gap anisotropy. We also calculate the spatial dependence of the DOS in tilted vortex cores.
Hess *et al.* measured the vortex lattice of 2H-NbSe$_2$ with STM in tilted magnetic fields [@Hess92; @Hess94]. They focused on the structure of the vortex lattice and found a distortion of the hexagonal lattice compatible with the anisotropy of the upper critical field, as well as a rotation of the orientation of the vortex lattice that is consistent with the anisotropic London theory [@Campbell88; @Gammel94; @Kogan95]. When the magnetic field was close to being parallel to the hexagonal planes, they observed elongated vortex cores, instead of the sixfold cores seen in perpendicular fields, and a peculiar pattern of stripes. More recently, this pattern of stripes was addressed in STM measurements with the field exactly in-plane focusing on the influence of the structure of the vortex lattice and of screening currents [@Fridman11; @Fridman13]. Until now, there is no systematic study of the vortex core shape with the in-plane direction of the magnetic field and the origin of the observed stripe pattern remains unclear.
We perform a detailed study as a function of the direction and bias voltage and show that the pattern of stripes is due to bound states of subsurface vortices. Furthermore, we find that the pattern changes between a two-fold vs three-fold structure depending on the direction of the in-plane magnetic field with respect to the crystalline direction in the hexagonal plane. The images strongly change with the bias voltage, with the stripes disappearing when reaching the gap edge. We perform microscopic calculations of the DOS maps and their bias voltage dependence and find that the shape of in-plane vortex cores depends on the direction of the magnetic field with respect to the in-plane crystal lattice direction.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
![**Tilted vortex cores**. (**a**), The vortex lattice as a function of the polar angle ($\theta$) at $0.6$ T and fixed azimuthal ($\varphi=0^{\circ}$) angle. Images show the zero-bias normalized conductance (normalized conductance units, NCU). Scale bar is of 50 nm. Note the increase in the vortex core size when tilting the magnetic field. In the lower right panel we show the density of the vortex lattice at the surface (points) compared to expectations using the anisotropic London theory [@Campbell88]. (**b**), Zero bias conductance maps with polar angle close to $\theta = 90^{\circ}$ (see text and methods section for the uncertainty in $\theta$) for two different azimuthal angles $\varphi=0^{\circ}$ (left panel) and $\varphi=30^{\circ}$ (right panel). Color scale of both figures is given in top right corner of **a**. (**c**), Normalized tunneling conductance curves when crossing a stripe along the red line shown in the lower right inset. Upper inset shows the evolution of the conductance close to zero bias, with a dashed red line marking the splitting of the zero-bias peak. All data are taken at $T=150$ mK.[]{data-label="f1"}](Fig_1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[f1\]a we show the vortex lattice at $0.6~\mathrm{T}$ with varying polar angle $\theta$. The magnetic field is tilted at a fixed azimuthal angle $\varphi = 0^{\circ}$, along an in-plane crystalline axis. That is, along the nearest neighbor axis in the hexagonal plane of the atomic surface plane (given by Se atoms, see supplementary information and Refs. [@Guillamon08PRB; @Hess90]). For all tilts we observe a peak in the tunneling conductance due to Caroli–de Gennes–Matricon bound states at the center of the vortex cores, similar to the one observed at perpendicular magnetic fields [@Caroli64; @Hess89; @Guillamon08PRB; @Hess90]. However, there are remarkable differences in tilted fields.
The vortex core as observed in the zero bias tunneling conductance maps continuously increases its size when tilting the magnetic field and acquires a two-fold shape at nearly in-plane magnetic fields. For these high tilt angles, we observe a pattern of stripes in the zero bias tunneling conductance maps (Fig. \[f1\]b).
In Fig. \[f1\]c we show the bias-voltage dependence of the tunneling conductance when crossing a stripe. We start from a gapped behavior in-between vortices and observe a small zero-bias peak when we cross the stripe. The zero-bias peak splits into two peaks at nonzero bias when leaving the center of the stripe (Fig. \[f1\]c inset, see also Fig. \[fs5\] of the supplementary information), as expected for Caroli–de Gennes–Matricon bound states [@Caroli64; @Hess89; @Guillamon08PRB; @Hess90]. Thus, the stripes result from vortex-core bound states from subsurface vortices oriented along the tilt direction. Accordingly, the stripes always follow the direction of the magnetic field.
In addition, the pattern of stripes changes with the in-plane azimuthal angle $\varphi$ with respect to the in-plane hexagonal crystal lattice. For the field along a crystal axis, $\varphi=0^{\circ}$ (left panel of Fig. \[f1\]b), the amount of stripes is about half the amount of stripes observed for $\varphi=30^{\circ}$ (right panel of Fig. \[f1\]b, this is at $90^{\circ}$ (or equivalently at $30^{\circ}$) from the nearest neighbor Se–Se direction of the surface atomic lattice, see supplementary information and Refs. [@Guillamon08PRB; @Hess90]). The distance between vortices in the bulk is about 90 nm for a parallel magnetic field of 0.6 T. In Fig. \[f1\]b (left panel), when the magnetic field is along a crystalline axis ($\varphi = 0^{\circ}$), we obtain 90 nm for the average distance between stripes. On the other hand, when the tilt of the magnetic field is in between crystalline axis ($\varphi = 30^{\circ}$), we observe an average distance between stripes of 40 nm, about half the value found for $\varphi = 0^{\circ}$ (Fig. \[f1\]b, right panel). This suggests that there is one stripe per in-plane vortex for $\varphi = 0^{\circ}$, but two stripes for $\varphi = 30^{\circ}$ per in-plane vortex. We can understand this if we consider that the in-plane vortex has a star shape, whose orientation changes with $\varphi$. As we will see below, a sixfold star vortex core whose shape is locked to the crystal lattice can provide such a behavior.
![**Tilted vortex cores vs bias voltage**. Conductance maps showing the evolution of the shape of the vortex cores as a function of the bias voltage. Left panels show the bias-voltage dependence of conductance images when the field of 0.6 T is parallel to the $c$ axis. Middle and right panels show the bias voltage dependence with nearly parallel fields ($\varphi=0$ middle panels and $\varphi=30^{\circ}$ right panels, $\theta \approx 90^{\circ}$ in both cases, see text and methods for uncertainty in $\theta$). We show schematically the direction of the tilt by the red arrows. Scale bars are of 30 nm in the left column and 120 nm in middle and right columns. Color scale is as in Fig. \[f1\]a.[]{data-label="f2"}](Fig_2.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[f2\] we compare the bias voltage dependence in perpendicular and tilted fields. In perpendicular magnetic fields, when increasing the bias voltage, we observe the same behavior as reported previously, showing the star shaped DOS associated to the in-plane anisotropy of the superconducting gap [@Hess90; @Guillamon08PRB]. In tilted magnetic fields, the bias voltage dependence of the conductance maps is completely modified. The stripes observed at zero bias are no longer seen at higher bias (middle and right panels in Fig. \[f2\]). Instead, we observe broad dark-bright patterns along the tilt of the magnetic field.
Note that the images show several outgoing vortices, in addition to the stripes. From the vortex density we obtain $\theta=87.5^{\circ}$ in Fig. \[f1\]b left panel (and in Fig. \[f2\] middle column), and $\theta=85.6^{\circ}$ in Fig. \[f1\]b right panel (and in Fig. \[f2\] right column). These angles are within the possible misorientation with respect to a parallel magnetic field that can be obtained in our experiment (see methods). As we discuss in detail below, vortices might come out either perpendicular or at an angle to the surface. The shape of the vortices we observe in highly tilted fields, as well as their bias voltage dependence, is totally different than the shape of vortices in perpendicular fields. Their structures actually merge into the stripes when leaving the vortex centers, having the same two vs three fold structure of rays that extend into the stripes far from vortex cores. They are also, as remarked above, considerably larger than vortices in perpendicular fields. Thus, we are observing vortices exiting the surface at an angle.
To model such a situation, we perform microscopic calculations of tilted vortex cores in a superconductor with a sixfold gap anisotropy. It turns out that it is a formidable task to calculate the vortex core shape in tilted magnetic fields because one needs to obtain the DOS as a function of the position in three-dimensional space with a high spatial accuracy and then analyze the magnetic field and gap structure as a function of the tilt. This has never been achieved, to our knowledge. We start by building DOS maps of isolated vortices in an effective two-dimensional model and calculate the DOS maps as a function of energy and the azimuthal angle of the magnetic field. We simulate a vortex tilted to the hexagonal plane by a two-fold distribution of the supercurrent along the tilt, using calculations of Ref. [@PhysRevB.46.366]. We introduce in addition a shift $q$ in the condensate momentum to account for the current distribution due to the in-plane vs out-of-plane crystalline anisotropy. In Fig. \[f3\] we show the vortex-core shape from contours of constant order parameter around the vortex cores when tilting the magnetic field (a and b) with zero $q$ and with nonzero $q$ (c and d). With zero $q$, we see that the DOS pattern becomes elliptical. With a finite $q$ we find that the DOS map of the vortex core develops a comet like shape, increasing considerably its size along the tilt of the magnetic field. The comet shape has a two-fold structure perpendicular to the tilt when the tilt is along a crystalline axis ($\varphi=0^{\circ}$) and a triangular form when the tilt is at $30^{\circ}$ to a crystalline axis ($\varphi=30^{\circ}$).
![**Order parameter distribution for tilted vortex cores**. Contours at a constant value of the order parameter are given for three values of the tilt of the magnetic field $\tau$ ($\tau=0$: dashed; $0.5$: thick; 1: thin) with (**a**) field tilted along the $a$ axis ($\varphi=0^{\circ}$) and (**b**) field tilted perpendicular to the $a$ axis ($\varphi=30^{\circ}$). (**c**) and (**d**) Results at $\tau=0.5$ for three values of $q$ ($qa=0$: dashed; $0.004$: thick; $0.008$: thin, $a$ being the lattice parameter) for $\varphi=0^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$, respectively. The shape of the vortex core from the zero bias tunneling conductance in perpendicular fields is schematically marked by the red star for reference.[]{data-label="f3"}](Fig_3.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[f4\] we show the energy dependence of the DOS with the field tilted along the nearest-neighbor direction of the vortices and perpendicular to this direction (middle and right columns, respectively). We see that the vortex core shape obtained from the DOS is highly energy dependent. The spatial extension of the DOS around a vortex core is considerably larger in tilted fields. This is consistent with the observed increase in the vortex core size in the tunneling conductance when comparing maps made at perpendicular field with maps at nearly parallel fields (Fig. \[f1\]a). For energies close to the gap edge, at 0.8 meV the spatial extension is considerably reduced and has more structure.
![**Calculated tilted vortex core shape vs energy**. In the left column we show the DOS at the indicated energies for a vortex with field tilted along the $a$ axis ($\varphi=0^{\circ}$) without taking into account screening surface currents, as in Fig. \[f3\]a. In the other columns we show the result for $\varphi=0^{\circ}$ (middle column) and $\varphi=30^{\circ}$ (right column) with a current of $qa=0.008$ in the direction shown by the red arrow in upper panels. The scale bar is of 30 nm. The color map goes from yellow (minimum DOS) to the zero bias peak in the DOS (as discussed in the supplementary information) in black. The white dots show the phase singularity point. The tilt strength is $\tau=0.5$ in all panels. Insets on top panels display the core shape on a logarithmic color scale together with the shape of the order parameter as in Fig. \[f3\]c and \[f3\]d (dashed lines), and an iso-contour of the DOS (red lines).[]{data-label="f4"}](Fig_4.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Note that the model addresses a single vortex. Stripes result from vortex cores lying in-plane that reach the surface. Stripes of neighboring subsurface vortices extend to the surface and join each other. The shape of the order parameter extends along directions that change with the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ (Fig. \[f3\]), indicating that along these directions states of neighboring vortices overlap and lead to the observed stripes. In Fig. \[f3\]c we observe that the vortex extends preferentially along its sides, leading to the two-fold structure seen in the left panel of Fig. \[f1\]b. In Fig. \[f3\]d (Fig. \[f1\]b, right panel), we observe instead that the vortex core extends along the tilt and its sides, leading to the additional stripe exiting from the center of vortex cores in the right panel of Fig. \[f1\]b.
Note also that the model reproduces features of the bias voltage dependence of vortices exiting the surface at an angle. In particular, the increase of the DOS along the tilt for zero bias reverses for high bias. We can take in Fig. \[f4\] the phase singularity (white point) as a reference to compare DOS maps for different bias. The tunneling conductance is high (bluish, high DOS) at low bias, but lower (yellowish, low DOS) at high bias along the direction of the magnetic field. Similarly, the vortices observed in Fig. \[f2\] (middle and right columns) change their two-fold shape along the magnetic field.
Discussion and conclusions {#discussion-and-conclusions .unnumbered}
==========================
Vortices in tilted fields close to the surface are very different in 2H-NbSe$_2$ than in other materials. In the isotropic superconducting material [$\beta-$Bi$_2$Pd]{}, vortices at the surface have the same shape whatever the in-plane direction of the magnetic field [@Herrera17]. On the other hand, highly anisotropic materials like cuprates show two-dimensional pancake vortices, with the same shape at the surface than for perpendicular fields [@PhysRevB.70.184518; @KirtleyKogan]. In both cases, the vortex core in tilted magnetic fields just shows the anisotropic properties in the plane, either because vortices bend close to the surface in [$\beta-$Bi$_2$Pd]{} or because vortices are fully confined within the layers (pancake vortices) in the cuprates. In 2H-NbSe$_2$ the observed DOS patterns are spatially highly structured at all bias voltages, indicating a more intricate situation.
In order to explain this situation, let us consider the energetics of vortices close to the surface in tilted magnetic fields and how this influences the three different systems mentioned here. We have to consider the balance between the elastic energy cost associated with vortex bending, which favors straight vortices exiting at an angle to the surface, and the cost associated with establishing strongly distorted current loops around vortices close to the surface which favors circular current loops and vortices exiting perpendicular to the surface [@Brandt95; @KirtleyKogan].
The shear modulus $c_{44}$ is given by $c_{44}\approx (1+k^2\lambda^2)^{-1}$ with $k$ being the wavevector for the distortion [@Brandt95]. Close to the surface, the wavevector relevant for this problem is $k=1/a$ where $a$ is the bending radius. $a$ is given by the minimum between the intervortex distance $a_0$ and the penetration depth $\lambda$ [@Brandt93]. For the magnetic fields considered here, $a_0$ is of about 90 nm, always smaller than $\lambda$, thus $a\approx a_0$. On the other hand, the current distribution surrounding the vortex is determined by the anisotropy of the upper critical field and is elliptical, with its short axis along the direction where the upper critical field is higher (and the coherence lengths smaller) [@Brandt95; @Blatter94; @PhysRevB.42.2631].
In $\beta-$Bi$_2$Pd, vortices exiting the surface have a circular shape and bend close to the surface [@Herrera17]. The shear modulus of the vortex lattice is isotropic and the lattice is sufficiently soft that it is energetically favorable to exit perpendicular to the surface for all tilts. The upper critical field in $\beta-$Bi$_2$Pd is low (0.6 T) and the coherence length of about 20 nm, so that vortices are larger than in 2H-NbSe$_2$ and the cuprates and certainly round because the upper critical field is nearly isotropic [@PhysRevB.92.054507; @PhysRevB.93.144502]. In $\beta-$Bi$_2$Pd, $\lambda\approx$ 100 nm, which increases the elastic energy associated with vortex bending close to the surface as compared to materials with larger $\lambda$ [@Herrera17; @PhysRevB.93.144502]. However, this is balanced by the gain in establishing current loops parallel to the surface with bent vortices [@PhysRevB.46.366].
In the cuprates, tilted fields create arrangements of crossing pancake and Josephson vortex lattices whose structure strongly depends on the temperature, magnetic field and tilt [@Vlasko15; @PhysRevLett.83.187; @PhysRevB.91.014516; @Bending1999]. Lattices of pancake vortices slightly shifted between layers can appear under some conditions, leading in essence to tilted lines of vortices that are expected to exit at an angle to the surface [@PhysRevB.46.366; @PhysRevLett.88.237001; @PhysRevB.48.1180; @Tonomura2001]. However, at least for materials in which the $c$-axis coherence length is below the interlayer distance, there is no reason for vortex bending as no Abrikosov vortices are established between layers. Current loops of Abrikosov vortices are parallel to the surface, and the balance is rather played by the interaction between Abrikosov and Josephson vortex lattices.
Here in 2H-NbSe$_2$, the upper critical field anisotropy is of a factor of three and the out of plane coherence length is well above the $c$-axis lattice constant [@Foner73; @Nader14; @Hess94]. This creates elliptical Abrikosov vortices (there are no Josephson vortices) with the short axis perpendicular to the surface. This helps establishing current loops close to the surface, as the vortex is anyhow shorter along the direction perpendicular to the surface. Vortices can thus exit at an angle to the surface, neither parallel nor perpendicular to the surface. This leads to an intricate surface current pattern that modifies the vortex core shape at all bias, as shown by the vortices imaged in our experiment.
On the other hand, the appearance of stripes is also unique to 2H-NbSe$_2$. As we show above, this is due to subsurface vortex cores. The zero bias peak due Caroli–de Gennes–Matricon states is indeed a characteristic feature of 2H-NbSe$_2$ and it extends indeed over distances far from the vortex core [@Hess89; @Guillamon08PRB; @Hess90]. In our experiments, the distance between stripes from subsurface vortices is comparable to the intervortex distance expected for the applied in-plane magnetic field, with each subsurface vortex providing a different number of stripes, depending on the in-plane direction of the tilt, as shown in Fig. \[f1\]b and as discussed in connection with Fig. \[f3\].
The combined appearance of stripes and vortices could be also due, in principle, to crossing perpendicular vortex and parallel vortex lattices[@PhysRevLett.70.2948]. Within such a situation, however, it seems quite difficult to obtain patterns of stripes with distances that change when varying the in-plane direction of the tilt.
We can conclude that the differences between 2H-NbSe$_2$, $\beta-$Bi$_2$Pd and the cuprates are due to a totally different DOS pattern for parallel magnetic fields. The pattern results from subsurface vortex cores and provides access to the shape of in-plane vortices and thus to the gap anisotropy in the out-of-plane three-dimensional part of the Fermi surface.
The shape of the superconducting gap along the $c$ axis should influence the dependence of the core shape with the in-plane direction of the tilt. As we show above, the main asymmetric features observed in our experiment and their dependence with the azimuthal angle can be explained by a sixfold anisotropic superconducting gap in 2H-NbSe$_2$. This shows that the sixfold gap anisotropy is spread over the whole Fermi surface.
It is useful to compare to the situation in MgB$_2$, where vortex cores have been studied for magnetic fields always applied perpendicular to the surface, but with surfaces out- as well as in-plane [@PhysRevLett.89.187003; @PhysRevB.68.100508]. An elongated vortex core shape was expected for fields in-plane, due to the two-dimensional part of the Fermi surface [@PhysRevB.70.144508]. This was however not observed. Vortices are round out- and in-plane, with their shape being dominated by the three-dimensional part of the Fermi surface, both the vortex core shape in the DOS [@PhysRevLett.89.187003; @PhysRevB.68.100508; @PhysRevB.70.144508] as well as in the magnetic field pattern [@PhysRevB.91.054505]. It was concluded that tunneling is dominated in all cases by the three-dimensional part of the Fermi surface. Tunneling in 2H-NbSe$_2$ is also dominated by the three dimensional part of the Fermi surface, here due to the stronger contribution to tunneling of the Se orbitals [@Johannes06]. However, the situation is quite different. Whereas the three-dimensional pocket amounts for the largest part of the DOS at the Fermi level in MgB$_2$, the Se pocket in 2H-NbSe$_2$ is small and amounts just for 20% of the DOS [@Johannes06]. The gap anisotropy in 2H-NbSe$_2$ was until now just associated to the Nb two dimensional sheets. As we show here, the sixfold gap anisotropy remains out-of-plane, which suggests that it is present over the whole Fermi surface.
Interband interactions are strong in 2H-NbSe$_2$ [@Johannes06]. Although there are evidences for a two gap behavior from tunneling spectroscopy, penetration depth and thermal conductivity [@Boaknin03; @Guillamon08PRB; @Fletcher07; @Johannes06; @Rodrigo04c], the obtained spread in gap values is of a factor of 1.5 or at most 2. Our measurement suggest that interactions are such that the sixfold anisotropy in the shape of the superconducting gap is inherited from the Nb two-dimensional bands over to the whole Fermi surface.
STM in tilted magnetic fields is thus a sensitive probe of the superconducting electronic DOS, particularly in three-dimensional superconductors with strongly anisotropic and sharply defined vortex core bound states. The main advantage with respect to studying different crystalline surfaces is that the direction of the magnetic field can be varied at will on a single surface. Efforts, still under development, have been also devoted to other techniques. Quasiparticle interference has been extended out of the surface plane by triangulating electronic wavefunctions from in-depth impurities or studying inter and intraband scattering [@Hoffman11; @Petersen99; @Hoffman02a; @Simon11; @Weismann09; @Franke15]. Macroscopic specific heat and thermal conductivity measurements in rotating fields have been also performed with the aim to obtain the anisotropy of the superconducting gap [@0953-8984-18-44-R01]. These provide the spatially averaged DOS and are influenced by scattering effects, whereas STM provides directly the spatially resolved electronic DOS, i.e. in and around vortex cores.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
**Model and calculations.** We create a microscopic model with a sixfold anisotropic superconducting gap, by a triangular lattice and a tight-binding dispersion (see the supplementary information for more information). To calculate the spatial dependence of the superconducting DOS we need a very large system size. In the low-energy region the inter-level spacing is $\Delta E\sim\hbar v_{\mathrm{F}}\Delta k$ with $\Delta k=2\pi/(Na)$, where $Na$ is the linear system size. In order to reach a resolution $\Delta E\lesssim1$ meV of the order of the superconducting gap, a total number of unit cells $N^2\gtrsim 200\,000$ is required. This sets the size of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian to at least $400\,000\times400\,000$. Straight diagonalization is therefore not an option. Instead we use the method described in Ref. [@Covaci10], the DOS is expanded on Chebyshev polynomials of the Hamiltonian and can thus be evaluated iteratively with low memory cost, even for very large systems. We use a finite lattice made of $M$ concentric hexagons surrounding the site where the DOS is calculated. To reach the desired accuracy we perform the calculation with $M=1000$, corresponding to a lattice of 3003001 sites. The Chebyshev expansion is truncated at order $4M$ and terminated using the Jackson kernel [@Weisse06; @Berthod16]. To obtain results in an applied magnetic field and as a function of position and energy we use a Lawrence-Doniach model following Ref. [@PhysRevB.46.366]. We are not aware of an equivalent model for vortex lattices—hence we consider only isolated vortices. In the supplementary information we solve the nonlinear model of Ref. [@PhysRevB.46.366] to leading order in the tilt angle and get an analytical expression for the phase. The distortion is proportional to the tilt strength defined as $\tau=\xi_{ab}^2/(2\xi_{c}^2)\tan^2\theta$, with $\theta$ being the polar angle. The DOS maps and anisotropies of the order-parameter are determined self-consistently as a function of $\tau$. We use tilt strengths of $\tau\approx 0.5$, which correspond to small $\theta\approx 15^{\circ}$. We believe that this accounts well for our situation, with a three dimensional, strongly anisotropic superconductor. To further address this anisotropy, we introduce an additional phase in the order parameter, i.e., $\Phi(\vec{r})\to\Phi(\vec{r})-\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}$, with $q$ being a surface current. We take $q$ up to about one third of the value corresponding to the critical current.\
**Scanning tunneling microscopy methods.** We use a setup described in Ref. [@Galvis15] which consists of a dilution refrigerator with a STM thermally anchored to the mixing chamber reaching temperatures of 150 mK. The STM is located at the center of a three axis magnet. The three axis magnet consists of a long solenoid providing the $z$-axis magnetic field and a pair of split coils for $x$- and $y$-axis magnetic field components. We estimate the accuracy in the determination of the azimuthal and polar angles $\theta$ and $\varphi$ at the magnetic fields used here (of order of a Tesla) to be about 4–5$^{\circ}$. This uncertainty is composed of a possible slight misalignment of the surface of the sample with respect to the coil system and of remanent magnetic fields inside the coils, that can be in the range of the mT. We measure high quality 2H-NbSe$_2$ samples grown using the usual iodine vapor transport method. The in-plane tilt direction is corrected to obtain values for $\varphi$ that are fixed to the atomically resolved hexagonal Se lattice obtained by STM imaging (see also Fig. \[fs3\]). We take tunneling conductance maps as a function of the bias voltage, as usual in vortex imaging using STM. Sample surface has been prepared by cleaving and the Au tip is prepared using a pad of Au as described in Ref. [@Suderow11].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge discussions with V.G. Kogan and J.R. Kirtley. Work done in Madrid was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (FIS2014-54498-R, MDM-2014-0377), by the Comunidad de Madrid through program Nanofrontmag-CM (S2013/MIT-2850), by EU (European Research Council PNICTEYES grant agreement 679080, FP7-PEOPLE-2013-CIG 618321 and COST Action CA16218) and by Axa Research Fund. SEGAINVEX-UAM is also acknowledged. We also acknowledge the support of Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) Programa Doctorados en el Exterior Convocatoria 568-2012 and the Cluster de investigación en ciencias y tecnologías convergentes de la Universidad Central (Colombia). Work done in Geneva was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under Division II. Calculations were done in the University of Geneva with the clusters Mafalda and Baobab.
[57]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-8984/6/24/010) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.57.11698) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys699) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.224532) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.205102) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0031-9163(64)90375-0) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.214) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2711) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2921) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.134505) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.166407) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.057003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.134510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2138) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.16528) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.38.2439) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.278) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.15344) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4940190) [ ()](https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3559) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.46.366) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.184502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.184518) @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.6699) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.66.1125) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.42.2631) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.054507) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.144502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-2048/14/11/201) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.187) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.014516) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.237001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.1180) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/35088021) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0375-9601(73)90693-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1186/2193-1801-3-16) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.2948) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.187003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.100508) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.144508) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.054505) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.117003) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0034-4885/74/12/124513) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.57.R6858) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1066974) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0022-3727/44/46/464010) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1168738) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.157001) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/18/i=44/a=R01) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.167006) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.78.275) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.184510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4905531) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3567008)
[**Supplementary Information\
\[0.5em\] [for]{}\
\[0.5em\] Tilted vortex cores and superconducting gap anisotropy in 2H-NbSe$_2$** ]{}\
J.A. Galvis,$^{1, 2}$ E. Herrera,$^{1, 3}$ C. Berthod,$^4$ S. Vieira,$^1$ I. Guillam[ó]{}n,$^1$ and H. Suderow$^1$\
*$^1$\
$^2$\
$^3$\
$^4$*
We provide the mathematical derivations used to establish our model and present results of the model for zero magnetic field and for perpendicular fields. We further discuss additional features of the experiment, such as atomic resolution images of the surface and tunneling conductance curves within and around stripes. We also discuss the changes in the vortex lattice structure when tilting the magnetic field. Finally, we discuss a pattern of stripes for azimuthal angles in between those discussed in the main text.
Model {#model .unnumbered}
=====
We have chosen the simplest possible account of tilted vortices in 2H-NbSe$_2$. We need to reproduce the results in perpendicular fields and then calculate the DOS for tilted fields. The simplest possible way to reproduce the results in perpendicular fields is to model the tubular Fermi surface sheets within a single layer. This provides a six-fold anisotropic superconducting gap. It turns out that solving the Bogoliubov–de Gennes equations for three-dimensional vortex cores in tilted fields and in an anisotropic superconductor is prohibitively difficult. We thus chose to take the mentioned single layer with a sixfold gap anisotropy and calculate the DOS obtained by tilting the magnetic field out of the layer. As we show below, we find solvable equations for not too high tilts out of the layer. As we discuss in the main text, our results suggest that this procedure accounts for some relevant features of vortex cores in an anisotropic three-dimensional superconductor in parallel magnetic fields.
Superconducting density of states and maps for perpendicular magnetic fields {#superconducting-density-of-states-and-maps-for-perpendicular-magnetic-fields .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ (**a**) Hopping amplitudes to the first (red), second (green), and third (blue) neighbors on the triangular lattice. (**b**) Hexagonal Brillouin zone and Fermi surface of the model; dots and crosses indicate the locations of maxima and minima of the superconducting gap, respectively. (**c**) Zero-field superconducting DOS. (**d**) Perspective view of the superconducting gap along the Fermi surface.[]{data-label="fs1"}](Fig_S1.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fs1\]a we provide a schematic view of the microscopic input used for our tight-binding model. In phonon-mediated superconductors like 2H-NbSe$_2$, the superconducting properties are set by interactions taking place in the immediate vicinity of the Fermi surface. The relevant energy range is determined by the Debye scale which is $\hbar\omega_{\mathrm{D}}=18$ meV for 2H-NbSe$_2$ [@s_Bevolo74]. We include hopping amplitudes $t_{1,2,3}$ up to the third neighbors. The corresponding electronic band dispersion measured from the chemical potential $\mu$ is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:band}
\xi_{\vec{k}}=2t_1\left[\cos(k_xa)+2\cos(k_xa/2)\cos(\sqrt{3}k_ya/2)\right]\\
+2t_2\left[2\cos(3k_xa/2)\cos(\sqrt{3}k_ya/2)+\cos(\sqrt{3}k_ya)\right]\\
+2t_3\left[\cos(2k_xa)+2\cos(k_xa)\cos(\sqrt{3}k_ya)\right]-\mu.
\end{gathered}$$ $a=3.45$ Å is the in-plane lattice parameter. For simplicity we use a one-band model. The Fermi-surface topology ($\xi_{\vec{k}}=0$) only fixes the ratios $t_2/t_1$, $t_3/t_1$, and $\mu/t_1$. We take the first two ratios from Ref. [@s_Inosov08] by averaging the values reported for the two bands and fix the third ratio to match the Fermi surface at best. The remaining parameter $t_1$ sets the Fermi velocity, which in turn controls the superconducting coherence length. We use $(t_1,t_2,t_3,\mu)=(5.6,11.9,2.5,-9.4)$ meV. The average Fermi velocities are $v_{\mathrm{F}}^{\Gamma}=0.36\times10^7$ cm/s on the Fermi-surface pocket centered on the $\Gamma$ point and $v_{\mathrm{F}}^{\mathrm{K}}=0.25\times10^7$ cm/s on the pockets surrounding the K points. The phonon-mediated pairing interaction is represented by a BCS model involving both onsite interaction $V_0$ and nearest-neighbor interaction $V_1$ with an energy cutoff at $\pm\hbar\omega_{\mathrm{D}}$. To obtain a superconducting order parameter that varies in-plane we define two parameters, $\Delta_0=-V_0\langle\psi_{\vec{r}\uparrow}\psi_{\vec{r}\downarrow}\rangle$ describing interactions for two electrons on the same site and $\Delta_1/6=-V_1\langle\psi_{\vec{r}\uparrow}\psi_{\vec{r}'\downarrow}\rangle$ for two electrons on neighboring sites. We find $$\label{eq:Deltak}
\Delta_{\vec{k}}=\Delta_0+\frac{\Delta_1}{3}\left[\cos(k_xa)+2\cos(k_xa/2)\cos(\sqrt{3}k_ya/2)\right].$$ For onsite and nearest-neighbor interactions having opposite signs ($V_0<0$ and $V_1>0$), $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta_1$ have the same sign, as expected in 2H-NbSe$_2$. To set their values we require that the smallest and largest gaps on the Fermi surface are 0.56 and 1.04 meV, respectively, like in the empirical expression $\Delta_0(1+c_A\cos6\vartheta)$ where $\Delta_0=0.8$ meV and $c_A=0.3$ [@s_Hayashi97]. The resulting zero-field DOS is displayed in Fig. \[fs1\]c.
Isolated vortex and vortex lattice in perpendicular field {#isolated-vortex-and-vortex-lattice-in-perpendicular-field .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------
![(**a**) Zero-bias DOS and (**b**) energy-dependent DOS along the red line drawn in (**a**). The inset in (**a**) shows one core on a logarithmic color scale, highlighting the star shape pointing toward next-nearest neighbor vortices. In (**c**)–(**h**) the DOS is broadened with a Lorentzian of width 0.7 meV. (**c**) and (**d**) are like (**a**) and (**b**) with the broadened DOS. (**e**)–(**h**) show the broadened DOS at finite energies. The scale bar is of 30 nm. The color scale in (**c**) and (**e**)–(**h**) goes from yellow in-between vortices to a common maximum value in black.[]{data-label="fs2"}](Fig_S2.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
We introduce the magnetic field via the Peierls substitution. In Fig. \[fs2\]a we show the resulting DOS map at zero bias and in Fig. \[fs2\]b the DOS along a path running from the vortex core along the $a$ axis. We reproduce the well known structure of the DOS due to Caroli–de Gennes–Matricon states [@s_Hayashi97; @s_Hess89; @s_Guillamon08PRB; @s_Hess90]. To highlight the main features and better compare with experiment, we introduce a Lorentzian smearing of the DOS (Fig. \[fs2\]d). The evolution of the resulting DOS maps with energy is displayed in Figs. \[fs2\]e–\[fs2\]h.
For a magnetic field oriented along the $c$ axis we start with the Ansatz $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:vortex}
\Delta_{\vec{r}\vec{r}'}=\delta_{\vec{r}\vec{r}'}\Delta_0
\tanh\left(\frac{r}{\xi(\vartheta_{\vec{r}})}\right)e^{-i\vartheta_{\vec{r}}}\\
+\delta_{|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|,a}\frac{\Delta_1}{6}\tanh\left(\frac{|\vec{r}+\vec{r}'|/2}
{\xi\big(\vartheta_{\frac{\vec{r}+\vec{r}'}{2}}\big)}\right)
e^{-i\vartheta_{\frac{\vec{r}+\vec{r}'}{2}}}.
\end{gathered}$$ This provides a sixfold anisotropy in the DOS maps that can be parameterized by a length scale varying with the in-plane angle $\vartheta$ as $$\label{eq:star}
\xi(\vartheta)={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_{10}+\xi_{01})+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_{10}-\xi_{01})
\cos(6\vartheta).$$ Here $\xi_{10}$ and $\xi_{01}$ are length scales describing the spatial extension of the DOS along the $(10)$ and $(01)$ directions. This Ansatz provides the DOS maps with just two parameters $\xi_{10}$ and $\xi_{01}$ that are determined self-consistently under the constraint that $(\xi_{10}+\xi_{01})/2=10$ nm. The constraint was implemented by adjusting the hopping amplitude $t_1$. In a magnetic field of 0.6 T we find only a slight anisotropy, which is enough to discuss and compare with our experiments.
Recently, a functional form more precise than tanh was established for the spatial dependence of the DOS in vortices that are in-plane isotropic [@s_Fente16]. Here, vortex cores are anisotropic and the anisotropy is not influenced by using more involved functional forms than tanh. We thus stick to the most simple function giving a spatially dependent DOS.
Isolated vortex in tilted field {#isolated-vortex-in-tilted-field .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
We are now equipped to calculate maps of the DOS for perpendicular magnetic fields. To make the calculations in tilted fields, we start by solving the model of Ref. [@s_Bulaevskii92] for pancake vortices. The equations for the order-parameter phase $\Phi_n(\vec{r})$ in the layer $n$ are expressed in terms of a function $\varphi_{\vec{k}}$ which is the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the phase difference between successive layers. For the case of a single vortex tilted by an angle $\theta$ from the vertical in the $(x,z)$ plane this function satisfies the nonlinear equation $$k^2\varphi_{\vec{k}}+\left(\frac{Q^2}{\Gamma^2}+\frac{1}{\lambda_c^2}\right)W_{\vec{k}}
=4\pi i\frac{k_y}{k_x}\sin\left(\frac{k_xa}{2}\right).$$ $a=s\tan\theta$ with $s$ the interlayer spacing, $\Gamma=\xi_{ab}/\xi_{c}$, $Q^2=(2/s^2)[1-\cos(k_xa)]$, and $W_{\vec{k}}=[\sin\varphi(\vec{r})]_{\vec{k}}$ is the Fourier transform of $\sin\varphi(\vec{r})$. The derivatives of $\Phi_n(\vec{r})$ are denoted $\Phi_{n,\alpha}=\partial_{\alpha}\Phi_n(\vec{r})$ and their three-dimensional Fourier transform $$\Phi_{\alpha}(\vec{k},q)=\sum_n\int d^2rdz\,\Phi_{n,\alpha}(\vec{r})\delta(z-ns)
e^{-i(\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}+qz)}$$ are related to the function $\varphi_{\vec{k}}$ by
$$\begin{aligned}
2\Phi_x(\vec{k},q)\sin\left(\frac{k_xa}{2}\right)&=k_x\varphi_{\vec{k}}\delta(qs+k_xa)\\
\nonumber
2\Phi_y(\vec{k},q)\sin\left(\frac{k_xa}{2}\right)&=\left[k_y\varphi_{\vec{k}}
-\frac{4\pi i}{k_x}\sin\left(\frac{k_xa}{2}\right)\right]\\ &\quad\times\delta(qs+k_xa).
\end{aligned}$$
We solve this nonlinear system of equations in the limit of a small tilt angle, such that the phase difference between successive layers is small and $\sin\varphi(\vec{r})\approx\varphi(\vec{r})$. We then obtain $$\Phi_x(\vec{k},q)=\frac{2\pi i k_y}{k^2+2\lambda_{\mathrm{J}}^{-2}[1-\cos(k_xa)]+\lambda_c^{-2}}
\delta(qs+k_xa)$$ with $\lambda_{\mathrm{J}}=s\xi_{ab}/\xi_{c}$. Fourier transforming back we have $$\Phi_x(\vec{r},z)=i\int\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}\,\frac{k_ye^{i(\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}-k_xz\tan\theta)}}
{k^2+2\lambda_{\mathrm{J}}^{-2}[1-\cos(k_xa)]+\lambda_c^{-2}}.$$ The $k_y$ integral is given by the expression $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dk_y}{2\pi}\frac{k_ye^{ik_yy}}{A^2+k_y^2}
=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{sign}(y)e^{-A|y|},$$ which can be used in the limit of small angles where $k_x^2+2\lambda_{\mathrm{J}}^{-2}[1-\cos(k_xa)]+\lambda_c^{-2}>0$. We then take the limit $\lambda_c\to\infty$ and use the small-angle expansion $$\begin{gathered}
e^{-\sqrt{k_x^2+2\lambda_{\mathrm{J}}^{-2}[1-\cos(k_xa)]}\,|y|}\\
=e^{-|k_xy|}\left[1-\frac{a^2}{2\lambda_{\mathrm{J}}^2}|k_xy|+O(a^4)\right]
\end{gathered}$$ to obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\Phi_x(\vec{r},z)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\left\{\frac{-y}{(x-z\tan\theta)^2+y^2}\right.\\
\left.+\frac{a^2}{2\lambda_{\mathrm{J}}^2}
\frac{-y[(x-z\tan\theta)^2-y^2)}{[(x-z\tan\theta)^2+y^2]^2}\right\}.
\end{gathered}$$ Since $\Phi_x(\vec{r},z)=\sum_n\Phi_{n,x}(\vec{r})\delta(z-ns)$ we can deduce the phase gradient in the layer $n=0$: $$\partial_x\Phi_0(\vec{r})=\frac{-y}{x^2+y^2}\left(1+\frac{\xi_{c}^2}{2\xi_{ab}^2}
\tan^2\theta\frac{x^2-y^2}{x^2+y^2}\right).$$ The gradient along $y$ follows in the same way: $$\partial_y\Phi_0(\vec{r})=\frac{x}{x^2+y^2}\left(1+\frac{\xi_{ab}^2}{2\xi_{c}^2}
\tan^2\theta\frac{x^2-y^2}{x^2+y^2}\right).$$ The solution for the phase is therefore $$\Phi_0(\vec{r})=\arg(x+iy)+\frac{\xi_{ab}^2}{2\xi_{c}^2}\tan^2\theta\frac{xy}{x^2+y^2}.$$ Upon a change $y\to-y$ due to different gauge conventions in Ref. [@s_Bulaevskii92] and in the present work, and allowing the magnetic field to be tilted in a plane forming an angle $\alpha$ with the $x$ axis, this gives the order-parameter phase $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:tilted}
\Phi(\vec{r})=\arg(x-iy)\\
-\tau\frac{(x\cos\alpha-y\sin\alpha)(x\sin\alpha+y\cos\alpha)}{x^2+y^2}.
\end{gathered}$$ The first term is equivalent to the phase $-\vartheta_{\vec{r}}$ of Eq. (\[eq:vortex\]). $\alpha$ is the direction of the tilt measured from the (10) direction, and $\tau=\xi_{ab}^2/(2\xi_{c}^2)\tan^2\theta$ measures the strength of the tilt, with $\xi_{ab}$ ($\xi_{c}$) the $c$-axis ($ab$-plane) coherence length and $\theta$ the tilt angle.
We substitute $\Phi(\vec{r})$ for $-\vartheta_{\vec{r}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:vortex\]) and generalize Eq. (\[eq:star\]) to allow for a twofold deformation along the direction $\alpha$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:6-oval}
\xi(\vartheta)={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(\xi_{\parallel}+\xi_{\perp})
+{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}(\xi_{a}-\xi_{\perp})\cos[2(\vartheta-\alpha)]\\
+{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}}(3\xi_{\parallel}-4\xi_{a}+\xi_{\perp})\cos[6(\vartheta-\alpha)].
\end{gathered}$$ Here $\xi_{\parallel}=\xi(\alpha)$ is the length scale for isocontours in the DOS in the direction of the tilt, $\xi_{\perp}=\xi(\alpha+\pi/2)$ in the direction normal to the tilt, and $\xi_{a}=\xi(\alpha+\pi/6)$ measures the sixfold anisotropy. Since the latter anisotropy is most likely locked with the microscopic lattice it may not develop at an angle of $\pi/6$ for all $\alpha$. We consider the cases $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=\pi/2$ where it does. We determine the contours of constant order parameter, as displayed in Fig. \[f3\]a and \[f3\]b.
In presence of a screening current, we also generalize Eq. (\[eq:6-oval\]) further to allow for an asymmetry between the front and back sides: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:6-egg}
\xi(\vartheta)={\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}(\xi^>_{\parallel}+2\xi_{\perp}+\xi^<_{\parallel})
+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(\xi^>_{\parallel}-\xi^<_{\parallel})\cos(\vartheta-\alpha)\\
+{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}\Big[\xi_{a}-\xi_{\perp}
-{\textstyle\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}}(\xi^>_{\parallel}-\xi^<_{\parallel})\Big]\cos[2(\vartheta-\alpha)]\\
+{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}}\big[{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}(\xi^>_{\parallel}+\xi^<_{\parallel})
-4\xi_{a}+\xi_{\perp}+\sqrt{3}(\xi^>_{\parallel}-\xi^<_{\parallel})\big]\cos[6(\vartheta-\alpha)].
\end{gathered}$$ There are now four length scales, $\xi^>_{\parallel}=\xi(\alpha)$, $\xi^<_{\parallel}=\xi(\alpha+\pi)$, $\xi_{a}=\xi(\alpha+\pi/6)$, and $\xi_{\perp}=\xi(\alpha+\pi/2)$. We select a tilt strength $\tau=0.5$ and determine these four length scales self-consistently as a function of $q$. The results are displayed in Fig. \[f3\]c and \[f3\]d of the main text.
The vortex and atomic lattices {#the-vortex-and-atomic-lattices .unnumbered}
==============================
![In (**a**) we show an image of the vortex lattice taken at $T = 0.15$ K and magnetic field $B = 0.6$ T, parallel to the $c$ axis, obtained from the zero-bias tunneling conductance. The sixfold star shape of the single vortex is schematically indicated by a red star. White bar is 30 nm long. In (**b**) we show an atomic scale topographic STM image taken in the area highlighted by a black square in (**a**). White bar is 1.8 nm long. We indicate a lattice direction ($a$ axis of the hexagonal structure) and a direction in between crystalline axes by yellow arrows. The lower right inset shows the Fourier transform of the image (white bar is 1.9 nm$^{-1}$ long).[]{data-label="fs3"}](Fig_S3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fs3\] we show vortex core images at zero bias with the magnetic field parallel to the $c$ axis and perpendicular to the surface (Fig. \[fs3\]a). The surface Se atomic lattice image, typically observed in the topography of this compound is shown in Fig. \[fs3\]b. The vortex lattice is aligned with the atomic lattice. We plot two vectors (yellow arrows in Fig. \[fs3\]), one is oriented parallel to an in-plane crystal axis, which corresponds to an azimuthal angle of $\varphi = 0^{\circ}$ and also parallel to one of the main axis of the vortex lattice. The other vector lies in between crystal axis vectors ($\varphi = 30^{\circ}$), parallel to the rays of the star observed in vortex lattice images at zero bias (see Fig. \[fs2\]a).
The tilted vortex core {#the-tilted-vortex-core .unnumbered}
======================
![Normalized tunneling conductance $\sigma$ radially averaged for several vortex cores for different polar tilt angles. Data are obtained from Fig. \[f1\]a of the main text and lines are fits according to Ref. [@s_Fente16] as described in the text. The distance is the measured distance from the vortex center multiplied by the vortex frame intervortex spacing $a_0/\gamma$, where $\gamma$ is the anisotropy parameter and $a_0$ the intervortex distance. []{data-label="fs4"}](Fig_S4.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We can plot vortex core profiles by making the radial average of the smoothed tunneling conductance $\sigma$ around isolated vortices. We can fit this to the modified inverse bell shaped expression given in Ref. [@s_Fente16]. In Fig. \[fs4\], we show the result for the particular experiment of Fig. \[f1\]a. Generally, the vortex core size increases by a factor between two and four for the zero bias conductance maps, depending on the azimuthal angle.
![We show a zoom into the stripes of Fig. \[f1\] of the main text. We make spatial averages of the tunneling conductance along the lines shown in the figure. We find a gap in-between stripes (red), a zero-bias peak at the centre of the stripes (black), which splits at the border of the stripes (green).[]{data-label="fs5"}](Fig_S5.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
When making a zoom into the stripes discussed in Fig. \[f1\]b of the main text, we can gather tunneling conductance curves at the centre of the stripes, in-between stripes and on their sides. Such a zoom, with the corresponding tunneling conductance curves, is shown in Fig. \[fs5\]. We find a zero-bias peak at the centre of the stripes, which splits when leaving the stripes.
In the figure Fig. \[fs6\] we show the bias voltage dependence of the conductance maps for different polar angles. When the field is parallel to the $c$ axis, we recover the well-known behavior of 2H-NbSe$_2$ and its characteristic changes in the vortex core patterns with bias voltage. We highlight here in particular that the apparent core size increases when reaching gap edge in the electronic DOS at about 0.8 mV. This is due to the superfluid currents around the vortex core that produce a Doppler shift in the quasiparticle peak in the DOS [@s_Kohen06; @s_Maldonado13; @s_Berthod13; @s_Herrera17]. At high polar angles, the vortex cores are already very large at zero bias, indicating that the current distribution at the surface is highly non-trivial. This changes the core shape and its bias dependence, as discussed in the main text.
![Conductance maps of the vortex lattice as a function of the bias voltage (shown in the upper row) for different polar angles (shown in the left column). Scale bars are of 55 nm in all images and the color code is the same as in Fig. \[f1\] of the main text or Fig. \[fs5\] here.[]{data-label="fs6"}](Fig_S6.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that magnetic field nearly parallel to the hexagonal plane oriented along an in-plane direction which is neither along a crystal lattice axis nor in-between produces rather complex stripe patterns of the vortex lattice on the surface. In Fig. \[fs7\] we show a zero-bias tunneling conductance image obtained by a field tilted by $\varphi=15^{\circ}$ from the crystalline axis. The overall orientation of the stripes is along the tilt of the magnetic field, but the pattern has no clear periodicity, with stripes going along directions slightly tilted with the field and features that can be associated to either of the cases discussed in the main text.
Structure of the tilted vortex lattice {#structure-of-the-tilted-vortex-lattice .unnumbered}
======================================
![Zero-bias conductance image with a magnetic field of 0.6 T nearly parallel to the surface and an azimuthal angle at $\varphi=15^{\circ}$ from a crystalline axis. We observe the same vortex and stripe pattern as discussed previously, although there are stripes going along oblique directions. Scale bar is of 120 nm.[]{data-label="fs7"}](Fig_S7.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Due to the out-of-plane anisotropy of 2H-NbSe$_2$ [@s_Foner73; @s_Nader14; @s_Xi15; @s_Janssen98], tilted magnetic fields produce considerable modifications in the vortex lattice. In particular, the lattice is no longer hexagonal but ellipsoidal when the magnetic field is tilted. The distortion is explained within Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory of anisotropic superconductors [@s_Campbell88] and has been studied previously using STM and neutron scattering experiments [@s_Hess92; @s_Hess94; @s_Gammel94]. The vortex lattice is an elongated hexagon, with vortices located on an ellipse with its long axis of size $a_0/ \gamma$, with $\gamma=[1+\Gamma^{-2}\tan^2(\theta)]^{1/4}\cos^{1/2}(\theta)$ (with $a_0$ the intervortex distance, $\Gamma=\xi_{ab}/\xi_{c}$ the ratio of in-plane and out-of-plane coherence lengths and $\theta$ the polar tilt angle) [@s_Hess92; @s_Hess94]. The hexagon within the ellipse has two possible orientations. The vertices of the hexagon may coincide either with the long axis or with the short axis of the ellipse. When the field is tilted by varying the polar angle ($\theta$) at an azimuthal angle ($\varphi$) fixed along one of the main vortex-lattice axis, at low tilts, the vertices coincide with the short axis of the ellipse. For high polar tilting angles, in particular for fields above $\theta=70^\circ$, a transition occurs in the vortex lattice frame. The vertices of the hexagon are no longer located along the short axis of the ellipse, because this situation is energetically unfavorable for high tilts [@s_Campbell88]. The vortex lattice then orients itself with the vertices of the hexagon coinciding with the long axis of the ellipse. This gives a rotation between A and B lattices when tilting the magnetic field and was found using STM and neutron scattering in different compounds with a strong out-of-plane anisotropy [@s_Hess92; @s_Hess94; @s_Gammel94; @s_Kogan95; @s_Fridman11; @s_Fridman13].
Note also that, for polar tilt angles $\theta$ close to 90$^{\circ}$, the intervortex distance at the surface frame diverges. This implies that minute changes in the orientation of the surface with respect to the magnetic field produce huge changes in the vortex lattice density at the surface. We show, in particular, areas of the same size at nominally the same $\theta$, with, five, eight and six vortices in the two panels of Fig. \[f1\]b and in Fig. \[fs7\]. Note in addition that these areas are quite large, close to the maximal scanning range of cryogenic STM experiments. The difference between numbers of vortices seen in each image might change when using larger scanning ranges, if surfaces with slightly different tilts can be obtained within the same field of view.
[23]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1663104) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/10/12/125027) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.56.9052) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.214) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.134505) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2711) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.014517) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.46.366) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.027001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.064518) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.134515) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.184502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0375-9601(73)90693-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1186/2193-1801-3-16) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys3538) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.57.11698) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.38.2439) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2138) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.16528) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.278) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.15344) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4940190) [ ()](https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3559)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'F. K. R[ö]{}pke,'
- 'W. Hillebrandt'
title: 'The case against the progenitor’s carbon-to-oxygen ratio as a source of peak luminosity variations in Type Ia supernovae'
---
Introduction {#intro_sect}
============
The question of the origin of the observed diversity of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) has been a long standing problem. Although these astrophysical events possess a surprising homogeneity of features, which led to the application of SNe Ia as distance indicators in cosmology, variations of photometric and spectroscopic data have been reported. Nevertheless, corrections of the luminosity based on an empirical relation between peak luminosity and light curve shape [@phillips1993a] made SNe Ia a major tool of observational cosmology (for a recent review see @leibundgut2000a). A theoretical understanding of this correlation is still lacking. Thus the challenge for astrophysical theory is to construct a SN Ia explosion model that is robust and—as a first step—able to explain the observed variations.
It is generally agreed on the fact that SNe Ia originate from thermonuclear explosions of white dwarf (WD) stars, although many scenarios have been proposed for the particular realization (see @hillebrandt2000a for a recent review). The currently favored model is a binary system in which a WD composed of carbon and oxygen accretes matter from a non-degenerate companion until it reaches the Chandrasekhar mass. At this point, thermonuclear burning at the center of the star develops into a flame which propagates outward. From the viewpoint of hydrodynamics, two modes of flame propagation are possible: a subsonic deflagration, in which the reaction is mediated by thermal conduction of the degenerate electrons, and a supersonic shock-induced detonation. [@arnett1969a] noted that to produce the observed intermediate mass elements a prompt detonation can be excluded. Therefore the flame starts out in the deflagration mode and may or may not develop into a detonation. The key feature of this model is that buoyancy-induced instabilities lead to a turbulization of the flame front in the deflagration mode. Only due to this effect the flame is accelerated sufficiently to power SN Ia explosions.
In the first stages the prevailing densities and temperatures are high enough that the reaction terminates in nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE), consisting mainly of iron group elements. As the WD expands, density and temperature drop and the thermonuclear reactions produce intermediate mass elements such as Si, S, and Ca.
The light curve of SNe Ia is powered by the radioactive decay of $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co. The peak luminosity is a measure of the $^{56}$Ni produced by the explosion (“Arnett’s law”, @arnett1982a). Parameters that have frequently been suggested to affect the amount of $^{56}$Ni synthesized are the carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) ratio of the WD, its central density prior to ignition, and its metallicity. Of course, other parameters like rotation and asphericity of the explosion may play a role, too. A thorough investigation of the impact of these parameters is mandatory for the validation of cosmological measurements, since here possible evolution effects with cosmic age are critical.
The objective of the present study is to explore the effect of the progenitor’s C/O ratio on the supernova explosion by means of three-dimensional hydrodynamical models. Since we are mainly interested in the explosion energy and the amount of synthesized $^{56}$Ni, it is justified to focus on the deflagration stage, leaving aside a possible delayed detonation. Only in this first stage of the SN Ia explosion the prevailing densities and temperatures are sufficient for burning to iron group elements, and therefore the main part of the $^{56}$Ni and probably also of the explosion energy is produced here.
The numerical model
===================
The numerical model applied to simulate the thermonuclear explosion is the same as used for several studies by @reinecke2002b [@reinecke2002d]. Therefore we will be short in the description of the model and only mention the basic aspects here.
The vast range of involved length scales makes fully resolved SN Ia explosion simulations impossible. Therefore we describe the flame propagation by applying the level set method [@osher1988a]. Neither the internal flame structure nor its wrinkling on small scales are resolved but the flame is rather modeled as a discontinuity separating fuel and ashes. This discontinuity represents the mean position of the flame. To track its propagation it is associated with the zero level set of a scalar field $G$ which is evolved according to the scheme described by @reinecke1999a. In this scheme the effective flame velocity must be provided and for this we employ the subgrid scale model proposed by @niemeyer1995b which describes the effects of the turbulent motions on unresolved scales. The hydrodynamics is modeled based on the PROMETHEUS implementation [@fryxell1989a] of the piecewise parabolic method [@colella1984a].
Due to the restricted computational resources only a very simplified description of the nucleosynthesis is possible concurrent with the explosion simulation. We follow the approach suggested by @reinecke2002b, who include five species, namely $\alpha$-particles, $^{12}$C, $^{16}$O, $^{24}$Mg as a representative of intermediate mass elements and $^{56}$Ni as a representative of iron group nuclei (denoted as “Ni” in the following to avoid confusion with the particular isotope as part of the ejecta). The fuel is assumed to consist of a mixture of carbon and oxygen. At the initially high densities burning proceeds to NSE composed of $\alpha$-particles and “Ni”. Depending on temperature and density in the ashes, the amount of $\alpha$-particles and nickel changes. Once the fuel density drops below $5.25 \times 10^7 \,\mathrm{g}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ due to the expansion of the WD, burning is assumed to terminate at intermediate mass elements and below $1 \times 10^7
\,\mathrm{g}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ burning becomes very slow and is not followed anymore.
In this letter we will present three simulations that span one octant of our coordinate system and assume mirror symmetry to the other octants. The simulations were set up on a cartesian computational grid that was equally spaced in the inner regions. In order to be able to follow the explosion for a longer period of time in the outer parts the width of the grid cells was expanded exponentially.
The resolution of the runs was rather low—the computational domain was divided in $[256]^3$ grid cells corresponding to a central grid resolution of $10^6 \, \mathrm{cm}$. In each direction the grid length in the outer 35 zones was increased subsequently by a factor of 1.15. The burning was centrally ignited and the spherical initial flame structure was perturbed with three toroidal rings per octant (see also Fig. \[evo\_fig\]).
Results of three-dimensional explosion models
=============================================
Snapshots from the explosion simulation for $X(^{12}\mathrm{C}) = 0.46$ are given in Fig. \[evo\_fig\]. Here the position of the flame front is rendered as represented by the zero level set of the scalar field $G$ dividing fuel and ash. The spatial extent of the burnt region can be inferred from the plotted grid which also visualizes our setup with uniform grid cells in the inner region and an exponential growth of the grid spacing further out. The flame as initialized in our setup is shown in the left snapshot of Fig. \[evo\_fig\]. In the subsequent images the growth of instabilities and an increasing wrinkling of the flame front is visible.
$X(^{12}\mathrm{C})$ $E_\mathrm{nuc}$ $[10^{50}\,\mathrm{erg}]$ $M$(“Ni”) $[M_\odot]$ $\max(M_\alpha)$ $[M_\odot]$
---------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------
0.30 8.85 0.5178 0.04579
0.46 9.46 0.5165 0.05177
0.62 9.97 0.5104 0.05636
: Characteristics of the explosion models. \[results\_tab\]
To test the effect of a varying carbon mass fraction of the WD, we performed three simulations with values of $X(^{12}\mathrm{C})$ given in Table \[results\_tab\]. Figure \[co\_fig\] shows snapshots from models with different $X(^{12}\mathrm{C})$ after $1.0 \, \mathrm{s}$. It is essential for the following argumentation to note that for all three models the extent of the burnt region and also the flame morphology are surprisingly similar. The latter is in agreement with the findings of @gamezo2003a, but [@khokhlov2000a] claims that a decreasing $X(^{12}\mathrm{C})$ would result in weaker explosions because of a delay of the development of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability, which seems to be only a minor effect in our simulations.
The energy release of the different models are summarized in Table \[results\_tab\]. Obviously, a higher carbon mass fraction leads to a higher total energy production for fixed central densities. This trend is not surprising. For larger $X(^{12}\mathrm{C})$ the laminar burning velocity increases [@timmes1992a]. This effect, however, will be important only in the earliest stages of the explosion, since flame propagation becomes determined by turbulence shortly after ignition and can therefore only account for minor changes. More significant, a higher carbon mass fraction will increase the total energy generation for the simple reason that the binding energy of $^{12}\mathrm{C}$ is lower than that of $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ so that it releases more energy by fusion to “Ni”.
Therefore the very similar flame evolution of all models is not expected in a simple picture. That this is nevertheless the case is corroborated by the following arguments. As mentioned in Sect. \[intro\_sect\], the flame evolution in the deflagration mode is dominated by turbulization which results from Rayleigh-Taylor-like instabilities. An important parameter for this is the effective gravity experienced by the flame. It accelerates the development of flame structures resulting from the non-linear stage of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. At early stages the energy fed into the turbulent cascade from the interfaces of large scale buoyant burning bubbles will be enhanced by a higher $g$. Thus, the turbulent cascade will develop more quickly and the turbulence-induced boost of the effective flame propagation velocity sets in earlier.
Our models, however, do not show such a behavior. In Fig. \[geff\_fig\] the temporal evolution of the mean $g$ experienced by the flame is plotted. We note only small differences for varying $X(^{12}\mathrm{C})$. This results in a very similar evolution of the turbulent energy in our models.
The mechanism that is responsible for the reduced effect of the varying carbon mass fraction on the flame propagation becomes plausible from the evolution of the chemical composition of our models (see Fig. \[evalmass\_fig\]). Though the temporal evolution of the mass fractions of carbon and oxygen as well as nickel show little differences, the variations of the mass fractions of $\alpha$-particles and intermediate mass elements is significant.
As pointed out by @reinecke2002b, the abundance of $\alpha$-particles is important for the explosion dynamics. At high densities and temperatures the flame converts the C/O fuel to NSE which in our models is represented by a mixture of nickel (representing the iron group nuclei) and $\alpha$-particles. The $\alpha$-particles are produced at high temperatures in the ashes and have two effects. First, the binding energy of the ashes is lower in case of higher $X(\alpha)$, so less energy is released. Second, the number of particles per unit mass of the ashes increases and this decreases the temperature. Both effects result in a lower temperature and a higher density of the burning products which delays the expansion of the WD and decreases the buoyancy of the burnt regions. Thus the flame acceleration is lower and the burning is suppressed. With further expansion of the WD, the $\alpha$-particles are converted to nickel.
In our simulations $\alpha$-particles are present between $0.2 \, \mathrm{s}$ and $0.9\,\mathrm{s}$. The maximal $X(\alpha)$ is given in Table \[results\_tab\]. Obviously, higher carbon mass fraction in the fuel gives rise to a larger fraction of $\alpha$-particles in the ashes. Therefore the evolution of the flame front is more delayed and consequently the explosion dynamics of the models in the first stage when the iron group elements are synthesized is comparable. The result of this effect is a production of similar amounts of iron group elements. The energy stored in the $\alpha$-particles is released at later times and the total energy released in the explosion models varies for about 12% while the mass of produced nickel differs only about 1.4% (cf. Table \[results\_tab\]).
Note that the explosion energies and the masses of synthesized iron group elements in all our models are rather on the low side to explain a prototype SNe Ia. This is due to the low numerical resolution of our models. Although they are expected to be numerically converged [@reinecke2002c], the resolution does not allow to apply multi-spot ignition scenarios which have been shown to produce more vigorous explosions [@reinecke2002d]. However, the trends inferred from our models are expected to be robust.
Conclusions
===========
In this letter we described a mechanism that is responsible for the somewhat surprising fact that although the progenitor’s C/O ratio affects the energy release of SN Ia explosions, it has little effect on the peak luminosity determined by the $^{56}$Ni mass. This is found with help of three-dimensional simulations and disagrees with the results reported from one-dimensional models. @hoeflich1998a find a 14% decrease in $M_\mathrm{Ni}$ when reducing the C/O ratio from 1/1 to 2/3; the fact that they considered a delayed detonation model should not greatly affect the comparability for reasons given in Sect. \[intro\_sect\]. The “working hypothesis” of an increased $^{56}$Ni production with higher $X(^{12}\mathrm{C})$ established by @umeda1999b cannot be confirmed. The reason for this discrepancy is a complex interplay between nucleosynthesis and nonlinear flame evolution which can be modeled appropriately only in three dimensions. The models presented here are based on a rather simplistic description of the nuclear reactions, which will be improved in forthcoming models. Nevertheless, the features that are important for the explosion dynamics are taken into account and trends can be revealed with this approach.
An interesting question is how our results affect the peak luminosity–light curve shape relation of SNe Ia. Since no light curves were calculated from our models we can only speculate on the effects based on the trends found by @arnett1982a and @pinto2000a by means of analytic studies. According to “Arnett’s law” the peak luminosity should reflect the amount of radioactive $^{56}$Ni synthesized in the explosion. Since in our models the evolution of the densities of the ashes are very similar, the little variation in the iron group elements will result in little variation of the $^{56}$Ni mass. Thus the peak luminosity should be roughly the same for our three models. The explosion energy, however, varies significantly and a greater expansion at late stages of the explosion associated with a larger C/O ratio would result in a more rapid decline of the light curve but also in a somewhat higher luminosity. This is in contradiction to the empirically established relation that for brighter SNe Ia the light curve declines slower, which has been extensively applied to calibrate cosmological distance measurements.
@timmes2003a analytically found a linear dependence of the amount of produced $^{56}$Ni on the progenitor’s metallicity. This in turn is, however, not likely to affect the explosion energy and dynamics significantly. Of course, from the viewpoint of stellar evolution there is a interrelation between the progenitor’s metallicity and other parameters, including its carbon mass fraction. Therefore it is plausible that the “luminosity-width relation” is caused by a combination of different parameters and that a direct relation between the $^{56}$Ni mass and the peak luminosity might be oversimplified. It seems well possible that the distribution of the $^{56}$Ni due to three-dimensional effects plays an important role here. In a subsequent publication we will report on a systematic parameter study addressing these questions. Ultimately, SN Ia explosion models will have to be coupled to realistic stellar evolution of the progenitor system and the calculation of synthetic light curves becomes mandatory.
We thank M. Reinecke, C. Travaglio, M. Gieseler, and W. Schmidt for helpful discussions.
[20]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, W. D. 1969, Astrophys. Space Sci., 5, 180
, W. D. 1982, Astrophys. J., 253, 785
, P. & [Woodward]{}, P. R. 1984, J. Comp. Phys., 54, 174
, B. A., [M[ü]{}ller]{}, E., & [Arnett]{}, W. D. 1989, Hydrodynamics and nuclear burning, MPA Green Report 449, Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Garching
, V. N., [Khokhlov]{}, A. M., [Oran]{}, E. S., [Chtchelkanova]{}, A. Y., & [Rosenberg]{}, R. O. 2003, Science, 299, 77
, W. & [Niemeyer]{}, J. C. 2000, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 38, 191
, P., [Wheeler]{}, J. C., & [Thielemann]{}, F. K. 1998, , 495, 617
, A. M. 2000, preprint: astro-ph/0008463
, B. 2000, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 10, 179
, J. C. & [Hillebrandt]{}, W. 1995, Astrophys. J., 452, 769
, S. & [Sethian]{}, J. A. 1988, J. Comp. Phys., 79, 12
, M. M. 1993, , 413, L105
, P. A. & [Eastman]{}, R. G. 2000, , 530, 744
, M., [Hillebrandt]{}, W., & [Niemeyer]{}, J. C. 2002, Astron. Astrophys., 386, 936
, M., [Hillebrandt]{}, W., & [Niemeyer]{}, J. C. 2002, Astron. Astrophys., 391, 1167
, M., [Hillebrandt]{}, W., [Niemeyer]{}, J. C., [Klein]{}, R., & [Gr[" o]{}bl]{}, A. 1999, Astron. Astrophys., 347, 724
, M., [Niemeyer]{}, J. C., & [Hillebrandt]{}, W. 2002, New Astronomy Review, 46, 481
, F. X., [Brown]{}, E. F., & [Truran]{}, J. W. 2003, , 590, L83
, F. X. & [Woosley]{}, S. E. 1992, Astrophys. J., 396
, H., [Nomoto]{}, K., [Kobayashi]{}, C., [Hachisu]{}, I., & [Kato]{}, M. 1999, , 522, L43
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Formal methods (FM) have been around for a while, still being unclear how to leverage their benefits, overcome their challenges, and set new directions for their improvement towards more successful transfer into practice.
We study the use of formal methods in mission-critical software domains, probing industrial and academic views.
We perform a cross-sectional on-line survey.
Our results indicate an increased intent to apply FMs in industry, suggesting a positively perceived usefulness. But we observe a negatively perceived ease of use. Scalability, skills, and education seem to be among the key challenges to support this intent.
Some difficulties in achieving a large sample at a good response rate lead to limited generalizability.
However, we present the largest study of this kind so far ($N=192$), and our observations provide valuable insights, highlighting directions for future theoretical and empirical research of formal methods.
author:
-
-
bibliography:
- 'references-arxiv.bib'
title: ' Formal Methods: Oversold? Underused? A Survey [^1]'
---
formal methods, empirical research, on-line survey, practical challenges, research transfer
Motivation and Challenges {#sec:introduction}
=========================
\[sec:motivation\]
Software errors were deployed, some had intolerable impact.[^2] This has been *the* motivation of *formal methods (FM, ) as a first-class approach to error prevention, detection, and removal* ([e.g. ]{}[@Holloway1997]). From lectures, we heard FMs are among the best we have to design and assure correct systems. The question “Why are FMs not used more widely?” [@Knight1997] is justified. With a Twitter poll, emerged from our coffee spot discussions, we solicited agreement on a timely paraphrase of a statement argued by @Holloway1997: “FMs should be a cornerstone of dependability and security of highly distributed and adaptive automation.” What can a tiny opportunity sample of 22 respondents from our social network tell? Not much, well,
55% *agree*s seem to attribute importance to this role of FMs,
14% *disagree*s oppose that view,
32% just *don’t know*.
Why should and how could FMs be a cornerstone?
Since the beginning of software engineering (SE) there has been a debate on the *usefulness of FMs* to improve SE. In the 1990s, FM researchers have started to examine this usefulness with the aim to respond to critical observations of practitioners.
@Hall1990 and @Bowen1995 illuminate 14 myths ([e.g. ]{}“formal methods are unnecessary”), providing their insights on when FMs are best used and highlighting that FMs can be an overkill in some cases but highly recommendable in others. The transfer of FMs into SE practice is by far not straightforward. @Knight1997 examine reasons for the low adoption of FMs in practice. @Barroca1992 ask: “To what extent should FMs form part of the \[safety-critical SE\] method?”
@Glass2002 [pp. 148f, 165f] and @Parnas2010 observe that “many \[SE\] researchers advocate rather than investigate” by assuming the need for more methodologies. @Glass2002 summarizes that FMs were supposed to help representing firm requirements concisely and support rigorous inspections and testing. He observes that *changing requirements* have become an established practice even in critical domains, and inspections, even if based on FMs, are insufficient for complete error removal. In line with @Barroca1992 [p. 591], he notes that FMs have occasionally been sold as to make error removal complete, but there is no silver bullet [@Glass2002 pp. 108f]. Bad communication between theorists and practitioners sustains the issue that FMs are taught but rarely applied [@Glass2002 pp. 68ff]. @Parnas2010 compares alternative paradigms in FM research ([e.g. ]{}axiomatic [vs. ]{}relational calculi) and points to challenges of FM adoption ([e.g. ]{}valid simple abstractions).
In contrast, @Miller2010 draw positive conclusions from recent applications of *model checking* and highlight lessons learned. In his keynote, @OHearn2018 conveys positive experiences in scaling FMs through adequate tool support for *continuous reasoning* in agile projects (see also, [e.g. ]{}[@Chudnov2018]). Many researchers (see, [e.g. ]{}[@Aichernig2003]) have been working on the improvement of FMs towards their successful transfer. @Boulanger2012 and @Gnesi2013 summarize promising industry-ready FMs and present larger case studies.
*Have software errors been overlooked because of not having been detected as inconsistencies in a formalism? Are such errors a compelling argument for the use of FMs?* Strong evidence for *the ease of use of FMs and their efficacy and usefulness* is scarce and largely anecdotal, rarely drawn from *comparative studies* ([e.g. ]{}[@Sobel2002]), often primarily conducted in research labs ([e.g. ]{}[@Galloway1998; @Chudnov2018] and many others). @Graydon2015 observes a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of FMs in assurance argumentation for safety-critical systems, suggesting empirical studies to examine hypotheses and collect evidence.
FMs have many potentials but SE research has reached a stage of maturity where strong empirical evidence is crucial for further *research progress and transfer*. @Jeffery2015 identify questions and metrics for *FM productivity assessment*, supporting FM research transfer.
### Contributions {#sec:contributions .unnumbered}
We contribute to SE and FM research by
presenting results of the largest cross-sectional survey of FM use among SE researchers and practitioners to this date,
answering research questions about the past and intended use of FMs and the perception of systematically mapped [@Petersen2008] FM challenges,
relating our findings to the perceived ease of use and usefulness of FMs according to the technology acceptance model (TAM) [@Davis1989], and
providing a research design for repetitive ([e.g. ]{}longitudinal) FM studies.
### Overview {#sec:overview .unnumbered}
The next section introduces important terms. relates our work to existing research. In , we explain our research design. We describe our data and answer our research questions in . In , we summarize and interpret our findings in the light of existing evidence and [with respect to ]{}threats to validity. highlights our conclusions and potential followup work.
Background and Terminology {#sec:background}
==========================
By *formal methods*, we refer to *explicit* mathematical models and *sound* formal logical reasoning about *critical properties* [@Rushby1994]—such as reliability, safety, availability, security, and dependability and effectiveness in general—of electrical, electronic, and programmable electronic or software systems in mission- or property-critical application domains. Model checking, theorem proving, abstract interpretation, assertion checking, and formal contracts are examples of FMs. By *use of FMs*, we refer to their application to critical engineered systems, including the use of notations ([e.g. ]{}UML) and tools.
The *technology acceptance model* [@Davis1989] incorporates a model to assess end user IT technology using the two constructs *perceived ease of use* and *perceived usefulness*. Because FMs are often supported by IT tools, we find it reasonable to adopt the TAM for the assessment of engineering methods. *Ease of use* (EOU) of a FM characterizes the type and amount of effort a user is likely to spend to learn, adopt, and apply this FM. *Usefulness* (U) determines whether a specific FM is fit for purpose, [that is, ]{}whether it supports the engineer to accomplish an appropriate task. If EOU and U are measured by a survey whose data points are user perceptions then we talk of *perceived ease of use (PEOU)* and *perceived usefulness (PU)* according to @Davis1989. Together, PEOU and PU form the *user acceptance of FMs* (and corresponding tools).
Related Work {#sec:relwork}
============
For each reference in , we list the authors’ estimated attitude against or in favor of FMs, the motivation of the study, the followed approach, and the type of result obtained. Most of the work presents personal experience and opinion and single case studies or literature. In contrast, the work presented in this paper focuses on the analysis of experience from multiple experts. However, we found three similar studies.
@Austin1993-Formalmethodssurvey had the aim to explain the low acceptance of FMs in industry around 1992. Using a questionnaire similar to ours but open, they analysed 126 answers from a sample of size 444, using a sampling method similar to ours (then using different channels). Responses from FM users are distinguished from general responses. Their questions examine benefits, limitations, barriers, suggestions to overcome those barriers, personal reasons for or against the use of FMs, and ways of assessing FMs. In knowledge of FM benefits, we steered our half-open questionnaire towards a refined classification of responses, comparing past with intended use, and interrogating recently perceived obstacles. We received their paper report after finishing our study and conclude that our work can be seen as a near-replication.
In a second study in 2001, @Snook2001 conduct single interviews with representatives from five companies to discover the main issues involved in the use of FMs, in particular, the issues of understandability and the difficulty of creating and leveraging formal specifications.
A similar, though more comprehensive interview study was performed by @Woodcock2009 in 2009. They assess the state of the art of the application of FMs, using questionnaires to collect data on 62 industrial projects.
While these studies focus on the elicitation of the state of the art, the main focus of our study is to compare the current state of the art with the desired state of the art. To the best of our knowledge, our study offers the largest set of data points investigating the use of FMs in SE, so far. For a discussion of how our findings relate to the findings of these studies, we refer to .
[lllXX]{} **Ref.** & **Att.** & **Motivation** & **Approach** & **Result**\
[@Austin1993-Formalmethodssurvey] & n/a & n/a & *Surv./Interv.* & n/a\
[@Snook2001] & = & LoEv & *Surv./Interv.* & Analysis / Eval.\
[@Oliveira2004] & = & Edu./Train. & *Survey* & Analysis / Eval.\
[@Bicarregui2009; @Woodcock2009] & = & LoEv & *Surv./Interv.* & Challenges\
[@Bloomfield1991] & = & SotA & Lit. & Analysis / Eval.\
[@Heitmeyer1998] & +/– & TechTx & Lit. & Recom.\
[@Bjorner1987] & = & TechTx & O/E & Challenges\
[@Barroca1992] & +/– & SotA & O/E & Challenges\
[@Bowen1995] & + & Hyp. Testing & O/E & Recom.\
[@Bowen1995a] & + & TechTx & O/E & Recom.\
[@Hinchey1996] & – & TechTx & O/E & Challenges\
[@Heisel1996] & + & TechTx & O/E & Method\
[@Lai1996] & + & TechTx & O/E & Challenges\
[@Bowen2005] & + & Hyp. Testing & O/E, Lit. & Recom.\
[@Parnas2010] & = & TechTx & O/E & Chall., Recom.\
[@Hall1990] & + & Hyp. Testing & CS, O/E & Recom.\
[@Craigen1993; @Craigen1995; @Craigen1995a] & + & SotA & mult. CS, O/E & Analysis / Eval.\
[@Knight1997] & = & TechTx & CS, Field Exp. & Analysis / Eval.\
[@Sobel2002] & = & Hyp. Testing & Lab Exp. & Analysis / Eval.\
[@Miller2010] & = & TechTx & mult. CS, O/E & Analysis / Eval.\
[@Chudnov2018] & = & TechTx & CS & Analysis / Eval.\
[**Legend:** +/=/– …pos./neutral/neg., CS …case study, Exp. …experiment, Lit. …literature survey, LoEv …lack of empirical evidence, O/E …opinion/experience report, Recom. …recommendations, SotA …state of the art, TechTx …technology transfer ]{}
Research Method {#sec:research-design}
===============
In this section, we describe our research design, our survey instrument, and our procedure for data collection and analysis. For this research, we follow the guidelines of @Kitchenham2008 for self-administered surveys and use our experience from a previous more general survey [@Gleirscher2018].
Research Goal and Questions {#sec:hypoth-rese-quest}
---------------------------
The questions in have led to this survey on the *use, usage intent, and challenges of FMs*. Our interest is particularly devoted to the following *research questions (RQ)*:
1. In which typical domains, for which purposes, in which roles, and to what extent have *FMs been used*?
2. Which *discrepancies* can we observe between FM users’ *experience and intentions to use FMs*?
3. Who perceives which FM *challenges* to be how difficult?
4. What can we say about the *perceived ease of use* and the *perceived usefulness* of FMs?
Construct and Link to Research Questions {#sec:construct}
----------------------------------------
\[ concept/.style=[align=center,draw,ellipse]{}, root/.style=[concept,thick,minimum width=2cm, minimum height=1.4cm,font=**,inner sep=0**]{}, level 1/.style=[level distance = 4.5cm,minimum width=1.75cm, minimum height=.8cm,font=,inner sep=0]{}, level 2/.style=[level distance = 1.6cm,minimum width=1.2cm, minimum height=.7cm,font=,inner sep=0]{} \] child\[grow = 25,level distance = 2.5cm\] [ node\[concept\] [Obstacles\
([C\[construct:Obst\]]{})]{} child\[grow=45,level distance = 1.3cm\] [node\[concept, dashed\] [[Q\[question:O1\_obst\]]{}]{}]{} ]{} child\[grow = 90,level distance = 1.5cm\] [ node\[concept\] [Motivation\
([C\[construct:Motiv\]]{})]{} child\[level distance = 1cm\] [node\[concept, dashed\] [[Q\[question:D3\_motiv\]]{}]{}]{} ]{} child\[grow = 155,level distance = 2.5cm\] [ node\[concept\] [Experience\
([C\[construct:ExpLev\]]{})]{} child\[grow=150, level distance = 1.3cm\] [node\[concept, dashed\] [[Q\[question:D2\_explev\]]{}]{}]{} ]{} child\[grow = 200,level distance = 3cm\] [ node\[concept\] [Role\
([C\[construct:Role\]]{})]{} \[level distance = 1cm,sibling distance=.8cm\] child\[grow = 125,level distance = 1cm\] [node\[concept,dashed\] [Future\
([Q\[question:F2\_role\_future\]]{})]{}]{} child\[grow = 245,level distance = 1cm\] [node\[concept,dashed\] [Past\
([Q\[question:P1\_role\_past\]]{})]{}]{} ]{} child\[grow = 238,level distance = 1.8cm\] [ node\[concept\] (use) [Use\
([C\[construct:Use\]]{})]{} \[level distance = 1.5cm, sibling distance=.8cm\] child\[grow = 285,level distance = 1cm\] [node\[concept,dashed\] [Future\
([Q\[question:F3\_use\_future\]]{}/[Q\[question:F4\_use\_future\]]{})]{}]{} child\[grow = 215,level distance = 1.2cm\] [node\[concept,dashed\] [Past\
([Q\[question:P2\_use\_past\]]{}/[Q\[question:P3\_use\_past\]]{})]{}]{} ]{} child\[grow = -20,level distance = 3cm\] [ node\[concept\] [Purpose\
([C\[construct:Purpose\]]{})]{} \[sibling distance=.8cm\] child\[grow = 60,level distance = 1cm\] [node\[concept,dashed\] [Past\
([Q\[question:P4\_purpose\_past\]]{})]{}]{} child\[grow = 295,level distance = 1cm\] [node\[concept,dashed\] [Future\
([Q\[question:F5\_purpose\_future\]]{})]{}]{} ]{} child\[grow = -58,level distance = 1.8cm\] [ node\[concept\] [Domain\
([C\[construct:AppDom\]]{})]{} \[level distance = 1.5cm,sibling distance=.8cm\] child\[grow = 265,level distance = 1cm\] [node\[concept,dashed\] [Past\
([Q\[question:D1\_appdom\_past\]]{})]{}]{} child\[grow = 325,level distance = 1.2cm\] [node\[concept,dashed\] [Future\
([Q\[question:F1\_appdom\_future\]]{})]{}]{} ]{};
depicts the constituents of our construct called *use of FMs in mission-critical SE* (UFM). The *construct scales* are shown in .
For RQ1 (UFM), we examine potential
application *domains* for FMs ([C\[construct:AppDom\]]{}),
*roles* when using FMs ([C\[construct:Role\]]{}),
*motivations* and *purposes* of using FMs ([C\[construct:Motiv\]]{}, [C\[construct:Purpose\]]{}), and
the extent of UFM as the general ([C\[construct:ExpLev\]]{}) and specific ([C\[construct:Use\]]{}) experience level of our study participants when using FMs.
For RQ2, we compare the *past* (UFM$_p$) and *intended use* (UFM$_i$) of FMs regarding domain ([C\[construct:AppDom\]]{}), role ([C\[construct:Role\]]{}), FM class ([C\[construct:Use\]]{}), and purpose ([C\[construct:Purpose\]]{}). For RQ3, we measure the perception of difficulty of known obstacles ([C\[construct:Obst\]]{}) depending on UFM.
For RQ4, we associate our findings from RQ2 and RQ3 with the TAM. Because our study design does not allow to measure effort, we approximate EOU qualitatively by the challenges to overcome in typical FM applications. We then interpret the answers to RQ3 to examine and predict the PEOU and, furthermore, interpret the answers to RQ2 to reason about PU. In , we discuss our questionnaire including the questions for measuring the sub-constructs.
[lX]{} **Id.** & **Description \[Scale(s)\]**\
[ [ **C** \[construct:ExpLev\]]{}]{} & Level of FM experience \[duration ranges in years\]\
[ [ **C** \[construct:Motiv\]]{}]{} & Motivation to use FMs \[degree per motivational factor\]\
[ [ **C** \[construct:AppDom\]]{}]{}\* & Application domains of FMs \[MC among domains\]\
[ [ **C** \[construct:Role\]]{}]{}\* & Role in using FMs \[MC among roles\]\
[ [ **C** \[construct:Use\]]{}]{}\* & Use of FMs \[experience level/relative frequency per FM class\]\
[ [ **C** \[construct:Purpose\]]{}]{}\* & Purpose of using FMs \[absolute/relative frequencies per purpose\]\
[ [ **C** \[construct:Obst\]]{}]{} & Difficulty of obstacles to using FMs \[degree per challenge\]\
Study Participants and Population {#sec:study-subj-popul}
---------------------------------
Our target group for this survey includes persons with
an educational background in engineering and the sciences related to critical computer-based or software-intensive systems, preferably having gained their first degree, *or*
a practical engineering background in a reasonably critical systems or product domain involving software practice.
We use *(study or survey) participant* and *respondent* as synonyms, we talk of *FM users* whenever appropriate.
Survey Instrument: On-line Questionnaire {#sec:questionnaire}
----------------------------------------
\[sec:legend\]
summarizes the questionnaire we use to measure the construct in . The scales used for encoding the answers are described in . Most questions are half-open, allowing respondents to go beyond given answer options. We treat *degree* and *relative frequency* as 3-level <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Likert</span>-type scales.
For each question, we provide *“do not know” (dnk)*-options to include participants without previous knowledge of FMs in any academic or practical context. If participants are not able to provide an answer they can choose, [e.g. ]{}“do not know”, “not yet used”, “no experience”, or “not at all”, and proceed. This way, we reduce bias by forced responses. Below, we indicate *dnk*-answers whenever we *(ex)clude* them. Our questionnaire tool () supports us *with getting complete data points*, reducing the effort to deal with missing answers.
Although we do not collect personal data, respondents can leave us their email address if they want to receive our results. We expect participants to spend about 8 to 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
[l>[=.7]{}X>[=.3]{}Xll]{} **Id.** & **Question or Question Template** & **Scale** (see ) & **Sec.** & **Fig.**\
[ [ **Q** \[question:D1\_appdom\_past\]]{}]{} & In which *application domains* ([C\[construct:AppDom\]]{}) in industry or academia have you mainly used FMs? & MC among domains & \[sec:D1\_appdom\] & \[fig:D1\_appdom\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:D2\_explev\]]{}]{} & How many years of *FM experience* (including the study of FMs, [C\[construct:ExpLev\]]{}) have you gained? & duration range in years & \[sec:D2\_explev\] & \[fig:D2\_explev\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:D3\_motiv\]]{}]{} & Which have been your *motivations* ([C\[construct:Motiv\]]{}) to use FMs? & degree per motivational factor & \[sec:D3\_motiv\] & \[fig:D3\_motiv\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:P1\_role\_past\]]{}]{} & In which roles ([C\[construct:Role\]]{}) have you used FMs? & MC among roles & \[sec:sum-P1\_role\_past\] & \[fig:P1\_role\_past\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:P2\_use\_past\]]{}]{} & Describe your *level of experience* ([C\[construct:Use\]]{}) for *$\langle$class of formal description techniques$\rangle$*. & level of experience per class & \[sec:sum-P2\_use\_past\] & \[fig:P2\_use\_past\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:P3\_use\_past\]]{}]{} & Describe your *level of experience* ([C\[construct:Use\]]{}) for *$\langle$class of formal reasoning techniques$\rangle$*. & level of experience per class & \[sec:sum-P3\_use\_past\] & \[fig:P3\_use\_past\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:P4\_purpose\_past\]]{}]{} & I have mainly *used FMs for* ([C\[construct:Purpose\]]{}) ... & absolute frequency per purpose & \[sec:sum-P4\_purpose\_past\] & \[fig:P4\_purpose\_past\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:F1\_appdom\_future\]]{}]{} & In which *domains* ([C\[construct:AppDom\]]{}) in industry or academia do you intend to use FMs? & MC among domains & \[sec:sum-F1\_appdom\_future\] & \[fig:rq2\_comparison\_D1\_F1\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:F2\_role\_future\]]{}]{} &In which *roles* ([C\[construct:Role\]]{}) would (or do) you intend to use FMs? & MC among roles & \[sec:sum-F2\_role\_future\] & \[fig:rq2\_comparison\_P1\_F2\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:F3\_use\_future\]]{}]{} & I (would) *intend to use* ([C\[construct:Use\]]{}) *$\langle$class of formal description techniques$\rangle$* *$\langle$this$\rangle$* often. & relative frequency per class & \[sec:sum-F3\_use\_future\] & \[fig:F3\_use\_future\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:F4\_use\_future\]]{}]{} & I (would) *intend to use* ([C\[construct:Use\]]{}) *$\langle$class of formal reasoning techniques$\rangle$* *$\langle$this$\rangle$* often. & relative frequency per class & \[sec:sum-F4\_use\_future\] & \[fig:F4\_use\_future\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:F5\_purpose\_future\]]{}]{} & I (would) intend to *use FMs for* ([C\[construct:Purpose\]]{}) *$\langle$purpose$\rangle$*. & relative frequency per purpose & \[sec:sum-F5\_purpose\_future\] & \[fig:F5\_purpose\_future\]\
[ [ **Q** \[question:O1\_obst\]]{}]{} & For any use of FMs in my future activities, I consider *$\langle$obstacle$\rangle$* ([C\[construct:Obst\]]{}) as *$\langle$that$\rangle$* difficult. & degree of difficulty per obstacle & \[sec:sum-O1\_obst\] & \[fig:O1\_obst\]\
[1.0]{}[>[=.25]{}X>[=.7]{}Xl]{} **Name** & **Values** & **Type**\
*degree ofmotivation* & **“no motivation”**, “moderate motivation”, “strong motivation (or requirement)” & L3\
*degree ofdifficulty* & “not as an issue.”, “as a moderate challenge.”, “as a tough challenge.”, **“I don’t know.”** & L3\
*experience level(duration-based)* & **“I do not have any knowledge of or experience in FMs.”**, “less than 3 years”, “3 to 7 years”, “8 to 15 years”, “16 to 25 years”, “more than 25 years” & O\
*experience level(task-based)* & **“no experience or no knowledge”**, “studied in (university) course”, “applied in lab, experiments, case studies”, “applied once in engineering practice”, “applied several times in engineering practice” & O\
*frequency(absolute)* & **“not at all.”**, “once.”, “in 2 to 5 separate tasks.”, “in more than 5 separate tasks.” & O\
*frequency(relative)* & **“no more or not at all.”**, “less often than in the past.”, “as often as in the past.”, “more often than in the past.”, **“I don’t know.”** & L3\
*choice* & single/multiple: (*ch*)ecked, (*un*)checked & N\
[**Legend:** In bold, options to express lack of knowledge or indecision. (N)ominal, (O)rdinal, Ln …<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Likert</span>-type scale with $n$ values.]{}
Data Collection: Sampling Procedure {#sec:daten-collection}
-----------------------------------
We could not find an open/non-commercial panel of engineers. Large-scale *panel services* are either commercial ([e.g. ]{}[@DecisionAnalyst2018]) or they do not allow the sampling of software engineers ([e.g. ]{}[@Leiner2014]). Hence, we opt for a mixture of opportunity, volunteer, and cluster-based sampling. To draw a reasonably diverse sample of potential FM users, we
1. advertise our survey on various on-line discussion channels,
2. invite software practitioners and researchers from our social networks, and
3. ask these people to disseminate our survey.
\[sec:representation\] To check how well our *sample represents our targeted population*, we examine [C\[construct:ExpLev\]]{}, [C\[construct:AppDom\]]{}, [C\[construct:Role\]]{}, and [C\[construct:Use\]]{} from for balanced levels.
[Xl]{} **Channel Type** & **Examples & References**\
General panels & SurveyCircle, [www.surveycircle.com](www.surveycircle.com)\
LinkedIn groups & [E.g. ]{}on ARP 4754, DO-178, FME, ISO 26262\
Mailing lists & [E.g. ]{}system safety (U Bielefeld, formerly U York)\
Newsletters & BCS FACS; GI RE, SWT, TAV\
Personal pages & [E.g. ]{}Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Xing\
ResearchGate & Q&A forums on [www.researchgate.net](www.researchgate.net)\
Xing groups & [E.g. ]{}Safety Engineering, RE\
Data Evaluation and Analysis {#sec:data-analysis}
----------------------------
\[sec:proc:rqs\]
For RQ1, we summarize the data and apply descriptive statistics for categorical and ordinal variables in . We answer RQ2 by comparison of the data for the past and future views regarding the domain ([C\[construct:AppDom\]]{}), role ([C\[construct:Role\]]{}), FM class ([C\[construct:Use\]]{}), and purpose ([C\[construct:Purpose\]]{}) in . We answer RQ3 by
describing the *challenge difficulty ratings* after associating one of
domain,
motivational factor,
role,
purpose, and
FM class
with challenge ([C\[construct:Obst\]]{}) and
distinguishing
more experienced (ME, $> 3$ years) from less experienced respondents (LE, $\leq 3$ years),
practitioners (P, practiced at least once) from non-practitioners (NP, not used or only in course or lab),
motivated (M) from unmotivated respondents (U),
respondents’ (P)ast and (F)uture views, and
respondents with increased (II) from ones with decreased usage intent (DI).
in . We apply association analysis between these categorical and ordinal variables, using *pairs of matrices* ([e.g. ]{}). The cells represent combinations of the scales, each cell containing data about the *mode* and *(med)ian* of degree of difficulty ratings, their *proportion* of *tough* ratings, and the *actual numbers* of data points. We answer RQ4 by arguing from the results for RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3.
### Half-Open and Open Questions {#sec:openquestions .unnumbered}
We code open answers in additional text fields as follows: If we can subsume an open answer into one of the given options, we add a corresponding rating (if necessary). If we cannot do this then we introduce a new category “Other” and estimate the rating. Finally, we cluster the added answers and split the “Other” category (if necessary). For [Q\[question:O1\_obst\]]{}, we performed the latter step combined with independent coding to confirm our consistent understanding of the challenge categories [@Neuendorf2016].
### Tooling {#sec:tooling .unnumbered}
We use Google Forms [@Google2018] for implementing our questionnaire and for data collection () and storage. For statistical analysis and data visualization (), we use GNU R [@RProject2018] (with the `likert`, `gplots`, and `ggplot2` packages and some helpers from “Cookbook for R” and “Stackexchange R community”). Content analysis and coding takes place in a spreadsheet application. Electronic supplementary material to this work is available in [@Gleirscher2018-fmsurvey-supl].
Execution, Results, and Analysis {#sec:results}
================================
We describe the sample, summarize the responses to , and answer our research questions ().
Survey Execution {#sec:survey-execution}
----------------
For data collection, we
advertised our survey on the channels in and
personally invited $>$ 30 persons.
The sampling period lasted *from August 2017 til August 2018*. In this period, we *repeated step 1 up to three times* to increase the number of participants. summarizes the distribution of responses. The channels in particularly cover the European and North American areas.
![Distribution of responses over time \[fig:responsehist\]](responsehist){width="\linewidth"}
RQ 1: Description of the Sample {#sec:descr-data-points}
-------------------------------
Assuming participants are, on average, member of at least three of the channels listed in , an estimate of 65K *channel memberships* indicates that we could have *reached* up to 20K *real persons*. Given a recent estimate of worldwide 23 million SE practitioners [@EvansData2018] and assuming that at least 1% are mission-critical SE practitioners, our *population* might comprise at least 230K persons. We received $N=192$ responses resulting in a *response rate* of about 1% and a *population coverage* of at most 0.1%. About 40% of our respondents provided their email addresses, including many from the US, UK, Germany, France, and a sixth from other EU and non-EU countries.
### [Q\[question:D1\_appdom\_past\]]{}: Application Domain {#sec:D1_appdom}
For each domain, shows the number of participants having experience in that domain[^3]. Note that 160 of the respondents do have experience with applying FM in different industrial contexts, while only 32 have not applied FMs to any application domain.
![ In which application domains in industry or academia have you mainly used FMs? (MC) \[fig:D1\_appdom\]](D1_coded_appdom_past){width=".8\columnwidth"}
### [Q\[question:D2\_explev\]]{}: FM Experience {#sec:D2_explev}
depicts participants’ years of experience in using FMs, showing that the sample is *well-balanced* [w.r.t. ]{}the experience levels. According to , one third of the participants can be considered LEs with up to three years of experience, and two thirds can be considered MEs with at least three years of experience ($28$ of those with even more than $25$ years).
![ How many years of FM experience (including the study of FMs) have you gained? \[fig:D2\_explev\]](D2_explev){width=".6\columnwidth"}
### [Q\[question:D3\_motiv\]]{}: Motivation {#sec:D3_motiv}
From it seems that *regulatory authorities* play only a subordinate role in the use of FMs. In contrast, *intrinsic motivation* (in terms of private interest) seems to be the major factor for using FMs. For twelve respondents, none of the given factors was motivating at all.
![ Which have been your motivations to use FMs? \[fig:D3\_motiv\]](D3_motiv){width="\columnwidth"}
RQ 1: Facets of Formal Methods Use {#sec:summ-answ-quest}
----------------------------------
### [Q\[question:P1\_role\_past\]]{}: Role {#sec:sum-P1_role_past}
shows in which roles the respondents applied FMs. An analysis of MC-answers shows that 72% of the participants used FMs in an *academic environment*, as a researcher, lecturer, or student. 52% of the participants applied FMs in *practice*, as an engineer or consultant.
![ In which roles have you used FMs? (MC) \[fig:P1\_role\_past\]](P1_coded_role_past){width=".8\columnwidth"}
### [Q\[question:P2\_use\_past\]]{}: Use in Specification {#sec:sum-P2_use_past}
The degree of usage of FMs for specification is depicted in . There is an *almost balanced* proportion between theoretical and practical experience with the use of various specification techniques. Only the use of FMs for the description of dynamical systems seems to be remarkably low.
![ Describe your level of experience with each of the following classes of formal description techniques? \[fig:P2\_use\_past\]](P2_use_past){width="\columnwidth"}
### [Q\[question:P3\_use\_past\]]{}: Use in Analysis {#sec:sum-P3_use_past}
The use of FMs for analysis is depicted in . Similar to specification techniques, we observe an *almost balanced* proportion between theoretical and practical experience with the usage of various analysis techniques. Outstanding is the use of assertion checking techniques, such as contracts. As expected from the observations of , the use of FMs for dynamical systems analysis, such as differential calculus, is again exceptionally low.
![ Describe your level of experience with each of the following classes of formal reasoning techniques? \[fig:P3\_use\_past\]](P3_use_past){width="\columnwidth"}
### [Q\[question:P4\_purpose\_past\]]{}: Purpose {#sec:sum-P4_purpose_past}
depicts the participants’ purposes to apply FMs. It seems that they employ FMs mainly for specification, verification, and error detection. Synthesis, on the other hand, seems to be only a subordinate purpose in the use of FMs.
![ I have mainly used FMs for ... \[fig:P4\_purpose\_past\]](P4_purpose_past){width="\columnwidth"}
RQ 2: Past Use versus Usage Intent {#sec:sensitivity-analysis}
----------------------------------
\[sec:analysis-rq2\]
We investigate the usage intent of FMs across various domains and roles as well as the participants’ intent to use various FMs and their intended purpose to use FMs.
### Application Domain {#sec:sum-F1_appdom_future}
compares the respondents’ current application domain of FMs with their intended one (see [Q\[question:F1\_appdom\_future\]]{}). It reveals two insights into the participants intention to use FMs:
The number of participants which did not yet use FMs is almost double the number of participants which want to apply FM in the future. Thus, some of the participants which did not use FMs, so far, aim to apply them in the future.
The intended application of FMs clearly outperforms the current application of FMs across *all* domains. Thus, their is a clear tendency to increase the use of FMs across all application domains.
![ \# of resp. using FMs by domain (past [vs. ]{}intent) \[fig:rq2\_comparison\_D1\_F1\]](rq2_comparison_D1_coded_F1_coded){width="\columnwidth"}
### Role {#sec:sum-F2_role_future}
compares the participants’ roles in which they applied FMs in the past with their intended role to apply FMs in the future (see [Q\[question:F2\_role\_future\]]{}). Similar to the application domain, we can observe that some participants who have not applied FMs in any role so far, intend to apply such methods in the future. However, the comparison reveals another interesting observation: *Academic* disciplines (student, researcher, or lecturer) seem to be *saturated*, [i.e., ]{}there is a decrease (or only small increase) in the number of participants who applied FMs to academic domains in the past and the number of participants who want to apply such methods to these domains in the future. In contrast, there is a *significant* increase in the number of participants aiming to apply FMs, across all *industrial* roles.
![ \# of resp. applying FMs by role (past [vs. ]{}intent) \[fig:rq2\_comparison\_P1\_F2\]](rq2_comparison_P1_coded_F2_coded){width="\columnwidth"}
### [Q\[question:F3\_use\_future\]]{}: Intended use for Specification {#sec:sum-F3_use_future}
depicts the respondents’ intended *future* use of applying various formal techniques for system specification. In general, the figure shows an *almost equal* amount of participants aiming to decrease and increase their use of FMs for specification. Only *dynamical* system models seem to be an exception again: more participants want to decrease their use of this technology, compared to participants who want to increase it.
![ I (would) intend to use ... \[fig:F3\_use\_future\]](F3_use_future){width="\columnwidth"}
### [Q\[question:F4\_use\_future\]]{}: Intended use for Analysis {#sec:sum-F4_use_future}
The respondents’ intended use of formal techniques for the analysis of specifications is depicted in . The figure shows for every technique a clear tendency of the participants to *increase* their use of the technique in the future.
![ I (would) intend to use ... \[fig:F4\_use\_future\]](F4_use_future){width="\columnwidth"}
### [Q\[question:F5\_purpose\_future\]]{}: Intended Purpose {#sec:sum-F5_purpose_future}
The purpose respondents aim to apply FMs to in the future is depicted in . Again their is a clear tendency of the participants to *increase* their use of FMs for all purposes.
![ I (would) intend to use FMs for ... \[fig:F5\_purpose\_future\]](F5_purpose_future){width="\columnwidth"}
RQ 3: Perception of Challenges {#sec:analysis-rq3}
------------------------------
lists the FM challenges subject to discussion, their background, and literature referring to them. We apply the procedure described in .
[>[=.37]{}X c >[=.16]{}X >[=.34]{}X]{} **Challenge Name & Description** & **Src.** & **Addressed/Examined in** & **Findings for RQ3 ()**\
**Scalability:** Useful in handling large and technologically heterogeneous systems & Q & [@Hall1990; @Bowen1995; @Lai1995; @Lai1996; @Craigen1993; @Craigen1995a; @Miller2010] & 1st; by Ps more than by NPs; when using FMs for assurance and clarification; independent of FM class\
**Skills & Education:** Methods known (little misconception), trained and experienced users available & Q & [@Hall1990; @Barroca1992; @Hinchey1996; @Bowen1995a; @Lai1995; @Lai1996; @Bjorner1987; @Heisel1996; @Bicarregui2009; @Craigen1993; @Craigen1995a; @Snook2001] & 2nd; agreed by LEs and MEs; largely independent of FM class; comparably small tough-proportions by Ms\
**Transfer of Proofs:** Refinement between models and reality ([e.g. ]{}code), handling incomplete specifications & Q & [@Bloomfield1991; @Hall1990; @Barroca1992; @Parnas2010; @Craigen1993; @Craigen1995a; @Snook2001] & Agreed by LEs and MEs; top-rated by DIs and Us; largely independent of FM class\
**Reusability:** Parametric proofs, reusable specifications and verification results & Q & [@Barroca1992; @Bowen1995a] & Top-rated by tool provider stakeholders and lectures\
**Abstraction:** Useful and correct (automated) abstractions from irrelevant detail (for comprehension and validation) & Q & [@Hall1990; @Barroca1992; @Bowen1995a; @Lai1996; @Heitmeyer1998; @Heisel1996; @Knight1997; @Parnas2010; @Miller2010; @Snook2001] & Varies notably across FM classes\
**Tools & Automation:** Useful notations and trustworthy tools (for manipulation, checking, collaboration, doc.) & Q & [@Bloomfield1991; @Hall1990; @Bowen1995; @Hinchey1996; @Bowen1995a; @Bowen2005; @OHearn2018; @Lai1996; @Bjorner1987; @Heitmeyer1998; @Bicarregui2009; @Knight1997; @Woodcock2009; @Parnas2010; @Craigen1993; @Craigen1995a] & Top-rated by DIs; but comparably small tough-proportions from practitioners\
**Maintainability:** Stable proofs, evolvable specifications and verification results & Q & [@Barroca1992; @Knight1997; @Parnas2010] & Comparably small tough-proportions from practitioners\
**Resources:** Sufficient resources, good cost-benefit ratio (despite adoption, training, licenses) & P (4) & [@Bloomfield1991; @Hall1990; @Bowen1995; @Bowen1995a; @Lai1995; @Heisel1996; @Bicarregui2009; @Knight1997; @Woodcock2009; @Craigen1993; @Craigen1995a] & \[-1.5em\][No detailed data was collected: Because these challenges were mentioned several times each, we classify them to be at least of moderate difficulty.]{}\
**Process Compatibility:** Integration into existing process, method culture, standards, and regulations & P (6) & [@Bloomfield1991; @Bowen1995; @Bowen1995a; @Lai1995; @Hinchey1996; @OHearn2018; @Lai1996; @Bjorner1987; @Heitmeyer1998; @Heisel1996; @Knight1997; @Craigen1995a]\
**Practicality & Reputation:** Benefit awareness and good empirical evidence for benefits & P (7) & [@Lai1995; @Lai1996; @Glass2002; @Bicarregui2009; @Parnas2010]\
### General Ranking ([Q\[question:O1\_obst\]]{}) {#sec:sum-O1_obst}
shows the respondents’ ratings of all challenges. Most of the participants believe that *scalability* will be the toughest challenge and *maintainability* is considered the least difficult of all rated obstacles. For *reuse of proof results*, *proper abstractions*, and *tool support*, our participants distribute more uniformly across moderate and high difficulty.
![ For any use of FMs in my future activities, I consider $\langle$*obstacle*$\rangle$ as \[not an$\mid$a moderate$\mid$a tough\] issue. \[fig:O1\_obst\]](O1_obst){width="\columnwidth"}
### Less Experienced [vs. ]{}More Experienced Respondents ([Q\[question:D2\_explev\]]{})
The comparison of the difficulty ratings of LEs with the ratings of MEs shows that
LEs less often perceive the given challenges as tough,
MEs significantly more often rate *scalability* as tough,
both groups show the closest agreement on *transfer of verification results* and *skills and education*.
### Non-Practitioners [vs. ]{} Practitioners by Past Purpose ([Q\[question:P4\_purpose\_past\]]{})
The perception of *skills and education* and *scalability* as the most difficult challenges is **largely independent of the purpose**, again **Ps attributing more significance** to *scalability*. The leadership of scalability in comes along with most tough-ratings from NPs in *synthesis* and from Ps in *assurance* and *clarification*.
### Decreased [vs. ]{}Increased Intent by Purpose ([Q\[question:F5\_purpose\_future\]]{})
The comparison of the difficulty ratings of respondents with no or decreased intent to use FMs *for a specific purpose* and respondents with equal or increased intent shows:
The leadership of *scalability* and *skills and education* in , particularly, comes along with most tough-ratings from IIs for *assurance* and *clarification* and from DIs for *synthesis* (54%).
The trend in is more clearly observable from IIs than from DIs, where *transfer of verification results* and *automation and tool support* seem to be tougher than *skills and education*.
### Non-Practitioners [vs. ]{}Practitioners by FM Class ([Q\[question:P2\_use\_past\]]{}, [Q\[question:P3\_use\_past\]]{})
shows
for NPs, the trend in is **largely independent of the FM class**, except for *consistency checking* leading with a *tough* proportion of 62%.
For Ps, difficulty ratings across FM classes vary more: The challenges leading in received the most *tough*-ratings from users of *process models*, *dynamical systems*, *process calculi*, *model checking*, and *theorem proving*. Difficulty ratings of users are often centered on moderate or tough, *proper abstraction* and *skills and education* show a comparably wide variety across FM classes.
**NPs’ difficulty ratings vary less than Ps’ rations**, being more independent from FM classes.
![Difficulty of challenges (cols): NPs (top) compared to Ps (bottom) by type of used FM (rows) \[fig:heatmapP2P3O1\]](rq3_heatmapP2_P3_O1_students "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Difficulty of challenges (cols): NPs (top) compared to Ps (bottom) by type of used FM (rows) \[fig:heatmapP2P3O1\]](rq3_heatmapP2_P3_O1_practitioners "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
### Decreased [vs. ]{}Increased Intent by FM Class ([Q\[question:F3\_use\_future\]]{}, [Q\[question:F4\_use\_future\]]{})
The trend in comes along with many tough ratings for *transfer of verification results* from DIs of *consistency checking*.
However, DIs of *process calculi* provide comparably many tough-ratings for the generally low-ranked *automation and tool support*.
*Assertion checking* exhibits comparably low tough-proportions across all challenges whereas *process calculi* exhibit comparably high tough-ratings.
Mirroring the trend in , **IIs show less variance than DIs across FM classes.**
### Unmotivated [vs. ]{}motivated by Motivating Factor ([Q\[question:D3\_motiv\]]{})
Respondents with moderate to strong motivation to use FMs more likely identify given challenges as **moderate/tough, regardless of the motivating factor.**
The trend in comes along with many tough ratings from respondents **motivated by** *regulatory authorities* (70%) or **not motivated by** *tool providers* or *superiors/principal investigators*.
Us’ *tough*-ratings are **notably lower than Ms’**.
### Past and Future Views by Role ([Q\[question:P1\_role\_past\]]{}, [Q\[question:F2\_role\_future\]]{})
Although participants show role-based discrepancies between their past and intended use of FMs (), the **perception of difficulty** of the rated challenges seems to be **largely similar**, following the trend in .
The high ranking of *scalability* (and *reusability of verification results*) comes along with many tough-ratings from **tool provider stakeholders** for the **past** view and many from **lecturers** for the **future** view.
### Past and Future Views by Domain ([Q\[question:D1\_appdom\_past\]]{}, [Q\[question:F1\_appdom\_future\]]{})
The trend in comes along with highest tough-proportions for respondents from the *transportation*, *military systems*, *industrial machinery*, and *supportive* domains.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this section, we discuss and interpret our findings, relate them to existing evidence, outline general feedback on the questionnaire, and critically assess the validity of our study.
Findings and their Interpretation {#sec:interpr-results}
---------------------------------
The following (F)indings are based on the data summarized and analysed in .
### RQ 1 {#rq-1 .unnumbered}
[ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ1\_noreg\]]{}]{} *Regulatory authorities* represent only a minor motivating factor to use FMs. *Intrinsic motivation* (maybe market-triggered) seems to be stronger.
### RQ 2 {#rq-2 .unnumbered}
[ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ2\_increase\]]{}]{} It seems that in *all given domains* (, except for *other*) respondents intend to *increase* their future use of FMs. Moreover, it seems that this tendency is *independent* of the *concrete technology* (except process calculi) or *purpose*. The data also suggest that the use of FMs in research is saturated, while there is an increased intention to apply FMs in *industrial contexts* in the future. [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ2\_expsupuse\]]{}]{} From the data it seemed that experience in using a certain technology indeed impacts the intend to use this technology in the future. To investigate this suspicion, we analyzed the intended use of FM technologies based on the experience of participants in using this technology (also by association analysis, ) [@Gleirscher2018-fmsurvey-supl]. Thereby, we observed that the *more experience* one has with using a specific FM technology, the *more likely she/he will apply it in the future*. No experience at all, results in an *exceptionally high resistance* against a specific FM technology and only little experience with a certain FM technology *significantly increases the willingness to apply it in the future*. Similar observations can be made for the use of FM in general for a specific purpose.
### RQ 3 {#rq-3 .unnumbered}
[ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ3\_scalableads\]]{}]{} *Scalability* and *skills and education* lead the challenge ranking, independent of the domain, FM class, motivating factor, and purpose. Practitioners see scalability as more problematic than non-practitioners, whereas non-practitioners perceive *skills and education* as more problematic than practitioners. [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ3\_maintlow\]]{}]{} *Maintainability of proof results* was found to be the least difficult challenge. [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ3\_reusenew\]]{}]{} *Reusability of proof results* was rated as tough by several practitioner groups. [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ3\_newchall\]]{}]{} Furthermore, our respondents raised three additional challenges which we cross-validated with the literature (see highlighted rows in ). [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ3\_simperc\]]{}]{} Challenges are perceived *as moderate or tough*, largely similar between the pairs of groups we distinguish in . [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ3\_toughest\]]{}]{} Process models were rated toughest for *scalability* which contrasts their high reputation as compositional methods. This might have been induced by the difficulty of scalability of model checking () as a frequent verification technique of process models.
RQ 4: Relationship to TAM (PEOU and PU) {#sec:rel-peou-pu}
---------------------------------------
Analogous to the reasoning in [@Davis1989], an increased positive experience with practically applying FMs forms a high degree of PU. @Davis1989 [p. 329] observed that actual usage is strongly positively correlated with PU. According to @Davis1989’s definition of PU (), we assume there is a similar (surely weaker) association between usage intent and PU. In fact, [F\[finding:RQ2\_increase\]]{} suggests an increased intent to use FMs in the future. [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ4\_PUpos\]]{}]{} **Hence, it seems that our respondents perceive the *usefulness of FMs* more positive than negative.**
Furthermore, all challenges we discuss represent coarse substrata [@Davis1989 p. 325] of the EOU for FMs because solutions to these challenges contribute to an increase in EOU. Hence, we represent an increased positive user experience with FMs by a high degree of PEOU. However, from [F\[finding:RQ3\_simperc\]]{}, we observe that respondents rate most challenges as moderate to tough, largely independent of other variables ([F\[finding:RQ3\_scalableads\]]{}). [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RQ4\_PEOUneg\]]{}]{} **Hence, it seems that our respondents perceive the *ease of use of FMs* more negative than positive.**
Relationship to Existing Evidence {#sec:relevi}
---------------------------------
Our systematic map shows that our list of challenges is completely backed by substantial literature (see ) raising and discussing these challenges. [ [ **(F )** \[finding:RelEv\_lowdiffobst\]]{}]{} However, the fact that maintainability and reusability were least covered by our literature is, on the one hand, in line with [F\[finding:RQ3\_maintlow\]]{} but, on the other, not with [F\[finding:RQ3\_reusenew\]]{} and typical cultures of reuse in practice.
[F\[finding:RQ2\_expsupuse\]]{} is in line with other observations in [@Woodcock2009; @Bicarregui2009] that the repeated use of a FM results in lower overheads ([i.e., ]{}an experienced effort or cost reduction and improved error removal), up to an order of magnitude less than its first use [@Miller2010].
Threats to Validity {#sec:threats-validity}
-------------------
We assess our research design with regard to four common criteria [@Shull2008; @Wohlin2012]. Per threat ($\lightning$), we estimate its criticality (min, maj), describe it, and discuss our mitigation ().
### Construct Validity {#sec:validity-construct}
Why would the construct () appropriately represent the phenomenon?
[*maj $\lightning$: Wrong or omitted questions* / To support *face validity*, we applied our own experience from FM use to iteratively develop a meaningful set of questions. Because this questionnaire forms a novel instrument, we use feedback from colleagues, from respondents we personally know, and from the general feedback on the survey to improve and support *content validity*. ]{}
[*min $\lightning$: Questionnaire not suited for rich measurements of PEOU ([e.g. ]{}per FM class) and PU* / We avoid deriving conclusions specific to a FM class from our data. ]{}
[*min $\lightning$: Bias by omitted scale values ([e.g. ]{}FM class, domain, purpose)* / Respondents are encouraged to provide open answers to all questions, helping us to check scale completeness. Our systematic map confirms that we have not listed unknown challenges in [Q\[question:O1\_obst\]]{}. We identified three additional challenges via open answers and the literature, however, unable to collect measurements for. We believe to have achieved good *criterion validity* through questions and scales for distinguishing important sub-groups (see ) of our population. ]{}
[*min $\lightning$: No question about educational background* / We approximate what we need to know by using data from [Q\[question:D1\_appdom\_past\]]{}, [Q\[question:D3\_motiv\]]{}, [Q\[question:P1\_role\_past\]]{}, and [Q\[question:P2\_use\_past\]]{}. ]{}
### Internal Validity {#sec:validity-internal}
Why would the procedure in lead to reasonable and justified results?
[*min $\lightning$: Incomplete data points* / Feedback from colleagues and first respondents made us extend [Q\[question:D3\_motiv\]]{} with the option “on behalf of FM tool provider” and [Q\[question:P3\_use\_past\]]{} and [Q\[question:F4\_use\_future\]]{} with “consistency checking” after our 47th response. The enhancement of 145 complete data points to 192 maintained all trends. ]{}
[*min $\lightning$: Duplicate & invalid answers* / To identify intentional misconduct, we checked for timestamp anomalies and for duplicate or meaningless phrases in open answers. Voluntarily provided email addresses (79/192) indicate only 3 unintentional double participants. Google Forms includes data points only if all mandatory questions are answered and the submit button is pressed. ]{}
### External Validity {#sec:validity-external}
Why would the procedure in lead to similar results with more general populations?
*maj $\lightning$: Low response rate* / We believe our estimates in to be sensible. We tried to
improve targeting by repetitively advertising on multiple appropriate channels,
spot unreliable contact information,
provide incentive (results by email),
keep the questionnaire short and comprehensible,
avoid forced answers, and
allow lack of topic knowledge.
Yet there are further uncertainties such as lack of sympathy, personal motivation, and interest, or strong loyalty, and high expectations in the outcome, or intentional bias.
[*maj $\lightning$: Bias towards specific groups [@Shull2008 p. 181]* / We distributed our questionnaire on general SE channels. Our sample includes 82 practitioners according to , $\approx$ 18 and only $\approx$ 28 of pure academics. A bias towards FM experts () does not harm our PEOU discussion led by practitioners but shapes our PU discussion. Regarding application domains, our conclusions cannot be generalized to, [e.g. ]{}finance and election sectors. ]{}
[*min $\lightning$: Lack of FM knowledge* / 10 to 20 know specific challenges (). dnk-data points are (ex)cluded for parts of RQ1 and included in the analyses of RQ2 and RQ3 with no relevant influence. ]{}
[*min $\lightning$: Geographical background missing* / Respondents were not required to own a Google account to avoid tracking and to increase anonymity and the response rate. The limited geographical knowledge about our sample constrains the generalizability of our conclusions, [e.g. ]{}to ecosystems such as China, India, or Brazil. ]{}
### Reliability {#sec:validity-reliability}
Why would a repetition of the procedure in with different samples from the same population lead to the same results?
[*maj $\lightning$: Change of proportions* / The small sample and the low response rate make it hard to mitigate this risk. However, we compared the first (2017, $N_1=90$) and second (2018, $N_2=102$) half of our sample to simulate a repetition of our survey. A two-sided Mann-Whitney U test does not show a significant difference between these two groups ([e.g. ]{}for [Q\[question:O1\_obst\]]{} and [Q\[question:P1\_role\_past\]]{}), only for [Q\[question:D3\_motiv\]]{} we recognise marginal differences. ]{}
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We conducted an on-line survey of mission-critical SE practitioners to examine how FMs are used and how challenges in using FMs are perceived. Our aim was to contribute to the body of knowledge of the SE and FM communities.
### Overall Findings {#overall-findings .unnumbered}
From the evidence we gathered for the use of FMs, we make the following observations:
- *Intrinsic motivation* is stronger than the regulatory one.
- Past experience is *correlated* with usage intent.
- Despite the challenges, our respondents show an *increased intent* to use FMs in industry.
- All challenges were rated *either moderately or highly* difficult, with scalability, skills, and education leading. Experienced respondents rate challenges as highly difficult more often than less experienced respondents.
- From the literature and the responses, we identified three additional challenges: *sufficient resources*, *process compatibility*, *good practicality/reputation*.
- Our data suggests that the *ease of use of FMs* is perceived more negative than positive.
- Gaining experience and confidence in the application of a FM seems to play a role in developing a *positive perceived usefulness of this FM*.
Hence, we believe **FMs are much more underused than oversold** in the sense of [@Barroca1992]. However, FMs still need to be improved and their benefits need to be better examined.
### General Feedback on the Survey {#sec:gener-feedb-surv .unnumbered}
The questionnaire seems to be well-received by the participants. One of them found it an “interesting set of questions.” This impression is confirmed by another participant:
> “Well chosen questions which do not leave me guessing. Relevant to future FM research and practice.”
Another respondent noted:
> “Thank you very much for this survey. It is very constructive and important. It handles most of the issues encountered by any practitioner and user of FMs.”
Only one participant found it difficult for FM beginners.
### Implications towards a Research Agenda {#implications-towards-a-research-agenda .unnumbered}
In the spirit of @Jeffery2015, we like to make another step in setting out an agenda for future FM research:
#### FM Improvement {#fm-improvement .unnumbered}
To address *controllable abstractions*, we need semantics workbenches for underpinning domain-specific languages with formal semantics. We believe that further steps in *theory unification* have good potential to improve proof hierarchies, *reusability*, and *transferability*.
#### FM Transfer {#fm-transfer .unnumbered}
To address *scalability*, we need more research on how compositional methods can be better leveraged in practical settings. To address *process compatibility*, we need more research in *continuous reasoning* ([e.g. ]{}[@OHearn2018; @Chudnov2018]) and in cost-savings analyses of FM applications ([e.g. ]{}[@Jeffery2015]). This implies strong empirical designs ([i.e., ]{}controlled field experiments) to collect strong evidence for successful transfers. To address *skills and education*, we need an enhanced *FM body of knowledge (FMBoK)* [@Oliveira2018] with revised recommendations for lecture material [@Oliveira2004], [e.g. ]{}the teaching of modeling, composition, and refinement in practice. To address *reputation*, we need to provide more incentives for practitioners to revive FMs and take recent progress in FM research into account when changing current software processes, policies, regulations, and standards. This includes convincing practitioners to invest in the support of large-scale studies for monitoring FM use in industry.
### Future Work {#sec:futurework .unnumbered}
Our survey is another important step in the research of effectively applying FM-based technologies in practice. To put it with the words of one of our participants: “\[A\] closed questionnaire is just a start.” In a next survey, we like to ask about typical FM benefits, pose more specific questions on scalability and useful abstraction, and the geographical and educational background. We also like to change from 3-level to 5-level <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Likert</span>-type scales to receive fine-granular responses. Our research design accounts for repeatability, hence, allowing us to go for a longitudinal study.
### Acknowledgments {#sec:ack .unnumbered}
It is our pleasure to thank all survey participants for their time spent and their valuable responses, and all channel moderators for forwarding our postings. We are much obliged to Jim Woodcock, who has led previous studies in our direction, and helped us to critically reflect our work and relate it to existing evidence. We would also like to spend sincere gratitude to Krzysztof Brzezinski, Louis Brabant, and Emmanuel Eze for pointing us to valuable related work.
[^1]: Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – GL 915/1-1. © 2018. This manuscript version for internal use is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/>. **(Pr)eprint Reference Format:** Gleirscher, M., & Marmsoler, D. (2018). *Formal Methods: Oversold? Underused? A Survey*. Unpublished working paper. Department of Computer Science, University of York, United Kingdom. eprint: arXiv reference.
[^2]: See anecdotal evidence (gray literature, press articles) on software-related incidents, [e.g. ]{}by @Kaner1998 [@Kaner2018], @Neumann2018 [@Charette2018].
[^3]: MC entails that the sum of answers can exceed $N$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Neural networks have revolutionized the field of data science, yielding remarkable solutions in a data-driven manner. For instance, in the field of mathematical imaging, they have surpassed traditional methods based on convex regularization. However, a fundamental theory supporting the practical applications is still in the early stages of development. We take a fresh look at neural networks and examine them via nonlinear eigenvalue analysis. The field of nonlinear spectral theory is still emerging, providing insights about nonlinear operators and systems. In this paper we view a neural network as a complex nonlinear operator and attempt to find its nonlinear eigenvectors. We first discuss the existence of such eigenvectors and analyze the kernel of ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ networks. Then we study a nonlinear power method for generic nonlinear operators. For proximal operators associated to absolutely one-homogeneous convex regularization functionals, we can prove convergence of the method to an eigenvector of the proximal operator. This motivates us to apply a nonlinear method to networks which are trained to act similarly as a proximal operator. In order to take the non-homogeneity of neural networks into account we define a modified version of the power method.\
We perform extensive experiments on various shallow and deep neural networks designed for image denoising. For simple nets, we observe the influence of training data on the eigenvectors. For state-of-the-art denoising networks, we show that eigenvectors can be interpreted as (un)stable modes of the network, when contaminated with noise or other degradations.
author:
- Leon Bungert
- 'Ester Hait-Fraenkel '
- Nicolas Papadakis
- Guy Gilboa
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: |
Nonlinear Power Method for Computing Eigenvectors\
of Proximal Operators and Neural Networks
---
Nonlinear power method, Power iterations, Proximal operators, Neural networks
Introduction
============
The emerging field of nonlinear spectral theory allows better understanding of nonlinear processes, as well as designing algorithms based on nonlinear spectral methods. In this paper, we make a first step towards understanding neural networks via their (nonlinear) eigenvectors. In image processing and learning, there were several theoretical advances in analyzing nonlinear eigenproblems. [@Meyer[1]; @TVFlowInRN] formulated analytic solutions for eigenfunctions associated to the $1$-Laplacian. [@benning2013ground] analyzed properties of ground states of one-homogeneous functionals. A nonlinear spectral decomposition based on total-variation proposed in [@gilboa2013spectral; @Gilboa_spectv_SIAM_2014] was later generalized to the one-homogeneous case in [@burger2016spectral], with theory for the discrete case. Recently, [@bungert2019nonlinear; @bungert2019computing] rigorously analyzed this framework in the continuous setting. A $p$-Laplacian spectral framework is formulated in [@cohen2020introducing]. Applications to image denoising [@MoellerICCV2015], segmentation [@ZeuneSegmentation2017], fusion [@hait2019spectral] and classification [@aviles2019] were proposed.
A very difficult problem for general nonlinear operators is how to compute their eigenvectors. In the context of learning, the authors of [@BressonSzlam2010Cheeger] estimated the Cheeger cut on graphs by a Rayleigh-type quotient. This was later generalized in [@Hein2010IPM] to a nonlinear inverse-power method. [@nossek2018flows; @aujol2018theoretical; @bungert2019asymptotic] suggested nonlinear flows to solve eigenproblems induced by total-variation and one-homogeneous functionals. This flow was later generalized to solve eigenproblems emerging in nonlinear optics [@cohen2018energy]. Algorithms to minimize generalized Rayleigh-quotients on grids and graphs were proposed and analyzed in [@feld2019rayleigh]. Furthermore, in [@effland2019optimal; @kobler2020total] the authors computed nonlinear eigenfunctions associated to learned convolutional regularizing functionals, which generalize total variation. The methods above assume either that the operator is a subgradient of a convex functional, or at least an analytically known operator. Significantly more complex nonlinear operators were only recently studied for the first time, for the case of nonlinear denoisers, as suggested by part of the authors in [@hait2019numeric]. We follow and generalize this direction for neural nets and provide a comprehensive analysis for nonlinear proximal operators.
Neural networks have revolutionized the world of computer vision and image processing [@egmont2002image], applied for many tasks, such as classification and segmentation (cf. [@schmidhuber2015deep] for an overview), depth estimation [@liu2015deep; @garg2016unsupervised], tracking [@fan2010human; @nam2016learning], to name a few. An ongoing extensive research on mathematical frameworks aims to interpret neural nets. This includes earlier studies in the context of wavelets and a generalization of the scatter transform [@mallat2016], the interpretation of residual networks as nonlinear ODEs [@haber2017stable; @chen2018neural], deep layer limits [@thorpe2018deep], sparse coding [@papyan2018theoretical] and more. Recent studies, more closely related to our work, are the SVD analysis of a ReLU layer [@dittmer2019singular] and convergence of plug-and-play ADMM algorithms using denoising networks with certain Lipschitz regularity [@ryu2019plug].
Similarly to many of the contributions above, we focus on nets with inputs and outputs of the same dimension. That is, given an input image, the output of the network is an image of the same size, which is common in many image-processing tasks. More specifically, although our algorithms are more general, we direct our efforts towards denoising networks (e.g. [@zhang2017beyond; @zhang2018ffdnet]). Given a noisy image, such nets estimate a suitable clean image. In this setting a nonlinear eigenvalue problem can be well defined, along with some general regularity assumptions on the behavior of the net. Our main contributions are
1. We propose a generalization of the linear power method, a classical iterative method to compute eigenvectors of matrices.
2. We provide a rigorous analysis of the method for a certain class of nonlinear proximal operators, showing its validity.
3. We discuss existence of eigenvectors of neural nets and characterize the kernel of ReLU nets as convex polyhedra.
4. By computing eigenvectors of state-of-the-art denoising networks we gain insights on the most and least stable structures of the net.
Setting and Definitions {#Sec::def}
=======================
Let $T:{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal{H}}$ be a generic (nonlinear) operator on a real Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ with norm ${\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert}$. In the case of a neural network one typically has ${\mathcal{H}}={\mathbb{R}}^n$, equipped with the Euclidean norm. We aim at solving the generalized *nonlinear* eigenproblem $$\label{eq:EV}
T(u)=\lambda u,$$ where $u\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$ denote the eigenvector and eigenvalue, respectively.
#### Rayleigh quotient
A common notion in linear eigenvalue analysis is the Rayleigh quotient [@horn2012matrix], defined for symmetric matrices $L$ as: $$\label{eq:Rayleigh_lin}
R_{\mathrm{lin}}(u):=\frac{u^T L u}{u^T u}= \frac{\langle u,Lu\rangle}{\|u\|^2}.$$ The Euler-Lagrange equation of \[eq:Rayleigh\_lin\] results in the eigenproblem. Therefore, an eigenvector is a critical point of the Rayleigh quotient. We can also understand the Rayleigh quotient as a generalized or approximated eigenvalue for any $u$ (not just eigenvectors). For eigenvectors (admitting \[eq:EV\]), we get exactly the corresponding eigenvalue $R(u)=\lambda$. The Rayleigh quotient can be generalized in the nonlinear setting to a *generalized Rayleigh quotient,* $$\label{eq:Rayleigh}
R(u)= \frac{\langle u,T(u)\rangle}{\|u\|^2}.$$ When $T(u)$ is a subgradient of an absolutely one-homogeneous functional $J$, meaning $T(u)\in \partial J(u)$, we have $J(u)=\langle u, T(u)\rangle$. In this case \[eq:Rayleigh\] becomes (see [@nossek2018flows]) $R(u)= {J(u)}/{{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2}$ and the eigenvalue problem takes the form $\lambda u \in \partial J(u)$. In [@hein2010inverse] similar quotients were used to obtain an inverse-power method. In [@feld2019rayleigh; @bungert2019asymptotic] the minimization of such quotients based on one-homogeneous functionals were analyzed and used to solve eigenvalue problems.
#### Approximate eigenvectors and angle
Another important concept related to numerical solutions of eigenvectors is their approximation. In nonlinear systems one may often reach only an approximation of an eigenvector. We would like to quantify how close a given vector is to a precise eigenvector. One general formulation for any operator $T$, is by the angle (see [@nossek2018flows]). For eigenvectors, vectors $u$ and $T(u)$ are collinear. Thus their respective angle is either $0$ (for positive eigenvalues) or $\pi$ (for negative eigenvalues). Since both $u$ and $T(u)$ are real, eigenvalues are also real. Thus, the angle is a simple scalar measure that quantifies how close $u$ and $T(u)$ are to collinearity. We define the angle $\theta$ between $u$ and $T(u)$ by $$\label{eq:Theta}
\cos (\theta) = \frac{\langle u,T(u)\rangle}{\|u\|\| T(u)\|}.$$ We discuss denoisers with positive eigenvalues, thus we aim to reach an angle close to 0.
#### Linear Power Method
We briefly recall the linear power method algorithm (also known as Von-Mises-iteration [@mises1929praktische]), which we generalize in this work. Given a matrix $L\in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ which is diagonalizable, the linear eigenproblem is $$\label{eq:EV_lin}
Lu=\lambda u.$$ A solution to this problem is found by the iterative algorithm given in \[alg:lin\]. Under some conditions the algorithm converges to the eigenvalue $\lambda$ with the greatest absolute value, and to its corresponding eigenvector.
\
**Input:** $f\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\varepsilon>0$.
1. Initialize: $u^0 \gets f/\|f\|$, $\,\,k \gets 1.$
2. Repeat until $\|u^{k+1}-u^k\|< \varepsilon$:\
$u^{k+1} \gets \frac{Lu^k}{\|Lu^k\|}$, $\,\,\,k \gets k+1.$
**Output:** $(u^*, \lambda^*)$, where $u^*=u^k$, $\lambda^*=R(u^*)$, with $R$ defined in \[eq:Rayleigh\_lin\].
Networks as Nonlinear Operators - Existence of Eigenvectors and Kernel
======================================================================
In this section, we first aim at proving existence of eigenvectors for a generic class of nonlinear operators, including most neural nets. Using Banach’s fixed point theorem we will see that Lipschitz continuity suffices to prove existence of eigenvectors. Secondly, we study a special class of eigenvectors, namely vectors in the kernel of the operator which fulfill \[eq:EV\] with $\lambda=0$, by definition. These eigenvectors are of special interest since they characterize the most unstable inputs to the neural net. For example, if the net is supposed to denoise images then the kernel can be interpreted as pure noise images. While for linear operators and also for subdifferential operators of homogeneous functionals the kernel can be shown to be a linear space [@bungert2019asymptotic; @bungert2019nonlinear], this is not true for general nonlinear operators. In order to develop a first understanding of the kernel of neural nets we characterize the kernel of ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ networks in the single- and multi-layer case.
Existence of eigenvectors
-------------------------
In order to prove existence of eigenvectors we consider $T$ as an operator $T:U\to U$, where $U\subset{\mathcal{H}}$ is some closed subset of ${\mathcal{H}}$ which meets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:scaling_U}
cU\subset U,\quad\forall 0\leq c\leq 1.\end{aligned}$$ Relevant examples for neural nets are the non-negative orthant $U={\mathbb{R}}^n_+$, the unit cube $U=[0,1]^n$, or the whole space $U={\mathbb{R}}^n$. The infinite-dimensional counterparts of these examples are $L^2$-functions which take only non-negative values or values in $[0,1]$. Our only assumption on the operator $T$ is that it is Lipschitz continuous with some constant $L>0$, meaning $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:lipschitz}
{\left\Vert T(u)-T(v) \right\Vert}\leq L{\left\Vert u-v \right\Vert},\quad u,v\in U.\end{aligned}$$
Under the assumptions \[eq:scaling\_U\] and \[ineq:lipschitz\], operator $T$ has an eigenvector, i.e., there exists $u^*\in U$ and $\lambda>0$ such that $T(u^*)=\lambda u^*$.
The proof uses Banach’s fixed point theorem. If $T$ is Lipschitz continuous with constant $L<1$, then $T$ is a contraction and hence has a unique fix point $u^*\in U$ satisfying $T(u^*)=u^*$.
If the Lipschitz constant $L$ of $T$ is greater or equal than $1$, we define a new map $T_{\varepsilon}:=T/(L+{\varepsilon})$ for ${\varepsilon}>0$, which is a contraction. Furthermore, $T_{\varepsilon}$ maps $U$ into $U$ by the assumption that $cU\subset U$ for $0<c\leq 1$. Hence, reasoning as above, there exists a unique $u^*\in U$ such that $T_{\varepsilon}(u^*)=u^*$, which can be rewritten as $T(u^*)=(L+{\varepsilon})u^*$.
The main drawback of the result above is that one cannot assure that the eigenvector, whose existence is proved, is different from zero. For instance, if it is known that $T(0)=0$ then $0$ is the unique fixed point of $T_{\varepsilon}$.
Hence, in order to show that a given neural net $T$ has an eigenvector, we simply have to make sure $T$ is Lipschitz continuous. This, however, is fulfilled for most networks types.
Deep neural nets of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deep_net}
T(u)=\sigma(A^{(n)}\dots\sigma(A^{(2)}\sigma(A^{(1)}u+b^{(1)})+b^{(2)})\dots+b^{(n)}),\quad u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,\end{aligned}$$ with weight matrices $A^{(k)}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ and bias vectors $b^{(k)}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $k=1,\dots,n$ are Lipschitz continuous if the activation function $\sigma$ is Lipschitz continuous. For most popular choices of $\sigma$ (such as ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$, $\mathrm{TanH}$, $\mathrm{Logistic}$, $\mathrm{SoftPlus}$, etc.) this is fulfilled.
The Kernel of ReLU Networks
---------------------------
As mentioned before we now study the kernel of $T$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kernel}
\mathrm{ker}(T):=\{u\in{\mathcal{H}}{\,:\,}T(u)=0\}.\end{aligned}$$ In the following we study the case where $T$ is a single-layer neural network with ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ activation and sketch how to extend this for multi-layer networks. The fundamental difference between these two cases is that, in general, the kernel is a convex cone for single-layer networks and, more generally, a convex polyhedron in the multi-layer case.
### Single-layer case
We consider a single-layer network of the form $$\begin{aligned}
T(u)=\sigma(Au+b),\quad u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $A\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ is a square weight matrix, $b\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ denotes a bias vector, and $\sigma$ is some activation function with $\sigma(x)=0$ for $x\leq 0$, the prototypical example being $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(x)={\mathrm{ReLU}}(x)=\max(x,0)\end{aligned}$$ or any smoothed version of it. Hence, the kernel of $T$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:RELU_kernel}
\mathrm{ker}(T)=\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}Au+b\leq 0\},\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality should be understood component-wise. We will make one assumption on the weights and biases which allows us to characterize the kernel explicitly. Without this assumption weaker versions of our results remain true.
\[ass:range\_A\] We assume that $b\in{\mathrm{ran}}(A)$.
For the following statements, we need the notion of a convex cone with tip.
A set $C\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is called convex cone with tip $v_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ if $u+\alpha(u-v_0)\in C$ for all $u\in C$ and $\alpha\geq 0$. $C$ is called polyhedral if it can be written as $C=\{u+v_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}Mu\geq 0\}$ with some matrix $M\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$.
The following lemma states that preimages under affine maps preserve convex cones with tips and polyhedrality.
Let $C\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a convex cone with tip $v_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $F:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^n,\; u\mapsto Au+b$, be an affine map. If there is $u_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ meeting $F(u_0)=v_0$, then $D:={\mathrm{preim}}_F(C)$ is a convex cone with tip $u_0$. Furthermore, if $C=\{u+v_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}Mu\geq 0\}$ is polyhedral, so is $D$ and it holds $D=\{u+u_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}MAu\geq 0\}$.
We take an element $u\in D={\mathrm{preim}}_F(C)$, meaning that $F(u)\in C$. We have to show that $u_\alpha:=u+\alpha(u-u_0)\in D$ for any $\alpha\geq 0$. To this end we compute $$\begin{aligned}
F(u+\alpha(u-u_0))&=A(u+\alpha(u-u_0))+b=Au+\alpha Au-\alpha Au_0+b\\
&=Au+b+\alpha(Au+b-(Au_0+b))=F(u)+\alpha(F(u)-F(u_0))\\
&=F(u)+\alpha(F(u)-v_0)\in C,\end{aligned}$$ which follows since $F(u)\in C$ and $C$ is a cone with tip $v_0$. Hence, we have established $u_\alpha\in D$. For the second statement we assume that $C$ is polyhedral and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
D&={\mathrm{preim}}_F(C)=\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}F(u)\in C\}=\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}F(u)=v+v_0,\, Mv\geq 0\}\\
&=\{u+u_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}Au+F(u_0)=v+v_0,\, Mv\geq 0\}\\
&=\{u+u_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}MAu\geq 0\},\end{aligned}$$ where we again used $F(u_0)=v_0$. This shows that $D$ is polyhedral and concludes the proof.
Applying these insights to the kernel \[eq:RELU\_kernel\] of the ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ network $T$, one obtains
\[thm:kernel\_of\_single\_layer\] Under \[ass:range\_A\] the kernel of $T$ is a polyhedral convex cone with tip $u_0$ where $Au_0=-b$. Furthermore, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(T)=\{u+u_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}-Au\geq 0\}.\end{aligned}$$
For the proof one applies the statements above to the affine map $F(u)=Au+b$ and the polyhedral convex cone $C=\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}u\leq 0\}$ with tip $v_0=0$. This cone can be written as $C=\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}Mu\geq 0\}$ where $M:=-\mathbb{I}$ denotes the negative identity matrix.
If one considers activation functions which fulfill $\sigma(x)=0$ if and only if $x=0$, the discussion of the kernel becomes trivial. Either the equation $Au=-b$ has at least one solution, in which case the kernel is a single point or an affine space, or it does not, in which case the kernel is empty.
### Multi-layer case
Now we sketch how the kernel of a deep network can be obtained. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the case of two layers and consider $$\begin{aligned}
T(u)=\sigma(F^{(1)}(\sigma(F^{(2)}(u)))),\quad u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $F^{(k)}(u)=A^{(k)}u+b^{(k)}$ for $k=1,2$, denote the corresponding affine functions. We assume that there is an element $u_0$ which meets $A^{(2)}u_0=-b^{(2)}$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
C^{(2)}:={\mathrm{preim}}_{F^{(2)}}({\mathbb{R}}^n_-)=\{u+u_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}-A^{(2)}u\geq 0\}\end{aligned}$$ from \[thm:kernel\_of\_single\_layer\]. This implies $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(T)&=\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}F^{(2)}(\sigma(F^{(1)}(u)))\leq 0\}=\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n{\,:\,}\sigma(F^{(1)}(u))\in C^{(2)}\}.\end{aligned}$$ At this point one cannot simply take the preimage of $C^{(2)}$ under $F^{(1)}$ to obtain the kernel of $T$, since the activation function $\sigma$ is in the way. However, for ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$-type activation functions one can simplify this to $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(T)={\mathrm{preim}}_{F^{(1)}}\left(C_+^{(2)}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $S_+:=\{\max(u,0){\,:\,}u\in S\}$ denotes the positive part of a set $S\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$. Note than one can write $C_+^{(2)}$ as intersection of two polyhedral cones $C_+^{(2)}=C^{(2)}\cap{\mathbb{R}}^n_+$, which is a polyhedron, i.e., an intersection of finitely many half-spaces. Hence, the kernel is given by the preimage of the polyhedron $C_+^{(2)}$ under the affine map $F^{(1)}$ which is again a polyhedron, according to [@zhang2012polyhedron]. We condense these insights into
Let $T:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a multi-layer neural net with ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ activation, given by \[eq:deep\_net\]. Then $\ker(T)$ is a (possibly unbounded) convex polyhedron.
Note that for deep networks the kernel is found by taking successive preimages of non-negative polyhedra under affine maps and keeping only the positive parts. Hence, the kernel will in general be smaller the larger the numbers of layers is. In particular, if one of the preimages does not intersect the positive orthant, the kernel will be empty.
Analysis of the Nonlinear Power Method
======================================
As a first step towards computing eigenvectors of neural nets, we study \[alg:simple\] below, which is a straightforward generalization of \[alg:lin\] to the nonlinear case, first studied in [@hait2019numeric]. We first repeat some key results from [@hait2019numeric]. Then, we analyze the algorithm for a specific family of nonlinear denoisers, which are proximal operators based on convex, absolutely one-homogeneous regularizers (such as total variation [@burger2013guide] and total generalized variation [@bredies2010total]). We will prove that the proximal power method converges to an eigenvector under natural assumptions. For numerical results with respect to the proximal operator of total variation we refer to [@hait2019numeric]. Note that these homogeneous regularizers are not sensitive to the range of the vectors. However, we will present a toy example of a non-homogeneous single-layer ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ net, showing the limitations of the standard power method and motivating the generalized method defined in \[Sec::adapted\].
A Simple Nonlinear Power Method
-------------------------------
We define the following nonlinear power-iteration algorithm, to which we refer as a *simple* algorithm. This is an immediate generalization of \[alg:lin\], replacing the linear matrix $L$ by a nonlinear operator $T(\cdot)$.
\
**Input:** $f\in {\mathcal{H}}$, $\varepsilon>0$.
1. Initialize: $u^0 \gets f/\|f\|$, $\,\,k \gets 1.$
2. Repeat until $\|u^{k+1}-u^k\|< \varepsilon$:\
$u^{k+1} \gets \frac{T(u^k)}{\|T(u^k)\|}$, $\,\,\,k \gets k+1.$
**Output:** $(u^*, \lambda^*)$, where $u^*=u^k$, $\lambda^*=R(u^*)$, with $R$ defined in \[eq:Rayleigh\].
For \[alg:simple\] to be well defined, we assume that for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ it holds $T(u^k)\neq 0$. For proximal operators this can be shown to be true (cf. \[sec:proximal\_operators\] below). In the following propositions we recall some key properties of \[alg:simple\] from [@hait2019numeric].
\[alg:simple\] converges after a finite number of steps, i.e, there is $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that for all $k>N$ it holds $u^{k+1}=u^k$ **if and only if** $u^k$ solves the eigenproblem \[eq:EV\].
\[prop:Ray\]${ }$\
1. For every $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $|R(u^k)| \leq \|T(u^k)\|$. This holds in equality **if and only if** $u^k$ solves the eigenproblem \[eq:EV\].
2. If exactly at iteration $k=N$ \[alg:simple\] converged, then for all $k<N, |R(u^k)|<{\left\Vert T(u^k) \right\Vert}$, and for all $k\geq N, |R(u^k)|={\left\Vert T(u^k) \right\Vert}$.
\[prop:theta\] The angle between $u^k$ and $T(u^k)$ is $\pi n$ for $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ **if and only if** $u^k$ solves the eigenproblem \[eq:EV\].
In our numerical experiments a Rayleigh quotient which reaches a constant value serves as a good indication for convergence to an eigenvector. For the operators tested, the Rayleigh quotient approximately increases to the eigenvalue, however, a general proof for this is pending. As discussed in \[Sec::def\], we also aim to reach an angle \[eq:Theta\] close to $0$, which will serve as our validation measure. Hence, we define
\[def::approx\_eigen\] We call $u$ an approximate (positive) eigenvector of $T$ if the angle $\theta$ given by \[eq:Theta\] meets $0 < \theta < 0.5^\circ$ ($1^\circ=\pi/180$).
We now examine the behavior of \[alg:simple\] in two different cases. On one hand, we prove its convergence to a non-trivial eigenvector for proximal operators. On the other hand, we present a very simple toy example for the far more complex, non-homogeneous neural network, for which \[alg:simple\] is not able to produce meaningful eigenvectors.
Analysis of a Proximal Power Method {#sec:proximal_operators}
-----------------------------------
In this section we analyse a nonlinear power method associated to the proximal operator of a convex functional. Let $J:{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\infty\}$ be an absolutely one-homogeneous, convex, and lower semi-continuous functional, defined on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. Absolute one-homogeneity means that for all $u\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and numbers $c\neq 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
J(cu)=|c|J(u),\quad J(0)=0.\end{aligned}$$ For detailed properties of such functionals see [@bungert2019nonlinear; @burger2016spectral]. The proximal operator of $J$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prox}
{\operatorname{prox}}_\alpha^J(u):={\mathrm{arg}\min}_{v\in{\mathcal{H}}}\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v-u \right\Vert}^2+\alpha J(v),\end{aligned}$$ where $f\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\alpha\geq 0$ denotes the regularization parameter. A prototypical example for $J$ is given by the total variation, defined on the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}=L^2(\Omega)$ by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tv}
J(u)=
\sup\left\lbrace\int_\Omega u{\operatorname{div}}\phi{\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,:\,}\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega),\,{\left\Vert \phi \right\Vert}_{\infty}\leq 1\right\rbrace,\quad u\in L^2(\Omega).\end{aligned}$$ In this case the proximal operator \[eq:prox\] coincides with the solution of the famous Rudin-Osher-Fatemi model [@rudin1992nonlinear]. We will now analyze \[alg:simple\] with the nonlinear operator $$\label{eq:Tu_prox}
T(u) = {\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u)}^J(u).$$ Here $\alpha(u)$ denotes regularization parameters which are allowed to depend on $u$. Constant parameters can be considered by setting $\alpha(u)\equiv\alpha>0$. For the analysis we also introduce $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{N}}(J)=\{u\in{\mathcal{H}}{\,:\,}J(u)=0\},\end{aligned}$$ which is referred to as null-space of $J$ and indeed is a linear space [@bungert2019solution]. An assumption which does not restrict generality but simplifies the notation is that one considers the proximal operator \[eq:prox\] acting on $u\in{\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp$ only. Here ${\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp$ denotes the orthogonal complement of the null-space. This is due to the fact that it holds $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{prox}}_\alpha^J(u)={\operatorname{prox}}_\alpha^J(u-\overline{u})+\overline{u},\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{u}\in{\mathcal{N}}(J)$ denotes the orthogonal projection of $u\in{\mathcal{H}}$ onto ${\mathcal{N}}(J)$. Furthermore, ${\operatorname{prox}}_\alpha^J(u)\in{\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp$ if $u\in{\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp$. If, for example, $J$ equals the total variation, then the null-space consists of constant functions and its orthogonal complement is given by all zero-mean functions. In this case, the proximal operator is invariant under the mean value $\overline{u}$ its input $u\in L^2(\Omega)$.
To show convergence of power method associated to the operator $T$ in \[eq:Tu\_prox\], we need two standing assumptions on the interplay between the functional $J$ and the Hilbert norm ${\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert}$.
\[ass:poincare\] There is a constant $c_P>0$ such that $c_P{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}\leq J(u)$ for all $u\in{\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp$.
\[ass:compact\] The sub-level sets of ${\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert}+J(\cdot)$ are compact.
A relevant example where \[ass:poincare\] and \[ass:compact\] are fulfilled is $J(u)={\left\Vert \nabla u \right\Vert}_{p}$, where $p\in\left(\frac{2n}{n+2},\infty\right]$ and $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain with $n\geq 2$ (cf. [@bungert2019asymptotic] and [@bungert2020structural] for $p=\infty$). Note that in the relevant case that $J$ equals the total variation \[eq:tv\] the assumptions hold true only in dimension $n=1$, since the compact embedding $\mathrm{BV}(\Omega)\Subset L^2(\Omega)$ exists only in one dimension. In two dimensions the embedding is only continuous and in higher dimensions it does not even exist. However, by demanding additional regularity for the initial condition $u^0$ of the power method, as for instance $u^0\in L^\infty(\Omega)$, one can show that \[ass:poincare\] and \[ass:compact\] hold true *along* the sequence which is generated by the iteration (cf. [@bungert2019nonlinear]).
If ${\mathcal{H}}$ is finite-dimensional and $J$ is norm on a subspace of ${\mathcal{H}}$, then both assumptions are met due to the equivalence of norms in finite dimensions.
In the following, we will need an important result (see for instance [@bauschke2011convex]) which characterizes the subdifferential of absolutely one-homogeneous functionals
\[prop:subdifferential\] Let $J:{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\infty\}$ be convex and absolutely one-homogeneous.Then its subdifferential in $u\in{\mathcal{H}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial J(u)=\{p\in{\mathcal{H}}{\,:\,}\langle p,v\rangle\leq J(v),\,\forall v\in{\mathcal{H}},\,\langle p,u\rangle=J(u)\}.\end{aligned}$$
Our first result characterizes the maximal regularization parameter $\alpha(u)$ in \[eq:Tu\_prox\] such that the power method \[alg:simple\] is well-defined.
\[prop:extinction\] For $u\in {\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp$ it holds that $T(u)={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u)}^J(u)=0$ if and only if $\alpha(u)\geq{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_*$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dual_norm}
{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_*:=\sup_{p\in {\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp}\frac{\langle u,p\rangle}{J(p)}\geq\frac{{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2}{J(u)}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, equality holds in \[eq:dual\_norm\] if and only if $u$ is an eigenvector of $\partial J$, meaning $\lambda u\in\partial J(u)$ for $\lambda=J(u)/{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2$.
The first claim was proved in [@bungert2019solution] and we just show the second one. By choosing $p=u$ in the supremum one always has ${\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_*\geq{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2/J(u)$. If $u$ is an eigenvector there is $\lambda\geq 0$ such that $\lambda u\in\partial J(u)$. Using \[prop:subdifferential\] we can draw two conclusions. First of all, it holds $\langle\lambda u,u\rangle =J(u)$ and hence $\lambda=J(u)/{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2$. Secondly, one has $\langle\lambda u,p\rangle\leq J(p)$ for all $p\in{\mathcal{H}}$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_*=\sup_{p\in {\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp}\frac{\langle u,p\rangle}{J(p)}=\frac{1}{\lambda}\sup_{p\in {\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp}\frac{\langle\lambda u,p\rangle}{J(p)}\leq\frac{1}{\lambda}=\frac{{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2}{J(u)},\end{aligned}$$ such that ${\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_\ast={\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2/J(u)$. Conversely, if ${\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_\ast={\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2/J(u)$ then one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\lambda u,v\rangle=\lambda J(v)\frac{\langle u,v\rangle}{J(v)}\leq\lambda J(v){\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_\ast=J(v),\quad\forall v\in{\mathcal{H}},\end{aligned}$$ for $\lambda = J(u)/{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2$. Hence, $\lambda u\in\partial J(u)$.
\[cor:well-defined\] Let $\alpha(u)$ in \[eq:Tu\_prox\] satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(u)<{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_\ast\end{aligned}$$ Then for all initial conditions $f\in{\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp$ the power method \[alg:simple\] is well-defined.
By \[prop:extinction\] we know that $T(u^k)={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u^k)}^J(u^k)\neq 0$ if and only if $\alpha(u^k)<{\left\Vert u^k \right\Vert}_*$. Hence $u^{k+1}\gets{T(u^k)}/{{\left\Vert T(u^k) \right\Vert}}$ in \[alg:simple\] is well-defined.
Next, we show that the functional values $J(u^k)$ decrease along \[alg:simple\]. This will be the key ingredient for convergence of the algorithm and follows from
\[prop:decrease\_rayleigh\] Let $u\in{\mathcal{N}}(J)^\perp\cap{{\mathrm{dom}}}(J)\setminus\{0\}$, $v:={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u)}^J(f)$, and $\alpha(u)<{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_*$. Then it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:decrease}
\frac{J(v)}{{\left\Vert v \right\Vert}}\leq\frac{J(u)}{{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}}\end{aligned}$$ with equality if and only if $\lambda u\in\partial J(u)$ for $\lambda=J(u)/{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2$.
The optimality of $v$ means that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v-u \right\Vert}^2+\alpha(u)J(v)\leq\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert w-u \right\Vert}^2+\alpha(u)J(w),\quad\forall w\in{\mathcal{H}},\end{aligned}$$ with equality if and only if $w=v$, due to the strict convexity of the objective functional. We define $w:=\frac{{\left\Vert v \right\Vert}}{{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}}u$ which meets $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert w-u \right\Vert}^2={\left\Vert w \right\Vert}^2-2\langle w,u\rangle+{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2
={\left\Vert v \right\Vert}^2-2{\left\Vert v \right\Vert}{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}+{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2
\leq{\left\Vert v-u \right\Vert}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging this into the optimality above yields $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(u)J(v)\leq\alpha(u)J(w)=\alpha(u)\frac{{\left\Vert v \right\Vert}}{{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}}J(u).\end{aligned}$$ From \[prop:extinction\] we infer that $v\neq 0$. Hence, we can divide by ${\left\Vert v \right\Vert}$, cancel $\alpha(u)$, and arrive at the assertion. Equality holds if and only if $$v=w=\frac{{\left\Vert v \right\Vert}}{{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}}u=cu$$ where $c:={\left\Vert v \right\Vert}/{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}>0$. The optimality condition for problem \[eq:prox\] is given by $$\frac{u-v}{\alpha(u)}\in\partial J(v).$$ Plugging in the expression for $v$ yields $$\frac{1-c}{\alpha(u)}u\in\partial J(u),$$ where we used that $\partial J(v)=\partial J(cu)=\partial J(u)$ since $c>0$ and $J$ is absolutely one-homogeneous (cf. [@bungert2019nonlinear]). Hence, we get $\lambda u\in\partial J(u)$ with $\lambda={(1-c)}/{\alpha(u)}={J(u)}/{{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2}$.
As mentioned above we can now prove that the power method decreases the energy $J$.
\[cor:decrease\_J\] Let $\alpha(u)<{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_\ast$ in \[eq:Tu\_prox\]. Then the iterates of \[alg:simple\] fulfill $$\begin{aligned}
J(u^{k+1})&\leq J(u^k),
$$ with equality if and only if $\lambda u^k\in\partial J(u^k)$ for $\lambda=J(u^k)/{\left\Vert u^k \right\Vert}^2$.
Applying \[prop:decrease\_rayleigh\] to $u=u^k$ and $v=T(u^k)$ yields $$J(u^{k+1})=J\left(\frac{T(u^k)}{{\left\Vert T(u^k) \right\Vert}}\right)=\frac{J(T(u^k))}{{\left\Vert T(u^k) \right\Vert}}\leq\frac{J(u^k)}{{\left\Vert u^k \right\Vert}}=J(u^k),$$ where we used the absolute one-homogeneity of $J$ and ${\left\Vert u^k \right\Vert}=1$.
Some remarks regarding the admissible choice of $\alpha(u)$ are in order.
For a quick algorithm one does not have to compute the dual norm ${\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_\ast$, which bounds the admissible regularization parameters $\alpha(u)$, explicitly. Instead, one can make use of the lower bound ${\left\Vert u \right\Vert}_\ast\geq{\left\Vert u \right\Vert}^2/J(u)$ which was derived in \[prop:extinction\].
Of course, choosing a constant regularization parameter in \[eq:Tu\_prox\], which does not depend on the previous iterate, is possible. Let to this end choose $\alpha(u)\equiv\alpha<1/J(u^0)$ for all $u\in{\mathcal{H}}$. Then by \[cor:decrease\_J\] it holds that $\alpha(u^k)<1/J(u^0)\leq 1/J(u^k)$ for any $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and hence the power method \[alg:simple\] is well-defined according to \[cor:well-defined\].
Before we can prove our main theorem, the convergence of the proximal power method, we need a lemma which studies continuity properties of the operator \[eq:Tu\_prox\].
\[lem:convergences\] Let $(u^k)\subset{\mathcal{H}}$ be a sequence converging to $u^*$, and let $v^k:={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u^k)}^J(u^k)$ for $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. If the sequence of regularization parameters fulfills $\lim_{k\to\infty}\alpha(u^k)=\alpha^*>0$ then $(v^k)$ converges to some $v^*\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and it holds $v^*={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha^*}^J(u^*)$.
From the optimality of $v^k$ we deduce $$\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v^k-u^k \right\Vert}^2+\alpha(u^k)J(v^k)\leq\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v-u^k \right\Vert}^2+\alpha(u^k)J(v),\quad\forall v\in{\mathcal{H}}.$$ Choosing $v=0$, we can infer $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:optimality_vk}
\limsup_{k\to\infty}\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v^k-u^k \right\Vert}^2+\alpha(u^k)J(v^k)\leq\limsup_{k\to\infty}\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert u^k \right\Vert}^2<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ since $(u^k)$ is a convergent sequence and hence bounded. By triangle inequality it holds $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}\leq{\left\Vert v^k-u^k \right\Vert}+{\left\Vert u^k \right\Vert}\end{aligned}$$ which together with \[ineq:optimality\_vk\] shows that $\limsup_{k\to\infty}{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}<\infty$. Furthermore, since we have assumed that $\lim_{k\to\infty}\alpha(u^k)=\alpha^*>0$, we also get that $\limsup_{k\to\infty}J(v^k)<\infty$. Hence, by \[ass:compact\] a subsequence of $(v^k)$ converges to some $v^*\in{\mathcal{H}}$. Using lower semi-continuity of $J$ and the strong convergences of $(u^k)$ and $(v^k)$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v^*-u^* \right\Vert}^2+\alpha^*J(v^*)&\leq\liminf_{k\to\infty}\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v^k-u^k \right\Vert}^2+\alpha(u^k)J(u^k)\\
&\leq\liminf_{k\to\infty}\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v-u^k \right\Vert}+\alpha(u^k)J(v)
=\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v-u^* \right\Vert}^2+\alpha^*J(v),\quad\forall v\in{\mathcal{H}}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that $v^*={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha^*}^J(u^*)$. The same argument shows that in fact every convergent subsequence of $(v^k)$ converges to $v^*$ and hence the whole sequence $(v^k)$ converges to $v^*$.
In the previous lemma we have seen that the choice of regularization parameters $\alpha(u)$ cannot be arbitrary but must be such that along a convergent sequence $(u^k)$ also $\alpha(u^k)$ converges to some positive value. In the following, we thus fix two possible parameter choices which have this property and are feasible in practical applications.
Let $u^0\in{\mathcal{H}}$ with ${\left\Vert u^0 \right\Vert}=1$ and $0<J(u^0)<\infty$, and let $c\in(0,1)$ be a constant. We define the *constant parameter rule* for $T$ given by \[eq:Tu\_prox\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(u)=\frac{c}{J(u^0)}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we define the *variable parameter rule* as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(u)=\frac{c}{J(u)}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we are ready to prove convergence of the proximal power method using constant or variable regularization parameters.
\[thm:convergence\_proximal\] Let $(u^k)\subset{\mathcal{H}}$ be the sequence generated by the power method \[alg:simple\] associated to the operator $T(u)={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u)}^J(u)$ with *constant* or *variable parameter rule*. Under \[ass:poincare\] and \[ass:compact\] a subsequence of $(u^k)$ converges to some $u^*\in{\mathcal{H}}\setminus\{0\}$ which meets $\lambda u^*=T(u^*)$ for some $0<\lambda<1$.
Since by assumption the sublevel sets of ${\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert}+J(\cdot)$ are compact and according to \[cor:decrease\_J\] sequence $(u^k)$ fulfills $$\sup_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}{\left\Vert u^k \right\Vert}+J(u^k)\leq 1+J(u^0)<\infty,$$ it admits a convergent subsequence (which we do not relabel). We denote by $u^*$ its limit and note that it fulfills $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert u^* \right\Vert}=1,\qquad
J(u^*)\leq\liminf_{k\to\infty}J(u^k),\end{aligned}$$ by lower semi-continuity of $J$. For the constant parameter rule it is trivial that $\alpha(u^k)$ converges to some positive value. Let us therefore study the variable parameter rule $\alpha(u^k):=c/J(u^k)$ with $0<c<1$. Then according to \[cor:well-defined\] it holds that $\alpha(u^k)$ is an increasing sequence which is bounded by $\alpha(u^k)\leq\frac{c}{c_P}$, where $c_P$ denotes the Poincaré-type constant from \[ass:poincare\]. Hence, $\lim_{k\to\infty}\alpha(u^k)=\alpha^*$ exists and by lower semi-continuity of $J$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:estimate_alpha*}
\alpha^*=\lim_{k\to\infty}\alpha(u^k)=\frac{c}{\liminf_{k\to\infty}J(u^k)}\leq\frac{c}{J(u^*)}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying \[lem:convergences\] gives that $v^k:={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u^k)}^J(u^k)$ converges to some $v^*\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and it holds $v^*={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha^*}^J(u^*)$. Note that \[ineq:estimate\_alpha\*\] together with \[prop:extinction\] implies that $v^*\neq 0$.
It remains to be shown that $v^*$ and $u^*$ are collinear since this implies that $u^*$ is an eigenvector. To this end, we note that by \[lem:collinearity\] below it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}-\langle v^k,u^k\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$ Using $v^k\to v^*$ and $u^k\to u^*$ we get ${\left\Vert v^* \right\Vert}=\langle v^*,u^*\rangle$ which readily implies $u^*={v^*}/{\left\Vert v^* \right\Vert}$. Hence, we infer $${\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha^*}^J(u^*)=v^*={\left\Vert v^* \right\Vert}u^*=\tilde{\lambda} u^*$$ with $\tilde{\lambda}:={\left\Vert v^* \right\Vert}>0$. Note that $\tilde{\lambda}\leq 1$ since the proximal operator has unitary Lipschitz constant and thus meets $$\tilde{\lambda}{\left\Vert u^* \right\Vert}={\left\Vert {\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha^*}^J(u^*)-{\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha^*}^J(0) \right\Vert}\leq{\left\Vert u^* \right\Vert}.$$ Indeed, it even holds $\tilde{\lambda}<1$ since otherwise the optimality condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:OC}
\frac{1-\tilde{\lambda}}{\alpha^*}u^*\in\partial J(u^*)\end{aligned}$$ of problem \[eq:prox\] would reduce to $0\in\partial J(u^*)$ which means $J(u^*)=0$. Due to ${\left\Vert u^* \right\Vert}=1$ and \[ass:poincare\] this is impossible. It remains to be shown that it also holds $\lambda u^*=T(u^*)={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u^*)}^J(u^*)$ for a suitable $\lambda\in(0,1)$. For the constant parameter rule this is trivially true with $\lambda=\tilde{\lambda}$. Otherwise, we rewrite \[eq:OC\] as $\mu u^*\in\partial J(u^*)$ where $\mu:=(1-\tilde{\lambda})/\alpha^*$. Hence, $T(u^*)$ can be explicitly computed (see [@benning2013ground], for instance): $$T(u^*)={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u^*)}^J(u^*)=(1-\alpha(u^*)\mu)_+u^*=\lambda u^*$$ with $\lambda:=(1-\alpha(u^*)\mu)_+\leq\tilde{\lambda}<1$. Since $\alpha(u^*)=c/J(u^*)<{\left\Vert u^* \right\Vert}_*$, \[prop:extinction\] tells us that $\lambda>0$.
\[lem:collinearity\] Under the conditions of \[thm:convergence\_proximal\] it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:collinearity}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}-\langle v^k,u^k\rangle=0,\end{aligned}$$
To show \[eq:collinearity\], we note that by definition of $v^k={\operatorname{prox}}_{\alpha(u^k)}^J(u^k)$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v^k-u^k \right\Vert}^2+\alpha(u^k)J(v^k)\leq\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v-u^k \right\Vert}^2+\alpha(u^k)J(v),\quad\forall v\in{\mathcal{H}}.\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $v={\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}u^k$, expanding the squared norms, and using ${\left\Vert u^k \right\Vert}=1$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}^2-\langle v^k,u^k\rangle+\frac{1}{2}+\alpha(u^k)J(v^k)\leq\frac{1}{2}{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}^2-{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}+\frac{1}{2}+\alpha(u^k){\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}J(u^k).\end{aligned}$$ This can be simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}-\langle v^k,u^k\rangle\leq \alpha(u^k){\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}\left(J(u^k)-\frac{1}{{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}}J(v^k)\right).\end{aligned}$$ First we note $\alpha(u^k){\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}$ is uniformly bounded by some $C>0$. This is due to the fact that ${\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}$ is bounded since $v^k\to v^*$ and the estimate $$\alpha(u^k)\leq\frac{c}{J(u^k)}$$ where $J(u^k)$ is uniformly bounded away from zero thanks to \[ass:poincare\]. Using that by definition $u^{k+1}=v^k/{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}-\langle v^k,u^k\rangle\leq C\left(J(u^k)-J(u^{k+1})\right).\end{aligned}$$ If we sum this inequality we obtain a telescopic sum on the right hand side which is uniformly bounded. Hence, using also that the left hand side is non-negative, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\left\Vert v^k \right\Vert}-\langle v^k,u^k\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$
Networks: A Toy Example
-----------------------
Here we study an extremely simple “2-pixel” network with ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ activation function. It is shown that nonlinearity plays a crucial role in such networks, where the operating range is critical. Unlike the one-homogeneous case of previous section, applying \[alg:simple\] directly results in reaching only degenerate solutions. This motivates us in the next section to develop a range-aware algorithm, which fits better to nonlinear operators, working only within an expected range.
For the linear eigenproblem \[eq:EV\_lin\] it is clear that, by linearity, every multiple of $u$ is an eigenvector with eigenvalue $\lambda$, as well. For nonlinear maps, such as neural nets, this is typically not the case, as the following example shows. Let us consider the map $T:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$, given by a simple one-layer ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ network $$T(u)={\mathrm{ReLU}}\left[
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
u_1\\
u_2
\end{pmatrix}
+\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
-1
\end{pmatrix}
\right]=
\begin{pmatrix}
\max(1-u_1,0)\\
\max(u_2-1,0)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ After some calculations one easily sees that the set of eigenvectors of $T$ consists of the four different sets with respective eigenvalues, given by $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
S_1&=\{(\alpha,0){\,:\,}0<\alpha< 1\}, \quad&&\lambda_1=\frac{1-\alpha}{\alpha},\\
S_2&=\left\lbrace\left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha},\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\right){\,:\,}0<\alpha<1\right\rbrace,\quad&&\lambda_2=\alpha,\\
S_3&=\{(\alpha,0){\,:\,}\alpha< 0\},\quad&&\lambda_3=\frac{1-\alpha}{\alpha},\\
S_4&=\{(u_1,u_2){\,:\,}u_1\geq 1,\;u_2\leq 1\},\quad&&\lambda_4=0.\end{aligned}$$
[r]{}[0.45]{}
plot (,[0\*]{}) ; plot (,[0\*]{}) ; plot (,[0\*]{}) ; plot (,[/(2\*-1)]{}) ; plot (,[/(2\*-1)]{}) ; (1,1) rectangle (2.5,-1.5); (2.6,-0.25)–(2.9,-0.25); (1.75,-1.6)–(1.75,-1.9); at (.5,0) [$S_1$]{}; at (.4,2) [$S_2$]{}; at (-1,0) [$S_3$]{}; at (2,1) [$S_4$]{}; (-2,0) – (2,0) node\[right\] [$u_1$]{}; (0,-1.5) – (0,2) node\[above\] [$u_2$]{}; (1,-2pt)–(1,2pt) node\[below\] [$1$]{}; (-2pt,1)–(2pt,1) node\[left\] [$1$]{};
\[fig:all\_eigenvectors\] shows the sets of eigenvectors. So does the simple \[alg:simple\] manage to find eigenvectors of $T$? Since by definition $T$ only returns non-negative vectors, one can never compute the negative eigenvectors in $S_3$. Furthermore, due to normalization, one can only find eigenvectors with unit norm. The only non-negative eigenvector with unit norm is $(1,0)$, which lies in $S_4$, the set of eigenvectors with eigenvalue zero, i.e., the kernel of $T$. Indeed, one can check that for all initializations $u^0\notin S_4=\ker(T)$, \[alg:simple\] converges to $(1,0)\in S_4$ in a finite number of steps. However, the more interesting eigenvectors in $S_1$, $S_2$ or $S_3$ cannot be reached, since the simple \[alg:simple\] ignores the “natural range” where $T$ operates.
Proposed Method for Range-Sensitive Operators {#Sec::adapted}
=============================================
In the linear case, any eigenvector multiplied by a constant is an eigenvector with the same eigenvalue. In fact, for any homogeneous operator of degree $p\in [0,\infty)$ (i.e. $T(cu)=|c|^pu$), if $u$ is an eigenvector with eigenvalue $\lambda$, so is $cu$, $c\in {\mathbb{R}}$ with eigenvalue $\lambda |c|^{p-1}$. Thus, eigenvectors are not restricted to a certain range of values. For more general nonlinear operators, however, the range of the vector is important. The operator and its respective eigenvectors may be range-sensitive. We shall now see how very common assumptions for images and denoisers yield that eigenvectors, as defined until now, exist only for unit eigenvalues. We thus later give a more relaxed definition. We discuss the finite-dimensional case ${\mathcal{H}}={\mathbb{R}}^n$ since we aim at designing a power method for imaging / network purposes. Hence, we view the denoising network as operator $T:U\to U$, where $U\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ meets \[eq:scaling\_U\]. To this end, we state two canonical assumptions on the nature of the denoising network $T$ under consideration:
Pixel values are in a specific predefined range, typically non-negative, and usually either $[0,1]$ or $[0,255]$. A nonlinear operator $T$ stemming from a neural network is usually trained on images within a predefined range. Thus at inference unexpected results may be produced, if the input image is not in the expected range.
\[ass:unbiased\] Common denoisers are designed for additive white noise (either Gaussian or uniform) of expected value zero. Thus it is common that a denoiser $T$ preserves the mean image value, which can be expressed as $\langle T(u),1 \rangle = \langle u,1 \rangle$.
The second assumption severely restricts possible eigenvalues of the denoiser:
For any vector $u\neq 0$ with non-negative entries and a denoiser $T$ admitting \[ass:unbiased\] above, if $u$ is an eigenvector, as in \[eq:EV\], then $\lambda=1$.
If $u$ is an eigenvector with eigenvalue $\lambda$ it holds $\langle u,1\rangle=\langle T(u),1\rangle=\lambda\langle u,1\rangle$ due to \[ass:unbiased\]. Since $u$ has non-negative values (and is not identically zero) we know $\langle u,1 \rangle >0$. Hence, we can cancel $\langle u,1\rangle$ and obtain $\lambda=1$.
Another issue is the invariance to a constant shift in illumination. We expect the behavior of $T$ to be invariant to a small global shift in image values. That is, $T(u+c) = T(u) + c$, for any $c \in \mathbb{R}$, such that $(u+c) \in U$. We thus relax the basic eigenproblem \[eq:EV\] as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:new_eigenproblem}
{T(u)-\overline{T(u)}}= \lambda ({u-\overline{u}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$, $\bar u=\langle 1,u \rangle /|\Omega|$ is the mean value of $u$ over the image domain $\Omega$. Note that now (relaxed) eigenvectors, admitting \[Eq:new\_eigenproblem\], can have any eigenvalue, keeping the assumptions stated above. In addition, if $u$ is an eigenvector, so is $u+c$, as expected for operators with invariance to global value shifts.
Associated to this adapted eigenproblem, we define a suitable Rayleigh quotient as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Rayleigh_new}
R^\dagger(u)=\frac{\langle u-\overline{u},T(u)-\overline{T(u)}\rangle}{{\left\Vert u-\overline{u} \right\Vert}^2}\end{aligned}$$ which still has the property that $\lambda=R^\dagger(u)$ whenever $u$ fulfills the eigenvalue problem \[Eq:new\_eigenproblem\].
A similar relaxation of the eigenvalue problem can be done for general Hilbert spaces if one replaces the mean $\overline{u}$ by the projection onto a closed subspace and $u-\overline{u}$ by the projection onto the respective orthogonal complement. By choosing different subspaces (e.g. constant functions, affine functions, etc.) one can create different eigenvalue problems.
\
**Input:** $f\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\varepsilon\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$.
1. Initialize: $u^0 \gets f$, $\,\,k \gets 1.$
2. Repeat until $\|u^{k+1}-u^k\|< \varepsilon$:\
$u^{k+1} \gets T(u^k)$\
$u^{k+1} \gets u^{k+1}-\overline{u^{k+1}}$\
$u^{k+1} \gets \frac{ u^{k+1}}{\| u^{k+1}\|}\|u^0-\overline{u^0} \|$\
$u^{k+1} \gets u^{k+1} + \overline{u^k}, \,\,\,k \gets k+1.$
**Output:** $(u^*, \lambda^*)$, where $u^*=u^k$, $\lambda^*=R^\dagger(u^*)$, with $R^\dagger$ defined in \[eq:Rayleigh\_new\].
The modified power method is detailed in \[AlgPower2\], aiming at computing a relaxed eigenvector \[Eq:new\_eigenproblem\] by explicitly handling the mean value and keeping the norm of the initial condition. We found this adaptation to perform well on denoising networks.
Numerical results
=================
Eigenvectors of Shallow Denoising Networks
------------------------------------------
In this section, we present experimental results for the following basic denoising networks: $$\begin{aligned}
T(u)=
\begin{cases}
Au&\texttt{Linear},\\
\sigma(Au)&\texttt{ReLU},\\
\sigma(A_2\sigma(A_1u))&\texttt{AutoEncoder},\\
\sigma(B\sigma(Cu))&\texttt{ConvNet},
\end{cases}
\quad u\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ denotes ${\mathrm{ReLU}}$ activation and $n=28^2=784$ denotes image size. The involved matrices in the `Linear`, `ReLU`, and `AutoEncoder` nets are $A\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$, $A_1\in{\mathbb{R}}^{f\times n}$, and $A_2\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times f}$, where `SmallAE` and `LargeAE` denote feature space sizes $f=25$ and $f=200$, respectively. The convolutional layer $C$ in `ConvNet` produces 16 kernels of size $6\times 4$, and the subsequent fully connected layer corresponds to a matrix $B\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$. The networks were trained on 5000 pairs of noisy and clean images from the MNIST database with values in $[0,1]$.
We use the simple \[alg:simple\] to compute eigenvectors of the net. This seems reasonable, since all nets are positively homogeneous due to the lack of bias terms. All eigenvectors computed fulfill ${\left\Vert \lambda u-T(u) \right\Vert}<10^{-7}$ where $\lambda={\left\Vert T(u) \right\Vert}$ denotes the eigenvalue. This means they fulfill the eigenvector relation with high numerical accuracy. The eigenvectors and corresponding eigenvalues are shown in \[fig:mnist\_eigenvectors\]. Furthermore, \[tab:rmse\] shows the Root Mean Squared Errors (RMSE) of the trained networks on an unseen test set of MNIST digits.
One should remark that the eigenvectors of the `Linear` net were computed with standard methods[^1], since they coincide with eigenvectors of the matrix $A$. Indeed, in our experiments $A$ had several eigenvectors with real eigenvalues, but we only show the three with the largest eigenvalue. Similarly, for the other nets we show all eigenvectors that we were able to compute using different initializations of \[alg:simple\]. For each network, we initialized the power method with 36 different images, being zero apart from a single pixel with varying position.
While by this method most nets only exhibit one to three different eigenvectors, the `LargeAE` net shows eleven different eigenvectors. Furthermore, some of the eigenvectors of the `Linear` and `LargeAE` nets show remarkable similarity with handwritten digits. This could indicate overfitting, which is also supported by the relatively low RMSE of these nets (\[tab:rmse\]). On the other hand, the `SmallAE` network, having by far the smallest number of parameters, exhibits only one eigenvector and has larger RMSE. This might indicate that this network is not very much bound to the training data and has few invariances.
Network `Linear` `ReLU` `SmallAE` `LargeAE` `ConvNet`
--------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- -----------
RMSE 0.097345 0.083013 0.13968 0.097402 0.083913
: Root Mean Squared Errors of the networks on an unseen test set of MNIST digits[]{data-label="tab:rmse"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
Approximate Eigenvectors as Stable and Unstable Modes of Deep Denoising Nets {#sec:approx_eig}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we analyze eigenproblems for deep denoising nets. Directly applying \[alg:simple\] for these nets results in less meaningful results (cf. \[Fig::simple\_for\_FFDnet\]), due their unique nature, as detailed in \[Sec::adapted\]. Thus, we use the adapted eigenproblem \[Eq:new\_eigenproblem\] and \[AlgPower2\].
The resulting solutions can only be regraded as approximate eigenvectors, since they do not accurately solve the eigenproblem (see \[def::approx\_eigen\], using degrees throughout the paper). Thus, we address these solutions as stable and unstable modes of the denoiser. Stable modes are optimal inputs for the denoiser, achieving superior PSNR in noise removal, and corresponding to large eigenvalues. We also show a method for generating unstable modes, which are strongly suppressed by the denoiser and correspond to small eigenvalues.
[r]{}[0.6]{}
[0.19]{} {height="1.8cm"}
[0.19]{}
[0.19]{}
\[Fig::better\_removal\] shows a known behavior of stable and unstable modes: the denoiser better removes noise from its stable modes, than from natural images. Much poorer noise removal is achieved when denoising its unstable modes, which are approximately as unstable as noise itself. We show such stable and unstable modes for the FFDnet [@zhang2018ffdnet] (\[Sec::FFDnet\]) and DnCNN [@zhang2017beyond] (\[Sec::DnCNN\]) deep denoising nets. Throughout our experiments, we validate these are stable modes following \[def::approx\_eigen\] and \[prop:Ray\] and \[prop:theta\] (see [@hait2019numeric]). First, the Rayleigh quotient $R^\dagger(u)$ stabilizes to a value $\lambda$. Second, the angle $\theta$ between $u^k$ and $T(u^k)$ decreases to approximately zero. Also, the eigenproblem \[Eq:new\_eigenproblem\] approximately holds for each pixel.
[0.17]{} {width="1.8cm"}
[0.15]{} {width="1.8cm"}
[0.15]{} {width="1.8cm"}
[0.15]{} {width="1.8cm"}
[0.17]{} {width="1.8cm"}
[0.15]{} {width="1.8cm"}
\
coordinates [(1,-11.78)]{}; coordinates [(2,-11.8544) (3,-11.7956) (4,-11.7759)]{}; coordinates [(5,3.8982) (6,5.1825) (7,7.7979)]{}; coordinates [(8,12.3467) (9,14.8279) (10,19.1838) (11,19.3078) (12,20.8687)]{};
### FFDnet Deep Denoising Net {#Sec::FFDnet}
We first present results of \[AlgPower2\] for the FFDnet deep denoising [@zhang2018ffdnet].
#### Nature of Operator
We demonstrate the smoothing nature of FFDnet by iterative denoising (no power method) using 500 iterations in \[Fig::FFDnet\_nature\].
#### Stable Modes
\[Fig::FFDnet\] shows the evolution of the power method to the final stable modes, using FFDnet on three different initial images. Eigenvalues are larger than but very close to 1, which is unusual for a denoiser (see Cor. 1 in [@hait2019numeric]). The stable modes differ from each other, each depending on its initial condition. Modes were validated following the framework detailed in \[sec:approx\_eig\].
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
\
[0.24]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.45]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.24]{} {height="2cm"}
\
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.18]{} {width="70.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
#### Further Stable Modes
\[Fig::FFDnet\_horse\_2nd\_3rd\] shows further stable modes using FFDnet with initial condition `horse`. We here follow the concept introduced in Algorithm 4 in [@hait2019numeric]. Given previously attained stable modes, we first perform a small number of power iterations with projections onto the space orthogonal to these modes, to ensure sufficient deviation and avoid recurrence of stable modes. We then perform the regular nonlinear power method to reach as state which meets \[Eq:new\_eigenproblem\]. Eigenvalues are now smaller than but very close to 1, as expected from a denoiser (see Cor. 1 in [@hait2019numeric]). In this example, the eigenvalues meet $\lambda_1>\lambda_2>\lambda_3$, but this cannot be guaranteed in general.
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
#### Unstable Modes
We follow Section 2.6 in [@hait2019numeric] to reveal unstable modes of the denoiser. We construct the complementary texture generator operator, $T^\dagger(u) := u-T(u)$. \[Fig::FFDnet\_smallest\] shows stable modes of $T^\dagger$, with eigenvalues very close to but larger that 1. Modes were validated following \[sec:approx\_eig\]. Note that stable modes of $T^\dagger$ are unstable modes of the denoising net $T$, characterized by fine textures.
[0.2]{} {height="2.2cm"}
[0.28]{} {height="2.2cm"}
[0.2]{} {height="2.2cm"}
[0.28]{} {height="2.2cm"}
#### Robustness to Small Degradations
\[Fig::degradation\] illustrates the robustness of stable modes to small degradations. A degraded stable mode has a similar Rayleigh quotient to that of the original stable mode. When applying the power method, it evolves back to the critical point in its neighborhood, given by the original stable mode. We also show how noise robustness holds in a very wide sense. The denoiser considers textures and fine details, such as the small eigenvector, as noise to be removed. On the other hand, the texture generator prefers noise and textures and it considers coarse structures as noise to be removed.
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.155]{} {height="2cm"}
\
[0.24]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.2]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.24]{} {height="2cm"}
[0.28]{} {height="2cm"}
### DnCNN Deep Denoising Net {#Sec::DnCNN}
We present results of \[AlgPower2\] for the DnCNN deep denoising net [@zhang2017beyond].
#### Nature of Operator
Although it is a smoothing operator, DnCNN also produces a sharpening effect, adding stripes to the image. We first illustrate in \[Fig::stripes\_nature\] the horizontal stripes produced by iterative DnCNN denoising of the cameraman image, using 500 iterations. We also show the stable mode after 5000 iterations of the power method and iterative denoising result after 500 iterations for an artificial stripe image. Even after a single application of DnCNN, $u, T(u)$ are already almost collinear, demonstrating this net’s tendency to stripes. Further experiments showed that this is true for stripes of different orientations. DnCNN is a *blind* denoiser that deals with unknown noise level, but assumes that noise is present in the input. Hence we believe the sharpening effect is caused by applying DnCNN iteratively throughout the power iterations to *noiseless* and smooth images, for which it was not trained.
[0.2]{} {height="2.3cm"}
[0.23]{} {height="2.3cm"}
[0.16]{} {height="2.3cm"}
[0.16]{} {height="2.3cm"}
[0.18]{} {height="2.3cm"}
#### Stable Modes
\[Fig::DnCNN\] shows the power method evolution to the final stable mode, using DnCNN on two different initial images. As for FFDnet, eigenvalues are larger than but very close to 1. The stable modes mainly are smoothed versions of the initial conditions with additional horizontal stripes.
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
\
[0.18]{} {width="70.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
[0.155]{} {width="90.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
In this work we propose and analyze power method to compute eigenvectors of proximal operators and neural networks. For proximal operators of one-homogeneous functionals we prove that a straightforward generalization of the linear power method converges to eigenvectors. However, general denoising neural networks require a more general algorithm, which takes their natural domain into account. Despite the lack of theoretical convergence guarantees, this algorithm yields satisfactory approximate eigenvectors of the networks, which we interpret as (un)stable modes.
Future work will include investigating network architectures for which one can provably compute eigenvectors. Closely related to this is the design of 1-Lipschitz (non-expansive) networks, which are natural candidates for studying eigenvectors and fixed points. A possible future application of (un)stable modes or eigenvectors of a network might consist in designing indicators for the amount of over-fitting, or for the generalization ability, respectively.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 777826. GG acknowledges support by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 534/19) and by the Ollendorff Minerva Center.
[^1]: We used the MATLAB routine `eig`.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
\[th\][Lemma]{} \[th\][Proposition]{} \[th\][Corollary]{} \[defn\][Definitions]{}
\#1
-10pt \#1.
==========
\#1
[rl]{} \#1
§[[S]{}]{} ¶[[**[P]{}**]{}]{} Ł
[**Moment conditions for a sequence with negative drift\
to be uniformly bounded in $L^r$**]{}\
Robin Pemantle[^1] and Je[f]{}frey S. Rosenthal[^2]
(August 27, 1998; revised January 12, 1999.)
[**ABSTRACT:**]{} Suppose a sequence of random variables $\{ X_n \}$ has negative drift when above a certain threshold and has increments bounded in $L^p$. When $p > 2$ this implies that $\E X_n$ is bounded above by a constant independent of $n$ and the particular sequence $\{ X_n \}$. When $p \leq
2$ there are counterexamples showing this does not hold. In general, increments bounded in $L^p$ lead to a uniform $L^r$ bound on $X_n^+$ for any $r < p-1$, but not for $r \ge p-1$. These results are motivated by questions about stability of queueing networks.
[Keywords:]{} $L^p$, $p^{th}$ moments, supermartingale, martingale, linear boundary, Lyapunov function, stochastic adversary, queueing networks.
[Subject classification: ]{} Primary: 60G07; Secondary: 60F25.
Let $X_0,X_1,\ldots$ be a sequence of real-valued random variables. We wish to find a condition, along the lines of behaving like a supermartingale when sufficiently large, that will guarantee $\sup_n \E X_n < \infty$. In particular, we do not wish to assume any special properties of the increments such as independence, $r$-dependence, Markov property, symmetry, discreteness or nondiscreteness. Under what conditions can we guarantee that $\sup_n \E(X_n) < \infty$?
Specifically, we suppose that for some $a>0$ and some $J$ we have $$\E (X_{n+1} - X_n \| X_0 , \ldots , X_n) \leq -a \quad \mbox{ on the event }
\quad \{X_n > J\}
\eqno(\mbox{C1})$$ for all $n$. That is, the process has [*negative drift*]{} whenever it is above the point $J$. This condition alone says nothing about possible large jumps out of the interval $(-\infty , J)$, so we also assume that for some $p \ge 1$ and some $V<\infty$ we have $$\E (|X_{n+1} - X_n|^p \| X_0 , \ldots , X_n) \leq V
\eqno(\mbox{C2})$$ for all $n$. That is, the process has [*increments with bounded $p^{\rm th}$ moments*]{}. Conditions (C1) and (C2) are meant to characterize the behavior of sequences attracted to a basin, which always decreases in expectation except when it is already small. (One such example is a nonnegative Lyapunov function of a Markov chain; see for example Meyn and Tweedie, 1993.) Do these two conditions together imply that $\sup_n \E(X_n) < \infty$?
When $p=1$ the answer is no. Although an honest supermartingale has $\E X_n \leq \E X_0$ for all $n$, a process behaving like a supermartingale above $J$ may have $\E X_n$ unbounded. More surprisingly, the answer is still no for $p = 2$. However, if one assumes (C1) and (C2) with $p > 2$, then necessarily $\sup_n \E X_n < \infty$. More generally, we show (Theorem \[th:1\]) that (C1) and (C2) imply that $\sup_n \E\left(
(X_n^+)^r \right) < \infty$ whenever $r < p-1$, and that this bound on $r$ in terms of $p$ (or $p$ in terms of $r$) is sharp. Furthermore, our bounds are may be explicitly computed and depend only on the parameters $a$, $J$, $p$, $V$, and $r$.
Our results are motivated by questions about queueing networks. Specifically, several authors (Borodin et al., 1996, 1998; Andrews et al., 1996) consider network loads under the influence of a [*stochastic adversary*]{}. Here $X_n$ is the load of the network at time $n$. The adversary may add new packets to the network in virtually any manner, subject only to a load condition which leads to (C1) plus a moment condition such as (C2). (The load condition corresponds to the statement that, once the network is operating at full capacity, it processes packets more quickly on average than the adversary can add them.) The network is considered to be [*stable*]{} if the expected load remains bounded, i.e. if $\sup_n
\E(X_n) < \infty$. In this context, our Corollary \[cor:X\_0\] may be interpreted as saying that a queueing network in the presence of a stochastic adversary is guaranteed to be stable, provided it satisfies the load condition (C1), and also the moment condition (C2) for some $p>2$. On the other hand, if $p \le 2$ then there is no such guarantee.
We note that there has been some previous work on related questions. For example, Hastad et al. (1996) consider bounds on $\sup_n \E(X_n)$ for certain time-homogeneous [*Markovian*]{} systems which correspond to particular “backoff protocols” for resolving ethernet conflicts. Close to our work, Hajek (1982) investigates bounds on hitting times for general random sequences having bounded [*exponential*]{} moments, and derives corresponding bounds on exponential moments of the hitting times; his work may thus be seen, roughly, as the $p\to\infty$ limit of our bounds.
Finally, we note that while the notion of “stability” considered here (namely, that $\sup_n \E(X_n) < \infty$) is different from that of Markov chain stability (see e.g. Meyn and Tweedie, 1993), there are some connections. For example, it is known (see Tweedie, 1983, Theorem 2) that for $k\in\IN$, if $\{X_n\}$ is an aperiodic Harris-recurrent time-homogeneous Markov chain having stationary distribution $\pi(\cdot)$, and if $m_k \equiv
\int x^k \, \pi(dx) < \infty$, then for $\pi$-a.e. $x$, $\E_{\delta_x}
(X_n^k) \to m$, and hence $\sup_n \E_{\delta_x} (X_n^k) < \infty$. In other words, for such a Markov chain, stability in our sense is implied by standard Markov chain stability. In fact, it is known (e.g. Tuominen and Tweedie, 1994) that when $\{ X_n \}$ is a random walk with negative drift, reset to zero when it attempts to leave the nonnegative half-line and having square integrable increments, then $\E_{\delta_x} (X_n)$ will converge and hence be bounded. This shows that our (C1) and (C2) do represent a greater generality than the random walk context.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we state the main result, along with two extensions. (The extensions are reasonably straightforward, but we include them in order to provide readily referenceable results that don’t assume more than is needed.) We also provide in Section 2 a simpler proof of the main theorem in the case where $p > 4$ and $r = 1$, since in this case the back-of-the-napkin computation works, and anyone not interested in the sharp moment condition need read no further. In Section 3, we give examples to show why (C2) is needed with $p - 1 > r$ and why it is important to have moment bounds for the negative part of the increments as well as the positive part. Proofs are given in Sections 4 and 5, with Section 4 containing a reduction to a result on martingales and Section 5 containing a proof of the martingale result.
Throughout this paper, the filtration $\{ \F_n \}$ refers to any filtration to which $\{ X_n \}$ is adapted. We continue to use (C1) and (C2) for conditional expectations with respect to $\F_n$, slightly generalizing the notation of the introductory section.
\[th:1\] Let $X_n$ be random variables and suppose that there exist constants $a>0$, $J$, $V<\infty$, and $p > 2$, such that $X_0 \le J$, and for all $n$, $$\E (X_{n+1} - X_n \| \F_n) \leq -a \quad \mbox{ on the event }
\quad \{X_n > J\}
\eqno(\mbox{\rm C1})$$ and $$\E (|X_{n+1} - X_n|^p \| X_0 , \ldots , X_n) \leq V
\eqno(\mbox{\rm C2})$$ Then for any $r \in (0 , p-1)$ there is a $c = c (p , a, V, J , r) > 0$ such that $\E (X_n^+)^r < c$ for all $n$.
Applying this theorem to the process $X_n' := X_n - (X_0-J)^+$ in the case $r = 1$ immediately yields the corollary:
\[cor:X\_0\] Under hypotheses (C1) and (C2) of Theorem \[th:1\], but without assuming $X_0 \le J$, we have $$\E (X_n \| \F_0) \leq c(p,a,V,J,1) + (X_0-J)^+ .$$
**Remark. By following through the proof (presented in Sections 4 and 5), we are able to provide an explicit formula for the quantity $c(p,a,V,J,r)$ of Theorem 1. Indeed, for $a=1$ and $J=0$, we have $c(p,1,V,0,r) = K \zeta(p-r)$ where $K = C(b,p,r) = 2^{p/2} c_2 C'(p,b) + c_4$. Here $b = 2^p (B + (1+B)^p)$; $B = 2^p (1+V)$; $C'(p,b) = \max(1, \ c'(p,b))$; $c'(p,b) = c_p b (1+c_p^{-1})^p$; $c_2 = c_p b (4^p + 4^{p-r} {r \over p-r})$; $c_4 = C'(p,b) c_3 \zeta(p/2)$; $c_3 = 3^r 4^p b (c_p b + {p \over p-r} + 3^r)$; and $c_p = (p-1)^p$ is the constant from Burkholder’s inequality. (Recall that $\zeta(w) \equiv \sum_{i=1}^\infty i^{-w}$ is the Riemann zeta function, finite for $\real(w) > 1$.) Then for general $a$ and $J$, we have $c(p,a,V,J,r) = J + a^r c(p,1,V/a^p,0,r)$. Now, these formulae are clearly rather messy, and may be of limited practical use. However, it may still be helpful to have them available for ready reference.**
We also state an extension allowing the negative part of the increments to avoid the moment condition in (C2):
\[th:9\] The conclusion of Theorem \[th:1\] still holds when $X_{n+1} - X_n$ is replaced by $(X_{n+1} - X_n) \one_{X_{n+1} - X_n > Z_n}$ in conditions (C1) and (C2), and $Z_n \leq -a$ is any sequence adapted to $\{ \F_n \}$.
The proof of Theorem \[th:1\] proceeds by decomposing according to the last time $U$ before time $n$ that $\{ X_k \}$ was less than $J$. When $p > 4$, Markov’s inequality, together with a crude $L^p$ estimate on $X_n - X_U$, gives bounds on the tails of $X_n$ sufficient to yield Theorem \[th:1\]. We finish the section by giving this argument.
Assume the notation and hypotheses of Theorem 1. Fix a positive integer $n$. Let $U = \max\{ k \le n; \ X_k \le J \}$. Let $\mu_i = \E\left( X_{i+1}-X_i \, | \, \F_i \right)$, so that $\mu_i \le -a$ on $\{X_i>J\}$. We may recenter (see the proof of Corollary \[cor:1\] for details) to obtain $$\E\left( (X_{n+1}-X_n-\mu_n)^p \, | \, \F_n \right)
\ \le \ V'$$ for some $V' < \infty$.
But then, for $t > J$, we have $$\P( X_n \ge t)
= \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \P(X_n \ge t, \ U=k)
\qquad\qquad\qquad$$ $$\le \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \P(X_n - X_k \ge t-J, \ X_k \le J, \ X_i > J \ {\rm for} \
k<i<n)$$ $$\le \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \P\bigg( (X_n - X_{n-1}-\mu_{n-1}) + \ldots
+ (X_{k+1}-X_k-\mu_{k}) \ge t-J-V^{1/p}+a(n-k-1),$$ $$X_k \le J, \ X_i > J \ {\rm for}
\ k<i<n \bigg)$$ \[since $\mu_i \le -a$ for $k<i<n$, and $\mu_k \le V^{1/p}$\] $$\le \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \E\bigg( \Big| (X_n - X_{n-1}-\mu_{n-1}) + \ldots
+ (X_{k+1}-X_k-\mu_{k}) \Big|^p \bigg) \Big( t-J-V^{1/p}+a(n-k-1) \Big)^{-p}$$ \[by Markov’s inequality\] $$\le \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c_p V' (n-k)^{p/2} \Big( t-J-V^{1/p}+a(n-k-1) \Big)^{-p}$$ \[by Lemma \[lem:Lp\], which is a direct application of Burkholder’s inequality\] $$\le \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} c_p V' (\ell+1)^{p/2}
\Big( t-J-V^{1/p}+a\ell \Big)^{-p} \, .$$
It then follows that $$\E(X_n) \ = \
\int_0^\infty dt \, \P(X_n \ge t)
\qquad\qquad\qquad$$ $$\le \
(J+V^{1/p}+1) \ + \ \int_{J+V^{1/p}+1}^\infty dt \,
\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} c_p V' (\ell+1)^{p/2}
\left( t-J-V^{1/p}+a\ell \right)^{-p}$$ This integral-of-sum does not depend on $n$. Furthermore, for $p>4$ it is straightforward to check (by integrating first) that it is finite. This gives the result. $\Cox$
We here present a few counterexamples to show that the hypotheses of Theorem 1 (in particular, the restriction that $p>2$) are really necessary.
The following example is due to Madhu Sudan (personal communication via A. Borodin). Let $\{X_n\}$ be a time-inhomogeneous Markov chain such that $\P(X_2=0) = 2/3 = 1 - \P(X_2=2)$, and such that for $n \ge 2$, $$\P(X_{n+1} = n+1 \, | \, X_n = n) = 1 - 2/n$$ $$\P(X_{n+1} = 0 \, | \, X_n = n) = 2/n$$ $$\P(X_{n+1} = n+1 \, | \, X_n = 0) = 1/n$$ $$\P(X_{n+1} = 0 \, | \, X_n = 0) = 1 - 1/n$$ These transition probabilities were chosen to ensure that $$X_n \ = \
\left\{
\eqalign{
0,& \quad {\rm prob} \ 2/3 \cr
n,& \quad {\rm prob} \ 1/3 }
\right.$$ for all $n \ge 2$. Hence, $\E(X_n) = n/3$, so that $\sup_n \E(X_n) = \infty$.
On the other hand, it is easily verified that (C1) is satisfied with $a=1$ and $J=0$. Furthermore, (C2) is satisfied with $p=1$ and $V=3$. We conclude that condition (C1) alone, or combined with (C2) with $p=1$, does not guarantee stability.
When (C2) holds with $p=2$ it appears one has to do a little more to engineer a counterexample; specifically, we line up all the jumps out of $(-\infty , J)$ to amass at a fixed time $M$. Fix a large integer $M$, and define a time-inhomogeneous Markov chain by setting $X_0=0$, and, for $0 \le n \le M-1$, letting $$\P(X_{n+1} = X_n-1 \, | \, X_n > 0) = 1$$ $$\P(X_{n+1} = 0 \, | \, X_n = 0 ) = 1 - (M-n)^{-2}$$ $$\P(X_{n+1} = 2(M-n) \, | \, X_n = 0 ) = (M-n)^{-2}$$ Then it is easily verified that (C1) is again satisfied with $a=1$ and $J=0$. Furthermore, (C2) is satisfied with $p=2$ and $V=4$.
On the other hand, setting $A = \exp\left( - \sum_{i=1}^\infty 1/i^2 \right) > 0$, we compute that $$\E(X_M) =
\sum_{k=0}^M (M-k+1) \, \P (X_k > 0 \ {\rm and} \
X_j = 0 \ {\rm for} \ j < k)$$ $$\ge \ \sum_{k=0}^{M} (M-k+1) \left( A / (M-k+1)^2 \right)$$ $$= \ \sum_{k=0}^{M} A / (M-k+1)
\ = \ \sum_{j=1}^{M+1} A / j$$ which goes to infinity (like $A \log M$) as $M \to \infty$.
This shows that $\E X_n$ cannot be bounded in terms of $a, J$ and $V$, and by “stringing together” such examples, for larger and larger choices of $M$, we can clearly make $\sup_n \E(X_n) = \infty$. We conclude that condition (C1), combined with (C2) with $p=2$, still does not guarantee stability of $\{X_n\}$.
>From the queueing theory perspective, it would be desirable, in condition (C2) of Theorem \[th:1\], to replace $|X_{n+1}-X_n|$ by $[X_{n+1}-X_n]^+$, i.e. to bound the $p^{\rm th}$ moments of just the [*positive part*]{} of the increments. Intuitively, this would correspond to allowing arbitrarily large [*negative*]{} increments, and bounding only the large [*positive*]{} increments. The problem with this is that the process is not sufficiently affected by its negative drift when this is all concentrated into a few unlikely large jumps. We give a counterexample to demonstrate this.
Fix $0<\epsilon<1$, and consider the following [*time-homogeneous*]{} Markov chain $\{X_n\}$. Let $X_0=0$, and for $n \ge 0$, let $$\P(X_{n+1} = 1 \, | \, X_n = 0) \ = \ 1$$ $$\P(X_{n+1} = x+1 \, | \, X_n = x > 0) \ = \ 1 - (1+\epsilon)/(x+1)$$ $$\P(X_{n+1} = 0 \, | \, X_n = x > 0) \ = \ (1+\epsilon)/(x+1)$$
Then (C1) is satisfied with $J=0$ and $a=\epsilon$. Also, $\left[ X_{n+1}-X_n \right]^+ \le 1$, so (C2) would indeed hold (for any $p>0$, and with $V=1$) if we replaced $|X_{n+1}-X_n|$ by $[X_{n+1}-X_n]^+$.
On the other hand, it is straightforward to see that $\L(X_n)$ converges weakly to a stationary distribution $\pi(n)$, which is such that $\pi(n) \sim C n^{-1-\epsilon}$ as $n\to\infty$. In particular, $\sum_n n \, \pi(n) =
\infty$. It follows that $\E(X_n) \to \infty$, i.e. that $\{X_n\}$ is [*not*]{} stable in this case. We conclude that Theorem \[th:1\] does [*not*]{} continue to hold if we consider only the positive part of $X_{n+1}-X_n$ in condition (C2).
**Remark. This last counter-example only works when $a \le V^{1/p}$. In the case where $X_n \geq 0$ for all $n$, this appears to be an extremal counterexample, leading to the following open question:**
> Does Theorem \[th:1\] continues to hold for sufficiently large $a$ if we assume $X_n \geq 0$ and replace $|X_{n+1}-X_n|$ by $[X_{n+1}-X_n]^+$ in (C2) ?
Despite this counter-example, the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:1\] may indeed be weakened to allow some large negative increments. However, both condition (C1) [*and*]{} condition (C2) must be identically modified so that negative drift is still manifested. This is the motivation for having stated Corollary \[th:9\] as an extension to the main theorem.
We will derive Theorem \[th:1\] and Corollary \[th:9\] from the following martingale result.
\[th:2\] Let $\{ M_n : n = 0 , 1 , 2 , \ldots \}$ be a sequence adapted to a filtration $\{ \F_n \}$ and let $\DD_n$ denote $M_{n+1} - M_n$. Suppose that the sequence started at $M_1$ is a martingale (i.e., $\E (\DD_n \| F_n) = 0$ for $n \geq 1$), and that $M_0 \leq 0$. Suppose further that for some $p > 2$ and $b > 0$ we have $$\label{eq:moment}
\E (|\DD_n|^p \| \F_n) \leq b$$ for all $n$ including $n=0$. Let $\tau = \inf \{ n > 0 : M_n \leq n \}$. Then for any $r \in (0 , p)$ there is a constant $C = C (b , p , r)$ such that $$\label{eq:conclusion}
\E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_{\tau > t} \right) \leq C t^{r - p} .$$
We defer the proof of Theorem \[th:2\] until the following section. In the remainder of this section, we assume Theorem \[th:2\], and derive Theorem \[th:1\] and Corollary \[th:9\] as consequences.
\[cor:1\] Let $\{ Y_n \}$ be adapted to $\{ \F_n \}$ with $Y_0 \leq 0$. Suppose $\E (|\DE_n|^p \| \F_n) \leq B$ for all $n$ and $\E (\DE_n \| \F_n) \leq 0$ for all $1 \leq n < \sigma$, where $\DE_n = Y_{n+1} - Y_n$ and $\sigma = \inf \{ n > 0 : Y_n \leq n \}$. Then for $0 < r < p$ there is a constant $K = K (B , p , r)$ such that $$\E \left( (Y_t^+)^r \one_{\sigma > t} \right) \leq K t^{r - p} .$$
[Proof:]{} An easy fact useful here and later is that $z^+ \leq 1 + |z|^p$ and hence $$\label{eq:p to 1}
\E |Z|^p \leq b \; \Rightarrow \; \E Z^+ \leq 1 + b .$$ Recall (see e.g. Durrett 1996, p. 237) that the supermartingale $\{ Y_{n \wedge \sigma} : n \geq 1 \}$ may be decomposed as $Y_{n \wedge \sigma} = M_n - A_n$ where $\{ M_n : n \geq 1 \}$ is a martingale and $\{ A_n : n \geq 1 \}$ is an increasing predictable process with $A_1 = 0$. Let $\mu_n$ denote $\E (\DE_n \| \F_n)$. Then the increments $\DD_n := M_{n+1} - M_n$ satisfy $$\E (|\DD_n|^p \| \F_n) = \E (|\DE_n - \mu_n|^p \| \F_n) \leq
2^p \E (|\DE_n|^p + |\mu_n|^p \| \F_n) \leq 2^p (B + (1 + B)^p) .$$ Applying Theorem \[th:2\] to $\{ M_n \}$ with $b = 2^p (B + (1+B)^p)$ and $M_0 := Y_0$ yields $$\label{eq:C}
\E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_{\tau > t} \right) \leq C t^{r-p} .$$ When $\sigma > t$ it follows that $M_n \geq n + A_n$ for $1 \leq n \leq t$ and hence that $\tau > t$. Also, when $\sigma > t$, we know that $M_t = Y_t + A_t \geq Y_t$ and therefore that $$Y_t^+ \one_{\sigma > t} \leq M_t^+ \one_{\tau > t} .$$ The conclusion of the corollary now follows from (\[eq:C\]), with $K = C (2^p (B + (1+B)^p) , p , r)$. $\Cox$
The above argument uses no properties of the process $A_n$, other than its being nonincreasing and adapted. In particular, it need not be predictable. If the increments $\DE_n$ can be decomposed into the sum of two parts, one satisfying the hypotheses of the corollary and one nonincreasing and adapted, then the second of these can be absorbed into the process $\{ A_n \}$ and the result will still hold. Without loss of generality, the second piece can be taken to be $\DE_n \one_{\DE_n \leq Z_n}$ for some adapted nonpositive $\{ Z_n \}$. In other words, the moment condition need not apply to the negative tail of the increment, as long as the mean is still nonpositive when the negative tail is excluded. We state this more precisely as the following corollary.
\[cor:better\] Let $\{ Y_n \}$ be adapted to $\{ \F_n \}$ with $Y_0 \leq 0$. Let $\{ Z_n \}$ be any adapted nonpositive sequence. Suppose $\E (|\DE_n|^p \one_{\DE_n > Z_n} \| \F_n) \leq B$ for all $n$ and $\E (\DE_n \one_{\DE_n > Z_n} \| \F_n) \leq 0$ for all $1 \leq n < \sigma$, where $\DE_n = Y_{n+1} - Y_n$ and $\sigma = \inf \{ n > 0 : Y_n \leq n \}$. Then for $0 < r < p$, $$\E \left( (Y_t^+)^r \one_{\sigma > t} \right) \leq K t^{r - p} .$$ $\Cox$
We now use these corollaries to derive Theorem \[th:1\] and Corollary \[th:9\].
[Proof of Theorem from Corollary , and of Corollary \[th:9\] from Corollary ]{}: First assume that $a = 1$ and $J = 0$. Given $\{ X_n \}$ as in the hypotheses of the theorem, fix an $N \geq 1$; we will compute an upper bound for $\E (X_N^+)^r$ that does not depend on $N$. Let $U := \max \{ k \leq N : X_k \leq 0 \}$ denote the last time up to $N$ that $X$ takes a nonpositive value. Decompose according to the value of $U$: $$\E (X_N^+)^r = \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \E \left( (X_N^+)^r \one_{U = k} \right) .$$
To evaluate the summand, define for any $k < N$ a process $\{ Y^{(k)}_n \}$ by $Y^{(k)}_n = (X_{k + n} + n) \one_{X_k \leq 0}$. In other words, if $X_k > 0$ the process $\{ Y^{(k)}_N \}$ is constant at zero, and otherwise it is the process $\{ X_n \}$ shifted by $k$ and compensated by adding 1 each time step. We apply Corollary \[cor:1\] to the process $\{ Y^{(k)}_n \}$. Hypothesis (C1) of Theorem \[th:1\], together with the fact that $X_{k+j} > 0$ for $0 < j < \sigma^{(k)}$, imply that $\E (\DE_n \| \F_n) \leq 0$ when $1 \leq n \leq \sigma^{(k)}$. Also, $\E (|\DE_n|^p \| \F_n) \leq \E (|1 + X_{n+1} - X_n|^p \| \F_n)
\leq B := 2^p (1 + V)$. The conclusion is that $$\E \left( [(Y^{(k)}_{N-k})^+]^r \one_{\sigma^{(k)} > N - k} \right) \leq
K t^{r-p}$$ with $K = K(V,p,r)$. But for each $k$, $$X_N^+ \one_{U = k} \leq Y^{(k)}_{N - k} \one_{\sigma^{(k)} > N - k}$$ and it follows that $$\E \left( (X_N^+)^r \one_{U = k} \right) \leq K (N - k)^{r-p}.$$ Now sum to get $$\E (X_N^+)^r \leq \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} K (N - k)^{r-p} \leq K \zeta (p-r) .$$ This completes the case $a = 1 , J = 0$.
For the general case, let $X_n' = (X_n - J) / a$. This process is covered by the analysis of the $a = 1 , J = 0$ case above, with $V / a^p$ in place of $V$. We conclude that $\E (X_n')^r \leq c (p , 1 , V / a^2 ,
0 , r)$, and hence that $\E X_n \leq c (p , a , V , J , r) :=
J + a^r c(p , 1 , V / a^p , 0 , r)$.
The proof of Corollary \[th:9\] from Corollary \[cor:better\] is virtually identical. $\Cox$
We now concern ourselves with the proof of Theorem \[th:2\]. We begin with two lemmas.
\[lem:Lp\] Let $\{ M_n \}$ be a martingale with $M_0 = 0$, and with increments bounded in $L^p$: $$\E (|M_n - M_{n-1}|^p \| \F_{n-1}) \leq L .$$ Then there is $c_p$ such that $\E |M_n|^p \leq c_p L n^{p/2}$.
[Proof:]{} Burkholder’s inequality (see Stout 1974, Theorem 3.3.6; Burkholder, 1966; Chow and Teicher, 1988, p. 396) tells us that for $p>1$, there is a constant $c_p$ for which $$\E |M_n|^p \leq c_p \E \left ( \sum_{k=1}^n (M_k - M_{k-1})^2
\right)^{p/2}.$$ (In fact, for $p \ge 2$ we may take $c_p = (p-1)^p$, cf. Burkholder, 1988, Theorem 3.1.) For any $Z_1 , \ldots , Z_n$, Hölder’s inequality gives $$\E |Z_1 + \cdots + Z_n|^{p/2} \leq n^{p/2} \max_{1 \leq k \leq n}
\E |Z_k|^{p/2} .$$ Set $Z_k = (M_k - M_{k-1})^2$ and observe that $\E Z_k^{p/2} \leq
\E ((\E (Z_k \| \F_{k-1})^{p/2}) \leq \E (\E |M_k - M_{k-1}|^p \| \F_{k-1})
\leq L$, so the conclusion of the lemma follows. $\Cox$
\[lem:tau\] Assume the notation and hypotheses of Theorem \[th:2\]. For $x > 0$, let $S_x = \inf \{k : M_k \geq x \}$ be the time to hit value $x$ or greater. Then there is a $C' = C' (b , p)$ such that $$\P (\tau > S_x) \leq {C' \over x^{p/2}} \, .$$
[Proof:]{} Fix $x \ge 1$ and bound in two ways the quantity $\E \left | M_{\tau \wedge S_x} \right |^p$. First, since $\{ M_{\tau \wedge S_x \wedge n} : n \geq 1 \}$ is a martingale, $|x|^p$ is convex, and $\tau \wedge S_x \geq 1$ is a stopping time bounded above by $x$, we have $$\label{eq:upside}
\E \left | M_{\tau \wedge S_x} \right |^p \leq \E \left | M_x \right |^p .$$ Using Lemma \[lem:Lp\] gives $\E |M_x - M_1|^p \leq c_p b x^{p/2}$, and since $\E |M_1|^p \leq b$, this yields $$\label{eq:upside2}
\E |M_x|^p = ||M_x||_p^p \leq (||M_1||_p + ||M_x - M_1||_p)^p
\leq \left ( b^{1/p} + (c_p b x^{p/2})^{1/p} \right )^p
\leq c'(p,b) x^{p/2}$$ with $c'(p,b) := c_p b (1 + c_p^{-1})^p$. On the other hand, on the event $\{\tau > S_x\}$ we have $M_{\tau \wedge S_x}
= M_{S_x} \ge x$, so that $$x^p \P (\tau > S_x) \leq \E |M_{\tau \wedge S_x}|^p ,$$ and combining this with (\[eq:upside\]) and (\[eq:upside2\]) gives $$\P (\tau > S_x) \leq x^{-p} c'(p,b) x^{p/2}$$ which proves the result for $x \ge 1$. Finally, for $x < 1$ we use $\P( \tau > S_x ) \le 1$, so the lemma follows with $C'(p,b) := \max(1, \, c'(p,b))$. $\Cox$
[Proof of Theorem]{} \[th:2\]: Let $T = \inf \{ k \geq 0 :
\DD_k \geq t/4 \}$ be the time of the first large jump. Since $\tau > t$ implies $S_x < x$ for all $x \leq t$, we can write $$\label{eq:star}
\E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_{\tau > t} \right)
= \E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_G \right)
+ \E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_H \right) ,$$ where $G = \{ T \geq S_{t/2} < t < \tau \}$ and $H = \{ T < S_{t/2}
< t < \tau \}$.
To bound the first term, abbreviate $S := S_{t/2}$ and begin by observing that $M_S \leq 3t/4$ on $G$, since the level $t/2$ or higher has just been obtained and the increment was no more than $t/4$. Thus $$\E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_G \right)
\leq \P (\tau > S) \E ((M_t^+)^r \one_{\tau > t} \| \F_S) .$$ The first factor may be bounded via Lemma \[lem:tau\]: $$\label{eq:S}
\P (\tau > S) \leq {2^{p/2} C' \over t^{p/2}} \, .$$ The second factor is bounded using the formula $$\label{eq:parts}
\E \left( Z^r \one_{Z > u} \right) = u^r \P (Z > u) + \int_u^\infty r y^{r-1}
\P (Z > y) \, dy .$$ By Lemma \[lem:Lp\] conditionally on $\F_S$, $\E (|M_t - M_S|^p \| F_S)
\leq c_p b (t-S)^{p/2} \leq c_p b t^{p/2}$. Hence by Markov’s inequality, $\P (M_t - M_S \geq y \| \F_S) \leq c_p b t^{p/2} / y^p$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\E ((M_t^+)^r \one_{\tau > t} \| \F_S) & \leq & \E ((M_t^+)^r \one_{M_t > t}
\| \F_S) \\
& = & t^r \P (M_t \geq t \| \F_S) + \int_t^\infty r y^{r-1}
\P (M_t \geq y \| \F_S) \, dy \\
& \leq & t^r \P (M_t - M_S \geq t/4 \| \F_S) + \int_{t/4}^\infty
r y^{r-1} \P (M_t - M_S \geq y \| \F_S) \, dy \\
& \leq & c_p b 4^p t^{r - p/2} + \int_{t/4}^\infty
r y^{r-1} c_b p t^{p/2} y^{-p} \, dy \\
& \leq & c_p b (4^p + {r \over p - r} 4^{p-r}) t^{r-p/2} \\
& \leq & c_2 (b , p , r) t^{r - p/2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_2 (b , p , r) := c_p b (4^p + 4^{p-r} r / (p-r))$. Combining with (\[eq:S\]) gives $$\label{eq:term1}
\E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_G \right) \leq 2^{p/2} c_2 C' t^{r - p} .$$
We will bound the second term by decomposing according to the value of $T$. A preliminary computation is to bound the quantity $\E ((M_t^+)^r \one_{T = k , M_t > t} \| \F_k)$. Break this into three pieces: the part up to time $k$, the jump at time $k$, and the part from time $k+1$ to time $t$. For any $0 < r < p-1$, $|x+y+z|^r \leq 3^r (|x|^r + |y|^r + |z|^r)$ (use convexity when $r \geq 1$ and sublinearity when $r \leq 1$). Hence $$(M_t^+)^r \leq 3^r \left[ (M_k^+)^r + (\DD_k^+)^r + ((M_t - M_{k+1})^+)^r
\right] .$$ The event $\{ T = k \}$ implies $M_k \leq 3t/4$, and is also in the initital $\sigma$-field of the martingale $\{ M_n - M_{k+1} :
n \geq k+1 \}$. Therefore, when we condition on $\F_k$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\E ((M_t^+)^r \one_{T = k , M_t > t} \| \F_k) & \leq & 3^r \left [
\left ( {3t \over 4} \right )^r \P (\DD_k \geq t/4 \| \F_k) \right. \\
&& + \E ((\DD_k^+)^r \one_{\DD_k \geq t/4} \| \F_k) \\
&& + \left. \E (|M_t - M_{k+1}|^r \one_{T = k , M_t - M_{k+1} \geq t/4}
\| \F_k) \right ] \end{aligned}$$
The moment condition $\E (|\DD_k|^p \| \F_k) \leq b$ implies that $\P (\DD_k \geq y) \leq b y^{-p}$, hence the first of these contributions is at most $$3^r ({3t \over 4})^r b ({t \over 4})^{-p} .$$ Using (\[eq:parts\]) again, we bound the second of the three contributions by $$3^r ({t \over 4})^r \P (\DD_k \geq {t \over 4} \| \F_k)
+ 3^r \int_{t/4}^\infty r y^{r-1} \P (\DD_k \geq y) \, dy$$ which is at most $$3^r b ({t \over 4})^{r-p} + 3^r {r \over p-r} ({t \over 4})^{r-p} .$$ Lemma \[lem:Lp\] implies $\E (|M_t - M_{k+1}|^r \| \F_{k+1}) \leq
c_p b t^{r/2}$, while $\one_{T=k} \in \F_{k+1}$ and has conditional expectation at most $b (t/4)^{-p}$ given $\F_k$. Therefore the third contribution is bounded by $$3^r b ({t \over 4})^{-p} c_p b t^{r/2} .$$ Summing the three contributions gives $$\label{eq:ub3}
\E ((M_t^+)^r \one_{T = k , M_t > t} \| \F_k) \leq c_3 t^{r-p}$$ where $c_3 = 3^r 4^p b (c_p b + {p \over p-r} + 3^r)$.
Now we bound the second term, by decomposing according to the value of $T$. $$\begin{aligned}
\E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_H \right) &
= & \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor t/2 \rfloor}
\E \left( (M_t^+)^r \one_H \one_{T = k} \right)
\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor t/2 \rfloor} \E \left [ \E ((M_t^+)^r \one_H \one_{T = k} \| \F_k)
\right ] \label{eq:all k} .\end{aligned}$$ The event $\{ \tau > k \}$ is in $\F_k$ and contains the event $H \cap \{ T = k \}$, so we have $$\E ((M_t^+)^r \one_H \one_{T = k} \| F_k) \leq \one_{\tau > k}
\, \E ((M_t^+)^r \one_{T = k} \| \F_k)$$ and hence $$\E ((M_t^+)^r \one_H) \leq \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor t/2 \rfloor} \P (\tau > k)
\, \E \left [ \E ((M_t^+)^r) \one_{T = k} \| \F_k) \right ] .$$ Plugging in the upper bound (\[eq:ub3\]) and using Lemma \[lem:tau\] gives $$\E ((M_t^+)^r \one_H) \leq \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor t/2 \rfloor} C' k^{-p/2} c_3 t^{r-p}$$ and summing yields a bound of $$\label{eq:term2}
\E ((M_t^+)^r \one_H) \leq c_4 t^{r-p}$$ for the second term, where $c_4 := C' c_3 \zeta(p/2)$. By (\[eq:star\]), the two bounds (\[eq:term1\]) and (\[eq:term2\]) together imply the conclusion of Theorem \[th:2\]. $\Cox$
This completes the proof of Theorem \[th:2\], and hence also the proof of Theorem \[th:1\] and Corollary \[th:9\].
**Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Allan Borodin for bringing this problem to our attention. We thank Jim Fill, Leslie Goldberg, Jim Kuelbs, Tom Kurtz, Jeremy Quastel, Tom Salisbury, and Richard Tweedie for very helpful comments.**
[YMN]{}
Andrews, M., Awerbuch, B., Fernández, A., Kleinberg, J., Leighton, F.T., and Liu, Z. (1996). Universal stability results for greedy contention-resolution protocols. [*Proc. 37th Ann. IEEE Sympos. on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, 380–389.
Borodin, A., Kleinberg, J., Raghavan, P., Sudan, M., and Williamson, D.P. (1996). Adversarial queueing theory. [*Proc. 28th Ann. ACM Sympos. on Theory of Computing*]{}, 376–385.
Borodin, A., Kleinberg, J., Raghavan, P., Sudan, M., and Williamson, D.P. (1998). Adversarial queueing theory. In preparation.
Burkholder, D. (1966). Martingale transforms. [*Ann. Math. Stat.*]{} [**37**]{} 1497–1504.
Burkholder, D. (1988). Sharp inequalities for martingales and stochastic integrals. [*Asterisque*]{} [**157-158**]{}, 75–94.
Chow, Y.S. and Teicher, H. (1988). [*Probability theory: independence, interchangeability, Martingales,*]{} $2^{\rm nd}$ edition. Springer: New York.
Durrett, R. (1996). [*Probability: theory and examples,*]{} $2^{\rm nd}$ edition. Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA.
Hajek, B. (1982). Hitting-time and occupation-time bounds implied by drift analysis with applications. [*Adv. Appl. Prob.*]{} [**14**]{}, 502–525.
Hastad, J., Leighton, T., and Rogoff, B. (1996). Analysis of backoff protocols for multiple access channels, [*SIAM J. Comput.*]{} [**25**]{}(4), 740–774.
Meyn, S.P. and Tweedie, R.L. (1993). [*Markov chains and stochastic stability*]{}. Springer-Verlag: London.
Stout, W. (1974). [*Almost sure convergence.*]{} Academic Press: New York.
Tweedie, R.L. and Tuominen, P. (1994), Subgeometric Rates of Convergence of f-ergodic Markov Chains. [*Ann. Appl. Prob.*]{} [**26**]{}, 775–798.
Tweedie, R.L. (1983). The existence of moments for stationary Markov chains. [*J. Appl. Prob.*]{} [**20**]{}, 191–196.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Van Vleck Hall, 480 Lincoln Drive, Madison, WI 53706. Internet: [[email protected]]{}. Research supported in part by NSF grants DMS-9300191 and DMS-9803249.
[^2]: Department of Statistics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3. Internet: [[email protected]]{}. Research supported in part by NSERC of Canada.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove Green-Lazarsfeld’s gonality conjecture for generic curves of odd genus. The proof uses, among other things, the main result of [@Ap], and Green’s syzygy canonical conjecture for generic curves of odd genus, [@Vo2]. The even-genus case was previously solved in the joint work [@AV].'
author:
- Marian Aprodu
title: |
Green-Lazarsfeld’s Gonality Conjecture for a\
Generic Curve of Odd Genus
---
Introduction.
=============
Let $C$ be a smooth, projective, irreducible, complex curve, and $L$ a globally generated line bundle on $C$, and denote by $K_{p,q}(C,L)$ the Koszul cohomology of $C$ with value in $L$. By definition, it is the cohomology of the complex: $$\bigwedge^{p+1} H^0(C,L)\otimes H^0(C,L^{q-1})
\rightarrow
\bigwedge^p H^0(C,L)\otimes H^0(C,L^q)
\rightarrow
\bigwedge^{p-1} H^0(C,L)\otimes H^0(C,L^{q+1}).$$
Many geometric phenomena regarding the image of $C$ in ${\Bbb P}H^0(C,L)^*$, such as projective normality, or being cut out by quadrics can be expressed in terms of vanishing of Koszul cohomology.
There are a number of preliminary results which suggested that other geometric properties can be related to Koszul cohomology. A good example of a possible interaction between geometry and Koszul cohomology is provided by the Nonvanishing Theorem of Green and Lazarsfeld (cf. [@Gr1 Appendix]). In a particular case, it shows that curves with special geometry have non-trivial Koszul cohomology groups. More precisely, if we set $d$ the gonality of $C$, and we suppose that $L$ is of sufficiently large degree, then one has: $$K_{h^0(C,L)-d-1,1}(C,L)\not= 0.$$
It was conjectured by Green and Lazarsfeld, [@GL1 Conjecture 3.7], that this result were optimal, that is:
$$\label{equation: gonality conjecture}
K_{h^0(C,L)-d,1}(C,L)= 0,$$
\
for all $L$ of sufficiently large degree. Broadly speaking, it would mean that gonality of curves could be read off minimal resolutions of embeddings of sufficiently large degree.
We prove here the following:
\[thm: main\] Green-Lazarsfeld’s gonality conjecture holds for a generic curve of odd genus.
The case of generic curves of odd genus is exactly the case left away from the joint work [@AV], where the gonality conjecture was verified for a generic curve of genus $g$ and gonality $d$ with $\frac{g}{3} + 1\leq d < [\frac{g + 3}{2}]$. Recall that curves of given genus $g$ and gonality $d$ are parametrized by an irreducible quasi-projective variety. Beside, we always have $d \leq [\frac{g + 3}{2}]$, and the maximal gonality is realized on a non-empty open set of moduli space of curves of genus $g$. Therefore, Theorem \[thm: main\] and the results of [@AV] complete each other, showing eventually that Green-Lazarsfeld’s gonality conjecture holds for a generic curve of genus $g$ and gonality $d$ with $\frac{g}{3} + 1\leq d$.
The techniques used for proving Theorem \[thm: main\] are standard, and very similar to those used in [@Ap], [@AV], [@Vo2], see Section 2 for details. Green’s conjecture plays a central role in the whole proof. An alternative proof of the generic gonality conjecture for the even-genus case is sketched in Remark \[rmk: even\]. In Section 3, we prove a result, Proposition \[prop: two points\], which makes a clear difference between the case of generic curves of odd genus, and the curves analysed in [@AV], justifying the strategy chosen for proving Theorem \[thm: main\].
[*Notation and conventions.*]{}\
\
If $V$ a finite-dimensional complex vector space, and $S(V)$ denotes its symmetric algebra, for any graded $S(V)$–module $B=\mathop\bigoplus\limits_{q\in {\Bbb Z}}B_q$ there is a naturally defined complex of vector spaces, called the [*Koszul complex*]{} of $B$ (cf. [@Gr1 Definition 1.a.7]), $$...\longrightarrow
\bigwedge ^{p+1}V\otimes B_{q-1}
\stackrel{d_{p+1,q-1}}{\longrightarrow}
\bigwedge ^pV\otimes B_q
\stackrel{d_{p,q}}{\longrightarrow}
\bigwedge ^{p-1}V\otimes B_{q+1}
\longrightarrow ... ,$$ where $p$, and $q$ are integer numbers. The cohomology of this complex is denoted by $$K_{p,q}(B,V)=\mbox{Ker }d_{p,q}/
\mbox{Im }d_{p+1,q-1}.$$
In the algebro-geometric context, if $X$ is a complex projective variety, $L\in \mbox{Pic}(X)$ is a line bundle, $\cal F$ is a coherent sheaf, and $V=H^0(X,L)$, one usually computes Koszul cohomology for the $S(V)$-module $B=\bigoplus\limits_{q\in{\Bbb Z}}
H^0(X,L^q\otimes{\cal F})$. The standard notation is $K_{p,q}(X,{\cal F},L) =K_{p,q}(B,V)$. If ${\cal F}\cong {\cal O}_X$, we drop it, and write simply $K_{p,q}(X,L)$.
Throughout this paper, we shall refer very often to [@Gr1] and [@Gr2] for the basic facts of the Koszul cohomology theory.
Proof of Theorem \[thm: main\].
===============================
A generic curve of odd genus $2k+1$ is of gonality $k+2$. Since elliptic curves are fairly well understood, we can suppose $k\geq 1$. Recall that vanishing of Koszul cohomology is an open property (see, for example, [@BG]), and the moduli space of curves of given genus is irreducible, so it would suffice to exhibit one curve $C$ of odd genus $2k+1$, and one nonspecial line bundle $L_C$ on $C$ such that $$K_{h^0(C,L_C)-k-2,1}(C,L_C)=0.$$
This principle has already been used in [@Ap] and [@AV], and is based on the main result of [@Ap] (see also [@AV Theorem 2.1]):
\[thm: Ap\] If $L$ is a nonspecial line bundle on a curve $C$, which satisfies$K_{n,1}(C,L)=0$, for a positive integer $n$, then, for any effective divisor $E$ of degree $e$, we have $K_{n+e,1}(C,L+E)=0$.
We construct $C$ and $L_C$ in the following way. Let $S$ be a $K3$ surface whose Picard group is freely generated by a very ample line bundle $\LL$, and by one smooth rational curve $\Delta$, such that $\LL ^2=4k$, and $\LL.\Delta= 3$. Such a surface does exist, as one can see by analysing the period map (see, for example, [@Og Lemma 1.2]). Denote $L=\LL +\Delta$. Then one can show:
\[lemma: 1\] All smooth curves in the linear systems $|\LL|$ and $|L|$ have maximal Clifford index, and thus maximal gonality, too.
The proof runs exactly like in [@Vo2 Proposition 1], using [@GL2].
Let $C\in |\LL|$ be a smooth curve, and set $L_C=L_{|C}$. Then $C$ is of genus $g=2k+1$, and $L_C$ is of degree $2g+1=4k+3$, thus nonspecial. Beside, the curve $C$ is generic, and $h^0(C,L_C)=2k+3$, so the vanishing (\[equation: gonality conjecture\]) predicted by the gonality conjecture for the pair $(C,L_C)$ becomes:
$$\label{equation: desired vanishing}
K_{k+1,1}(C,L_C)=0.$$
This vanishing will be a consequence of another two Lemmas which are proven below.
\[lemma: 2\] $K_{k+1,1}(S,L)=0$.
Remark that any smooth curve $D\in|L|$ is of genus $2k+3$. From [@Vo2], [@HR], and Lemma \[lemma: 1\], it follows that Green’s conjecture is valid for $D$. Therefore $K_{k+1,1}(D,K_D)=0$. From Green’s hyperplane section theorem [@Gr1 Theorem 3.b.7], we conclude $K_{k+1,1}(S,L)=0$.
\[lemma: 3\] For any integer $p$, we have a natural isomorphism$K_{p,1}(S,L)\cong K_{p,1}(C,L_C)$.
We set $D=C+\Delta$; it is a connected reduced divisor on $S$. All the hypotheses of Green’s hyperplane section theorem [@Gr1 Theorem 3.b.7] are fulfilled, so one has isomorphisms $$K_{p,1}(S,L)\cong K_{p,1}(D,L_D),$$ for all integers $p$, where we denoted $L_D=L_{|D}$.
We use next the natural short exact sequence of coherent sheaves on $S$ (see also [@AN]): $$0\rightarrow {\cal O}_\Delta (-C)
\rightarrow {\cal O}_D \rightarrow {\cal O}_C
\rightarrow 0,$$ which yields furthermore to an exact sequence, for any integer $q$: $$0\rightarrow H^0(\Delta,{\cal O}_\Delta (L^{q-1}+\Delta))
\rightarrow H^0(D,L^q_D) \rightarrow H^0(C,L^q_C)$$
We analyse the maps $H^0(D,L^q_D) \rightarrow H^0(C,L^q_C)$ for different $q$. If $q=0$ the corresponding map is obviously an isomorphism. For $q=1$, we also have an isomorphism $H^0(D,L_D) \cong H^0(C,L_C)$, since ${\cal O}_\Delta (\Delta)\cong K_\Delta
\cong {\cal O}_{{\Bbb P}^1}(-2)$. Moreover, since $(L+\Delta).\Delta <0$, for $q=2$, we obtain an inclusion $H^0(D,L_D^2)\subset H^0(C,L_C^2)$. These facts reflect into an isomorphism between Koszul cohomology groups $K_{p,1}(D,L_D)\cong K_{p,1}(C,L_C)$ for any integer $p$ (apply, for example, [@Ap Remark 1.1]). Therefore, for any $p$, $K_{p,1}(S,L)$ is isomorphic to $K_{p,1}(C,L_C)$.
Summing up, $K_{k+1,1}(C,L_C)$ is isomorphic to $K_{k+1,1}(S,L)$, and the latter vanishes, which proves (\[equation: desired vanishing\]), and Theorem \[thm: main\], too.
\[rmk: even\]
A similar idea can be used to give an alternative proof of the gonality conjecture for a generic curve of even genus. Let us sketch the proof in a few words.
Let $S$ be a $K3$ surface whose Picard group is freely generated by a very ample line bundle $\LL$, and by one smooth rational curve $\Delta$, such that $\LL ^2=4k-2$, and $\LL.\Delta= 2$, and let furthermore $C\in |\LL|$ be a smooth curve. Denote $L=\LL +\Delta$, and $L_C=L_{|C}$. Then $C$ is of genus $g=2k$ and gonality $k+1$, and $L_C$ is of degree $2g$.
Since $h^0(C,L_C)=2k+1$, the vanishing (\[equation: gonality conjecture\]) predicted by the gonality conjecture for the pair $(C,L_C)$ becomes $K_{k,1}(C,L_C)=0$.
A smooth curve in the linear system $|L|$ has genus $2k+1$ and gonality $k+2$, and thus it satisfies Green’s conjecture, [@Vo2]. It implies $K_{k,1}(S,L)=0$, after having applied Green’s hyperplane section theorem.
The proof of Lemma \[lemma: 3\] can be easily addapted to obtain an isomorphism $K_{p,1}(S,L)\cong
K_{p,1}(C,L_C)$, for any $p$. In particular, for $p=k$, we obtain $K_{k,1}(C,L_C)=0$.
Why adding three points to the canonical bundle?
================================================
The strategy used in [@AV] to verify the gonality conjecture for a curve $C$ of genus $g$, and gonality $d$ with $\frac{g}{3} + 1\leq d < [\frac{g + 3}{2}]$ was to look at bundles of type $K_C+x+y$, where $x$, and $y$ were suitably chosen points of $C$ (see also Remark \[rmk: even\]). For Theorem \[thm: main\] instead, we needed to add three points to the canonical bundle in order to have the desired vanishing (\[equation: gonality conjecture\]). This choice is justified by the following remark, which shows that on a generic curve $C$ of odd genus, bundles of type $K_C+x+y$ never verify (\[equation: gonality conjecture\]).
\[prop: two points\] Let $C$ be a curve of odd genus $2k+1\geq 3$, and maximal gonality $k+2$. Then, for any two points $x$, and $y$ of $C$, the dimension of $
K_{k,1}(C,K_C+x+y)
$ equals the binomial coefficient $\left(
\begin{array}{c}
2k+1 \\
k+2
\end{array}
\right)$.
For the proof of Proposition \[prop: two points\], we need the following elementary Lemma.
\[lemma: multiplication\] Let $X$ be an irreducible projective manifold, and $D\not=0$ be an effective divisor. Then, for any $L\in\mbox{\rm Pic}(X)$, and any integer $p\geq 1$, we have an exact sequence: $$0\rightarrow \bigwedge ^{p+1}H^0(X,L-D)\rightarrow K_{p,1}(X,-D,L)
\rightarrow K_{p,1}(X,L).$$
Let $V=H^0(X,L)$, and consider the graded $S(V)$–modules $$A=\mathop\bigoplus\limits_{q\in{\Bbb Z}} H^0(X,L^q-D),\;
B=\mathop\bigoplus\limits_{q\in{\Bbb Z}} H^0(X,L^q),$$ and $C=B/A$, where the inclusion of $A$ in $B$ is given by the multiplication with the non-zero section of ${\cal O}_X(D)$ vanishing along $D$. Obviously, $A_0=0$, and $C_0\cong {\Bbb C}$. The long cohomology sequence for syzygies yields to an exact sequence:
$$0\rightarrow
\mbox{Ker}\left( \bigwedge ^{p+1}V\rightarrow \bigwedge ^pV
\otimes C_1\right)\rightarrow K_{p,1}(X,-D,L)\rightarrow
K_{p,1}(X,L)\rightarrow ...$$
We aim to prove that
$$\mbox{Ker}\left( \bigwedge ^{p+1}
V\rightarrow\bigwedge ^pV \otimes C_1\right)\cong
\bigwedge ^{p+1}H^0(X,L-D).$$
For this, choose a basis $\{ w_1,...,w_N\}\subset V$, such that $\{ w_1,...,w_s\}$ is a basis of $H^0(X,L-D)$, and pick an element $\alpha =\sum\limits_{1\leq i_1<...<i_{p+1}\leq N}
\alpha_{i_1...i_{p+1}}
w_{i_1}\wedge...\wedge w_{i_{p+1}}\in\bigwedge ^{p+1}V$. It belongs to $\mbox{Ker}\left( \bigwedge ^{p+1}
V\rightarrow\bigwedge ^pV \otimes C_1\right)$ if and only if the following relations are satisfied, for any $1\leq k_1<...<k_p\leq N$:
$$\sum\limits_{k\not\in\{k_1,...,k_p\}}
(-1)^{\#\{ k_i<k\}}\alpha_{k_1...k...k_p}w_k\in
H^0(X,L-D).$$
In particular, for any $1\leq k_1<...<k_p\leq N$, and $k>s$, $\alpha_{k_1...k...k_p}=0$, in other words all $\alpha_{i_1...i_{p+1}}$ with $i_{p+1}>s$ vanish, so $\alpha $ belongs to $\bigwedge ^{p+1}H^0(X,L-D)$.
[**Proof of Proposition \[prop: two points\]:**]{} We compute first the dimension of $K_{k-1,2}(C,K_C+x+y)$. By Green’s duality Theorem it equals the dimension of $K_{k+1,1}(C,-x-y,K_C+x+y)$. We know $K_{k,1}(C,K_C)=0$, as $C$ satisfies Green’s conjecture. From [@Ap Theorem 3], it follows $K_{k+1,1}(C,K_C+x+y)=0$. Then from Lemma \[lemma: multiplication\] we obtain an isomorphism $$\bigwedge ^{k+2}H^0(C,K_C)\cong K_{k+1,1}(C,-x-y,K_C+x+y).$$ Therefore, the dimension of $K_{k+1,1}(C,-x-y,K_C+x+y)$, and thus of $K_{k-1,2}(C,K_C+x+y)$, equals the binomial coefficient $\left(
\begin{array}{c}
2k+1 \\
k+2
\end{array}
\right)$. What is left from the proof is a combinatorial computation. Analysing the Koszul complex which computes $K_{k,1}(C,K_C+x+y)$, one can prove:
\[lemma: combinatorics\] The Euler characteristic of the complex $$0\rightarrow \bigwedge^{k+1}H^0(K_C+x+y)
\rightarrow \bigwedge^kH^0(K_C+x+y)\otimes H^0(K_C+x+y)
\rightarrow ...$$ equals zero.
Standard combinatorics. Use $h^0(C,K_C^q+qx+qy)=4qk+2q-2k$, for all $q\geq 1$.
Knowing that $K_{k-j+1,j}(C,K_C+x+y)$ vanishes for all $j\not=1,2$, we conclude that $K_{k,1}(C,K_C+x+y)$ and $K_{k-1,2}(C,K_C+x+y)$ have the same dimension.
[99]{} M. Aprodu, On the vanishing of higher syzygies of curves. Math. Z. [**241**]{} (2002) 1-15. M. Aprodu, J. Nagel, A Lefschetz type result for Koszul cohomology. to appear in Manuscr. Math. M. Aprodu, C. Voisin, Green-Lazarsfeld’s conjecture for generic curves of large gonality. C.R.A.S. [**36**]{} (2003) 335-339. M. Boratyńsky and S. Greco, Hilbert functions and Betti numbers in a flat family, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) [**142**]{} (1985) 277-292. M. Green, Koszul cohomology and the geometry of projective varieties. J. Diff. Geom. [**19**]{} (1984) 125-171 (with an Appendix by M. Green and R. Lazarsfeld). M. Green, Koszul cohomology and the geometry of projective varieties. II. J. Diff. Geom. [**20**]{} (1984) 279-289. M. Green and R. Lazarsfeld, On the projective normality of complete linear series on an algebraic curve, Invent. Math. [**83**]{} (1986) 73-90. M. Green and R. Lazarsfeld, Special divisors on curves on a $K3$ surface. Invent. Math. [**89**]{} (1987) 357-370. A. Hirschowitz, Ramanan, New evidence for Green’s conjecture on syzygies of canonical curves. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) [**31**]{} (1998) 145-152. K. Oguiso, Two remarks on Calabi-Yau Moishezon threefolds. J. reine angew. Math. [**452**]{} (1994) 153-162. C. Voisin, Green’s generic syzygy conjecture for curves of even genus lying on a $K3$ surface. J. Eur. Math. Soc. [**4**]{} (2002) 363-404. C. Voisin, Green’s canonical syzygy conjecture for curves of odd genus, arXiv:math.AG/0301359.
[Author’s Adresses]{}\
\
Romanian Academy, Institute of Mathematics “Simion Stoilow”, P.O.Box 1-764, RO-70700, Bucharest, Romania (e-mail: Marian.Aprodu64 imar.ro)\
\
Université de Grenoble 1, Laboratoire de Mathématiques, Institut Fourier BP 74, F-38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex, France (e-mail: Marian.Aprodu64 ujf-grenoble.fr)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Highly accurate numerical results for single-particle spectrum and order parameter are obtained for the magnetically ordered Kondo lattice by means of the dynamical mean-field theory combined with the continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo method. Hybridized energy bands involving local spins are identified in the Néel state as a hallmark of itinerant antiferromagnetism. At the boundary of the reduced Brillouin zone, the two-fold degeneracy remains in spite of the doubled unit cell. This degeneracy results if the molecular field felt by localized spins has identical magnitude and reversed direction with that of conduction electrons. The persistent Kondo effect is responsible for the behavior. The antiferromagnetic quantum transition occurs inside the itinerant regime, and does not accompany the itinerant-localized transition.'
author:
- 'Shintaro Hoshino, Junya Otsuki, and Yoshio Kuramoto'
title: Itinerant Antiferromagnetism in Infinite Dimensional Kondo Lattice
---
Distinction between itinerant and localized characters of strongly correlated electrons has been one of the most fundamental issues in condensed-matter physics. The Kondo effect plays a central role in this problem because even a localized spin may acquire itinerant character by coupling with conduction electrons, and may form a Fermi liquid. Some of recent experiment suggest that quantum phase transition between magnetic and paramagnetic ground states accompanies a change between localized and itinerant character of electrons, with non-Fermi liquid behavior in the vicinity of the transition [@gegenwart]. Another experiment using the de Haas-van Alphen effect has probed the change of the Fermi surface as the external pressure drives such systems as CeIn$_3$ and CeRhIn$_5$ across the magnetic transition [@onuki]. On the other hand, recent photoemission experiment for CeRu$_2$Si$_2$ and CeRu$_2$Si$_{2-x}$Ge$_x$ indicates that the Fermi surfaces of both are essentially the same, which involve $f$ electrons and are referred to as the large Fermi surface. The experiment is performed at temperatures above the Néel transition of CeRu$_2$Si$_{2-x}$Ge$_x$ [@okane], while CeRu$_2$Si$_2$ remains paramagnetic down at least to 0.1 K. Thus the antiferromagnetism in CeRu$_2$Si$_{2-x}$Ge$_x$ seems to be itinerant. Consistent understanding of this variety of phenomena is still lacking, and accurate theoretical analysis is necessary to understand how the magnetic order is related to the change from itinerant to localized characters of electrons.
In this paper we show that the antiferromagnetism in the Kondo lattice model (KLM) occurs within the itinerant regime. The KLM is the simplest system that is capable of describing both itinerant and localized characters of electrons, and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H} = \sum_{\bm{k}\sigma} \varepsilon_{\bm{k}} c_{\bm{k}\sigma}^\dagger c_{\bm{k}\sigma} + 2J \sum _{i} \bm{S}_i \cdot \bm{s}_{{\rm c}i}, \label{eqn_klm}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term represents the kinetic energy of conduction electrons, $\bm{S}_i$ is the localized spin at site $i$, and $\bm{s}_{{\rm c}i}$ denotes the conduction-electron spin at the same site. In terms of creation $c_{i \alpha}^\dagger$ and annihilation $c_{i \alpha}$ operators of conduction electrons at site $i$ with spin $\alpha$, we obtain $
\bm{s}_{{\rm c}i}
= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha \beta} c_{i \alpha}^\dagger \bm{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta} c_{i \beta}
$. The KLM has been investigated beyond the mean field theory in one- [@tsunetsugu2; @shibata] and two- [@assaad; @capponi; @martin; @watanabe; @lanata] dimensional systems. We approach the KLM from infinite dimensions using the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) to allow for the Néel state at finite temperatures. We use the continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo method (CT-QMC) [@rubstov; @werner; @otsuki3] as the impurity solver, and focus on the case of unit number $n _{\rm c} = 1$ of conduction electrons per site. In contast with the metallic antiferromagnetism with $n _{\rm c} \neq 1$, where an incommensurate order may exist, we can safely assume the simple staggered order because of the nesting condition for the conduction band in the hypercubic lattice. Hence the results in this paper are exact in infinite dimensions except for statistical errors.
As the half-filled limit is approached from $n _{\rm c} \neq 1$, the large Fermi surface tends to the zone boundary of the paramagnetic phase, while the small Fermi surface involves half of the Brillouin zone volume. Provided that the ground state has no discontinuity in the zero-doping limit, the limiting location of the Fermi surface should be reflected in the location of the energy gap in the half-filled case. In the localized antiferromagnetism, the gap opens at the boundary of the new Brillouin zone since conduction electrons feel the staggered internal field. In itinerant magnetism, on the other hand, we show in this paper that the energy gap is located in the center of the new Brillouin zone. The zone-center location is due to emergence of energy bands of magnetic electrons. Hence location of the energy gap distinguishes between itinerant and localized behaviors. Note that such distinction does not apply to the single band model such as the Hubbard model where the energy gap in the half-filled limit always occurs in the boundary of the Brillouin zone. In this case the character of electrons changes continuously from the itinerant limit to the localized one as the Coulomb repulsion increases relative to the band width.
We take the bare density of states $$\rho_{\rm c} (\omega) = \sqrt{2/\pi} \exp ({- 2 \omega ^2 })$$ which corresponds to infinite-dimensional hypercubic lattice. We have taken the band width $D=1$ as the unit of energy. For the Gaussian density of states, the Kondo temperature $T_{\rm K}$ is defined by $$\rho_{\rm c}(0) T_{\rm K} = \frac{e^{-\gamma /2}}{\sqrt{\pi}} \exp \left( -\frac{1}{2\rho_{\rm c}(0) J} \right),
\label{T_K}$$ where $e^{-\gamma /2}/\sqrt{\pi} \sim 0.42$ with $\gamma \simeq 0.577$ being the Euler constant. This expression of $T_{\rm K}$ corresponds to divergence of effective exchange in the lowest-order scaling equation.
The hypercubic lattice has the nesting property with the wave vector $\bm{Q}=(\pi, \pi, \cdots)$ at half filling, which favors the staggered order. In the two-sublattice formalism, the Green function $\bm{G}_{\bm{k}\sigma} (z)$ of conduction electrons is a $2\times 2$ matrix where $z$ is a complex energy, and a wave vector $\bm{k}$ belongs to the reduced Brillouin zone [@georges]. In the DMFT, the wave vector enters only through $\varepsilon _{\bm{k}}$. Therefore we introduce the notation $\kappa = \varepsilon _{\bm{k}}$, and regard $\kappa$ as if it represents a wave number. The spectral function $A_\sigma (\kappa , \omega)$ can be calculated from the matrix Green function $\bm{G}_\sigma (\kappa, z)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
A_\sigma (\kappa , \omega) = - {\mathrm{Im}\,}\left[ {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\bm{G}_\sigma (\kappa, \omega + {\mathrm{i}}\delta) \right] /\pi.
\label{eqn_a_k_omega}\end{aligned}$$ Then the renormalized density of states $\rho _{\sigma} (\omega)$ is given by $\rho _{\sigma} (\omega) = 2N^{-1} \sum_{\bm{k}} A_\sigma (\varepsilon _{\bm{k}} , \omega)$ \[rho\_sigma\] where the summation runs over the reduced Brillouin zone with $N/2$ points. In the paramagnetic state, the reduced number of $\bm{k}$ is compensated by the trace over $\bm{G}_{\bm{k}\sigma} (z)$ to give the same $\rho _{\sigma} (\omega)$ as derived by use of the original Brillouin zone. Even in the Néel state, $\rho _{\sigma} (\omega)$ does not depend on $\sigma$ because of summation over sublattices. Let us first discuss the magnitude of the staggered moment given by $
2\langle S ^z _{\bm{Q}} \rangle =
\langle S ^z _{\rm A} \rangle -\langle S ^z _{\rm B} \rangle
$, where we choose the positive polarization for the A sublattice. Figure \[fig\_mom\] shows the temperature dependence of the staggered moment, which should vanish at the Néel temperature $T_{\rm N}$.
![(color online) Staggered spin polarization 2$\langle S ^z _{\bm{Q}} \rangle$ (left scale) as a function of temperature for different values of $J$. Also shown is the inverse staggered susceptibility $\chi _{\bm{Q}} ^{-1}$ (right scale), which goes to zero at $T_{\rm N}$ []{data-label="fig_mom"}](1.eps){width="40.00000%"}
On the other hand, the staggered magnetic susceptibility $\chi _{\bm{Q}}$ in the paramagnetic state should diverge as the temperature is lowered toward $T_{\rm N}$. Hence we also plot $\chi _{\bm{Q}}^{-1}$ calculated in ref.[@otsuki1]. It is found that the estimates of $T_{\rm N}$ by $\langle S ^z _{\bm{Q}} \rangle$ and by $\chi _{\bm{Q}}^{-1}$ are consistent with each other. However, calculation of $\langle S ^z _{\bm{Q}} \rangle$ becomes increasingly difficult as $T$ is approached to $T_{\rm N}$. The results shown in FIG.\[fig\_mom\] are restricted to the temperature range where we could obtain reliable values. With $J=0.1$, the localized spins are almost fully polarized in the ground state. As $J$ increases, $\langle S ^z _{\bm{Q}} \rangle$ decreases by the Kondo effect, which eventually suppresses the antiferromagnetism at $J=J_{\rm c}\simeq 0.27$ down to $T=0$. We next discuss the density of states near $T=0$, which is derived using the Pad$\acute {\rm e}$ approximation for analytic continuation from imaginary Matsubara frequencies ${\mathrm{i}}\epsilon_n$ to the real ones. Since the Monte Carlo data are obtained accurately in the imaginary time domain, the Pad$\acute {\rm e}$ approximation works well in the CT-QMC method[@otsuki3]. Figure \[fig\_dos\_g\] shows $\rho _{\sigma} (\omega)$ for different values of $J$ near the ground state. Namely, we take the temperature where the density of states does not vary much when $T$ decreases further. For example, we take $T=0.01$ for $J=0.3$, but $T=0.002$ for $J=0.1$. The present method has no difficulty to go to such low temperatures with high accuracy. In the case of $J=0.3$ with the paramagnetic ground state, the density of states has a gap caused by the Kondo effect. The state is often called the Kondo insulator. In the case of $J=0.26$, the ground state is antiferromagnetic as seen from FIG.\[fig\_mom\]. The density of states in the ordered phase is almost the same as that with $J=0.3$. Namely the density of states does not depend much on whether the ground state is paramagnetic or antiferromagnetic as far as $J$ is close to the critical value $J_{\rm c}$.
![(color online) $J$ dependence of the density of states for the conduction electron and with $T \sim 0$.[]{data-label="fig_dos_g"}](2.eps){width="40.00000%"}
When $J$ is smaller, sharp peaks develop at both edges of the gap. The origin is understood as follows: Putting the self-energy of conduction electrons as the staggered potential $\pm h$ by the Néel order, we obtain $${\mathrm{Tr}\,}\bm{G}_\sigma (\kappa, z) = \frac{1}{z + \sqrt{\kappa^2+h^2}} + \frac{1}{z - \sqrt{\kappa^2+h^2}}.
\label{staggered}$$ Then the density of states is given by $$\rho_\sigma (\omega) =
\frac{2|\omega|}{\sqrt{\omega^2-h^2}}
\ \rho_c (\sqrt{\omega^2-h^2}),$$ with a square-root divergence at both edges $\omega=\pm h$. For $\omega^2<h^2$, we obtain $\rho_\sigma (\omega) = 0$. This form of $\rho_\sigma (\omega)$ roughly explains the peak structure with $J=0.1$ in FIG.\[fig\_dos\_g\]. In the numerical result, the residual Kondo effect actually suppresses the divergence in $\rho_\sigma (\omega)$.
On the other hand, the density of states for larger $J$ does not show a clear threshold. The Gaussian tail in the bare density of states $\rho _{\rm c} (\omega)$ causes a tiny but finite magnitude of $\rho _{\sigma} (\omega)$ within the apparent energy gap. Therefore we introduce the characteristic value $\Delta _{\rm c}$ of the energy gap as giving the half-maximum value of the peak in the density of states. Figure \[fig\_gap\] shows $\Delta _{\rm c}/2$ as a function of $J$. The error bars have been estimated from 5 bins of data. It is clear that $\Delta _{\rm c}$ changes continuously at $J=J_{\rm c}$. This shows that both Kondo effect and the staggered internal field are contributing to $\Delta _{\rm c}$. For $J\lesssim 0.1$, on the other hand, $\Delta _{\rm c}/2$ is almost proportional to $J$. This behavior shows that the gap is mainly determined by the staggered field $J\langle S^z \rangle$ as shown also in FIG. \[fig\_gap\] .
![(color online) $J$ dependence of the energy gap $\Delta _{\rm c} /2 $. For comparison, also plotted are $J \langle S^z \rangle$, $J \langle s_{\rm c}^z \rangle$, $S^z$ and $s_{\rm c}^z$ are the localized and conduction spins at a local site, respectively. ${\tilde V}^2 / D$ represents the effective hybridization to be explained later, and $T_{\rm K}$ is the Kondo temperature defined by Eq.(\[T\_K\]). []{data-label="fig_gap"}](3.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The details of the itinerancy are seen in the single-partcle spectral function $A_{\sigma} (\kappa , \omega) $. Figure \[fig\_spect1\] shows the spectrum in the case $J=0.2$ where the Kondo effect is significant.
![(color online) Single-particle spectrum with $J=0.2$ in (a) paramagnetic phase at $T=0.035$ and (b) antiferromagnetic phase at $T=0.010$.[]{data-label="fig_spect1"}](4.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In both paramagnetic and ordered phases, the spectrum consists of four bands in the reduced Brillouin zone. In the paramagnetic phase shown in the left panel, the new bands are ascribed to “hybridization bands" caused by the Kondo effect [@otsuki_lett]. We note that there is no real hybridization between the $f$-electron and the conduction electron because the $f$-electron does not have the charge degrees of freedom in the KLM. In the Brillouin zone of the paramagnetic state, the energy gap is indirect from the zone boundary to the zone center, both of which correspond to $\kappa\rightarrow \pm\infty$ in FIG.\[fig\_spect1\]. In the right panel of FIG.\[fig\_spect1\](b), these hybridization bands are clearly seen even in the antiferromagnetic phase. Hence we classify the antiferromagnetism in this regime as itinerant.
Let us now present the spectrum in the ferromagnetic KLM for comparison, where each site forms $S=1$ state with antiferromagnetic intersite interaction. The Kondo effect is absent in the case of $J<0$. We can apply the CT-QMC method also to ferromagnetic $J$ as noted in ref. [@hoshino]. Figure \[fig\_spect2\] shows the spectrum with the same $T$ as in FIG.\[fig\_spect1\].
![(color online) $A_\sigma (\kappa, \omega)$ with ferromagnetic interaction $J=-0.2$ in (a) paramagnetic phase at $T=0.035$ and (b) antiferromagnetic phase at $T=0.010$.[]{data-label="fig_spect2"}](5.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In the paramagnetic state shown in FIG.\[fig\_spect2\](a), the spectrum is almost the same as the original conduction band. On the other hand, in the antiferromagnetic phase shown in FIG.\[fig\_spect2\](b), the spectrum shows the clear gap structure. These behaviors are explained well by Eq.(\[staggered\]) with $h=0$ in FIG.\[fig\_spect2\](a), while $h\neq0$ in (b). In the case of ferromagnetic $J$, the number of bands is two in contrast to the case with $J>0$ with four bands.
Thus, the itinerant or localized behavior can be distinguished by the number of energy bands in the reduced Brillouin zone. Moreover the location of the energy gap is at the zone boundary in the localized case, but at the zone center in the itinerant case. Note that $\kappa = \pm \infty$ correspond to the lower and upper edges of the conduction band in infinite dimensions. Both edges come to the center in the reduced Brillouin zone.
We note another characteristic feature in FIG.\[fig\_spect1\](b) that the degeneracy at $\kappa = 0$ remains in the antiferromagnetic phase. A toy model helps to understand the origin of the degeneracy. Let us consider a non-interacting periodic Anderson model under staggered field as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm PAM} &=& \sum_{\bm{k}\sigma} \varepsilon_{\bm{k}} c_{\bm{k}\sigma}^\dagger c_{\bm{k}\sigma} + V\sum _{i\sigma} (f_{i\sigma}^\dagger c_{i\sigma} + {\rm h.c.}) \nonumber\\
&& + 2\sum_{i}(h_i s_{{\rm c}i}^z + H_i S_i^z ) , \label{eqn_toy}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{i\sigma}(f_{i\sigma}^\dagger)$ is the annihilation (creation) operator of an $f$-electron at the $i$ site with the hybridization $V$. The staggered fields represent the molecular field associated with the antiferromagnetism. Then we choose $h_i = \pm h$ and $H_i = \pm H$, where the A (B) sublattice has the positive (negative) sign.
There are four branches associated with c and f degrees of freedom for the electrons, as well as presence of A and B sublattices. At $\kappa = 0$, we obtain the energies $$\begin{aligned}
E(\kappa = 0) = \pm \frac{1}{2} \left[ (h+H) \pm \sqrt{(h-H)^2 + 4V^2} \right] .\label{eqn_toy_ene}\end{aligned}$$ If the relation $h = -H$ holds, $E(\kappa = 0)$ has only two distinct values both of which are doubly degenerate. We interpret the degeneracy in FIG.\[fig\_spect1\](b) as caused by the relation $h = -H$ for the molecular field. We call such situation “quasi-local compensation". Note that the magnitudes of the polarization for the conduction spin $J\langle s_{\rm c}^z \rangle$ and localized spin $J\langle S^z \rangle$ are much different as shown in FIG.\[fig\_gap\]. Hence the actual energy level is determined not by the local internal field, but by a long-range field involving remote conduction electrons. The compensation is reminiscent of the spatially extended Kondo singlet with small $J$.
Let us identify the energy scale in the Néel state from the self energy. For sublattice $\alpha=\pm 1$ and spin $\sigma=\pm 1$, $\Sigma _{\alpha \sigma} (z)$ is expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma _{\alpha \sigma} (z) = \alpha \sigma h + \frac{\tilde V^2}{z} + {O} \left( \frac{1}{z^2} \right) , \label{eqn_self_toy}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde V$ is the effective hybridization. The coefficient $\tilde V^2$ of $1/z$ corresponds to the jump at $\tau = 0$ in the imaginary time domain. We extract numerically the coefficient ${\tilde V}^2$ of $1/ {\mathrm{i}}\varepsilon _n$ in the self energy. Figure \[fig\_gap\] shows the result for ${\tilde V}^2/D \ (=\tilde V^2)$ as a function of $J$. Note that the indirect energy gap in the toy model (\[eqn\_toy\]) is given by $V^2/D$. The agreement between ${\tilde V}^2 / D$ and $\Delta _{\rm c} /2$ in the paramagnetic phase is excellent. However, this consistency should not be taken too seriously because $\Delta _{\rm c}$ depends on the definition of the gap. We emphasize that ${\tilde V}^2 / D$ shows no anomaly across the phase transition to the antiferromagnetic phase. It also shows good proportionality to the Kondo temperature as ${\tilde V}^2 / D \simeq 2.6 T_{\rm K}$.
In the region $0<J\lesssim 0.1$, the Néel temperature $T_{\rm N}$ is much larger than $T_{\rm K}$ as seen from FIGS.\[fig\_mom\] and \[fig\_gap\]. The electronic state at the transition has a localized character since the Kondo effect is negligible at $T_{\rm N}$. Namely there is no hybridized band, and the energy gap occurs at the boundary of the reduced Brilluoin zone. However, we have checked that two almost flat bands appear newly below $T_{\rm K}$ even with $J=0.05$. Hence, the crossover from localized behavior to the itinerant one occurs inside the Néel ordered state.
In summary, we have derived single-particle spectrum and the temperature-dependent order parameter in the infinite dimensional KLM allowing for the Néel order. The high numerical accuracy has made it possible to find the quasi-local compensation between the conduction and localized spins indicating the persistent tendency toward the Kondo singlet at each site. The effective hybridization energy has no anomaly across the quantum phase transition, and scales well with the impurity Kondo temperature $T_{\rm K}$. Hence the quantum transition into antiferromagnetism occurs within the itinerant regime, and does not involve itinerant-localized transition.
[99]{} P. Gegenwart, Q. Si, and F. Steglich: Nature Phys. [**4**]{} (2008) 186. R. Settai, T. Takeuchi, and Y. Onuki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**76**]{} (2007) 051003.
T. Okane [*et al*]{} : Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{} (2009) 216401. H. Tsunetsugu, M. Sigrist and K. Ueda: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{} (1997) 809. N. Shibata and H. Tsunetsugu: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**68**]{} (1999) 744; F. F. Assaad: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 796. S. Capponi and F. F. Assaad: Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{} (2001) 155114.
H. Watanabe and M. Ogata: Phys. Rev. Lett [**99**]{} (2007) 136401. L. C. Martin and F. F. Assaad: Phys. Rev. Lett [**101**]{} (2008) 066404. N. Lanatà, P. Barone, and M. Fabrizio: Phys Rev B [**78**]{} (2008) 155127.
A. N. Rubtsov, V. V. Savkin, and A. I. Lichtenstein: Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{} (2005) 035122. P. Werner and A. J. Millis: Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{} (2006) 155107. J. Otsuki, H. Kusunose, P. Werner, and Y. Kuramoto: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**76**]{} (2007) 114707. A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{} (1996) 13. J. Otsuki, H. Kusunose, and Y. Kuramoto: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**78**]{} (2009) 034719 . J. Otsuki, H. Kusunose, and Y. Kuramoto: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{} (2009) 017202. S. Hoshino, J. Otsuki, and Y. Kuramoto: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**78**]{} (2009) 074719.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Enrico Carlini
bibliography:
- 'carlini.bib'
title: Reducing the number of variables of a polynomial
---
Abstract {#sec:1}
========
In this paper, we consider two basic questions about presenting a homogeneous polynomial $f$: how many variables are needed for presenting $f$? How can one find a presentation of $f$ involving as few variables as possible? We give a complete answer to both questions, determining the minimal number of variables needed, ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)$, and describing these variables through their linear span, ${\mbox{EssVar}}(f)$. Our results give rise to effective algorithms which we implemented in the computer algebra system [**CoCoA**]{} [@cocoa].
Introduction {#sec:2}
============
Polynomials, also seen as symmetric tensors, are ubiquitous in Applied Mathematics. They appear in Mechanics ([@McL]), Signal and Image Processing ([@ComMour]), Algebraic Complexity Theory ([@BuClSh]), Coding and Information Theory ([@Ro]), etc..
One of the main open issue is to manipulate polynomials in order to obtain presentations suiting the special needs of the application at hand.
In Mechanics, it is often useful to [*separate variables*]{}. Given a polynomial $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, one splits the set of variables in two pieces, e.g. $\{x_1,\ldots,x_r\}$ and $\{x_{r+1},\ldots,x_n\}$, and a presentation of $f$ is searched of the following type $$f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=g(x_1,\ldots,x_r)+h(x_{r+1},\ldots,x_n)$$ for some polynomials $g$ and $h$.
Separating variables is a well established technique and the search for splitting methods in general is very active (see [@McL]).
In Signal Processing, homogeneous polynomials (also known as [*quantics*]{} from ancient Invariant Theory) are of crucial importance. The main interest is in the so called [*sum of powers presentations*]{}, where a homogeneous polynomial $f$ of degree $d$ is presented as $$f=l_1^d+\ldots +l_s^d$$ where $l_1,\ldots,l_s$ are linear forms.
Sum of powers presentations are treated in connection with quantics in [@ComMour], while a more general approach relating them to Polynomial Interpolation and Waring Problem can be found in [@Ci01].
In this paper, we consider two basic questions about presenting a homogeneous polynomial (from now on referred to as a [*form*]{}) in a “easier” way. Given a form $f$, how many variables are needed for presenting it? How can one find a presentation of $f$ involving as few variables as possible?
Even if these problems are so natural, we are not aware of a complete solution existing in the literature. In this paper, we give a complete answer to both questions. Our results give rise to effective algorithms which we implemented in the computer algebra system [**CoCoA**]{} (freely available at [cocoa.dima.unige.it]{}).
More precisely, given a form $f\in S=k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, $k$ any field, we call [*essential number of variables of $f$*]{} the smallest integer $r$ for which there exists a set of linear forms $\{y_1,\ldots,y_r\}\subset S$ such that $$f\in k[y_1,\ldots,y_r];$$ the linear forms $y_1,\ldots,y_r$ are called [*essential variables of $f$*]{}. Then our main result is (see Definition \[catDEF\], Definition \[essentialDEF\] and Section \[apolaritySEC\] for the notation involved):
[**Proposition \[propNEssVar&EssVar\] **]{}[*Let $f$ be a homogeneous element in $S=k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and $T=k[\partial_1,\ldots,\partial_n]$ denote the ring of differential operators. Then $${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)=\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_f),$$ i.e. the number of essential variables of $f$ is the rank of its first catalecticant matrix, and $$EssVar(f)=\langle D\circ f : D \in T_{d-1}\rangle,$$ i.e. the essential variables of $f$ span the space of its $(d-1)^{\mbox{th}}$ partial derivatives.*]{}
In Section \[apolaritySEC\], we briefly recall some facts from Apolarity Theory which are the main tools of our analysis.
In Section \[howmanySEC\], we use Apolarity and Catalecticant Matrices to obtain our main result. In Subsection \[pcSEC\], we give some examples of the use of our algorithms.
In this paper we work with forms, i.e. homogeneous polynomials. To apply our results to [*any*]{} polynomial $f$, it is enough to work with its homogenization $f^h$ with respect to a new variable. Clearly, e.g., a presentation of $f^h$ in essential variables readily produces a presentation of $f$ in essential variables: it is enough to dehomogenize.
\[fieldRM\] Throughout the paper $k$ will denote a field of characteristic 0. Our results also hold in positive characteristic, but more advanced techniques are required for proving them, e.g. differentiations have to be replaced with contractions and divided powers have to be introduced (see [@IaKa]).
The author wishes to thank B. Reznick and C. Ciliberto for their ideas on the problem. The [**CoCoA**]{} Team in Genoa, and especially Anna Bigatti, were of great help in the implementation of the algorithms. The comments and criticisms of the two anonymous referees were of help in improving the presentation of the results.
Apolarity {#apolaritySEC}
=========
In this section we will briefly recall some basic facts from [*Apolarity Theory*]{} or, in modern terms, [*Inverse Systems Theory*]{}. Comprehensive references are [@Ge], mainly Lecture 2, 6 and 8, and [@IaKa].
Consider the polynomial rings $$S=k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\mbox{ and }T=k[\partial_1,\ldots,\partial_n],$$ where $k$ denotes a field of characteristic 0, and give $S$ a $T$-module structure via differentiation, i.e. we will think of $T$ as the ring of differential operators acting on $S$. We denote this action with “$\circ$”, e.g. $\partial_j\circ
f=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} f$ for $f\in S$.
There is a natural perfect paring between homogeneous pieces of the same degree of $S$ and $T$, namely $$\begin{array}{ccccl}
S_i & \times & T_i & \longrightarrow & k \\
f & & D & & D\circ f
\end{array},$$ is a perfect pairing for all $i$; in particular, $S_i$ and $T_i$ are dual to each other. Given subspaces, $$V\subseteq S_i\mbox{ and } W\subseteq T_i$$ we denote by $$V^\perp\subseteq T_i\mbox{ and } W^\perp\subseteq S_i$$ their orthogonal with respect to this pairing; notice, e.g., that $\dim_k V + \dim_k V^\perp =\dim_k S_i=\dim_k T_i$.
Given a form $f\in S_d$, the ideal $$f^\perp=\{D\in T : D\circ f=0\}$$ is a homogeneous ideal of $T$ and it is called the [*orthogonal*]{} ideal of $f$.
Orthogonal ideals play a central role in the theory: they contain all the differential operators annihilating a given form and even more information, as it is shown by the following Lemma (for a proof see [@Ge], Proposition 8.10).
\[saturatedLEM\] Let $f$ be a degree $d$ form in $S$, then $D\in
T_i, i<d$, is such that $$D\circ f=0$$ if and only if $$D\circ(D'\circ f)=0$$ for all $D'\in T_{d-i}$. In other terms, for $0<i<d$, $(f^\perp)_i$ is orthogonal to the $k$-vector space spanned by the $(d-i)^{\mbox{th}}$ partial derivatives of $f$.
Orthogonal ideals can be easily described introducing [*ad hoc*]{} matrices. In this paper it will be enough to describe the degree one part of a given orthogonal ideal, but similar descriptions exist in each degree.
\[catDEF\] Let $f\in S_d$ and fix the standard monomial basis, e.g. with respect to lex order, $\{M_1,\ldots, M_N\}$ of the $k$-vector space $S_{d-1}$. For $i=1,\ldots,n$, consider the first partials $$\partial_i\circ f=c_{i1}M_1+\ldots +c_{iN} M_N.$$ The [*first catalecticant matrix of $f$*]{} is $$\left(\mathcal{C}_f\right)_{ij}=c_{ij},$$ $i=1,\ldots,n, j=1,\ldots,N$.
For a general treatment of catalecticant matrices and their applications see [@ge1], [@Ge] and [@IaKa].
\[ex1\] Let $f=x_1x_2x_3\in k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$ and consider the monomial basis $$\lbrace \ x_{1\, }^{2}, x_{1\, }x_{2\, }, x_{1\, }x_{3\, }, x_{2\,
}^{2}, x_{2\, }x_{3\, }, x_{3\, }^{2}\ \rbrace$$ of the space of degree two forms. Then $$\mathcal{C}_f=\left( \begin{array}{llllll}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array}\right).$$
Catalecticant matrices determine the degree one part of orthogonal ideals readily:
\[catalectLEM\] Let $f\in k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be a form, then $$(a_1\partial_1+\ldots +a_n\partial_n)\circ f=0$$ if and only if the vector $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ is in the left kernel of $\mathcal{C}_f$. In particular, $\dim_k(f^\perp)_1=n-\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_f)$.
The statement simply follows writing down the action of $a_1\partial_1+\ldots +a_n\partial_n$ on $f$ componentwise and considering the corresponding linear system of equations.
\[rk1rem\] Let $l\in k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be a linear form and consider its $d$-th power $f=l^d$. Let $L$ be a linear differential operator and notice that $L\circ f=0$ if and only if $L\circ l=0$ which is a linear equation in the coefficients of $L$. Hence $\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_{l^d})=1$ (actually, even the converse is true). In particular, this means that the form of Example \[ex1\] is not a pure power.
How many variables? {#howmanySEC}
===================
In this section we will use apolarity to answer our two basic questions: how many variables do we need to present a given form? How can we find a presentation involving as few variables as possible?
In what follows, we will work with the polynomial ring $S=k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, where $k$ is [*any*]{} field such that $\mbox{char}(k)=0$ (in positive characteristic similar results hold, but, in this paper, we decided to avoid the technical difficulties involved).
Lets introduce some definitions:
\[essentialDEF\] Given a form $f$ in $S$, the [*number of essential variables of $f$*]{}, ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)$, is the smallest integer $r$ such that there exist linear forms $y_1,\ldots,y_r\in S$ for which $f\in
k[y_1,\ldots, y_r]$. We call [*essential variables of $f$*]{} any set of generators of the $k$-vector space ${\mbox{EssVar}}(f)=\langle
y_1,\ldots, y_r\rangle$.
Roughly speaking, given a form $f\in S$, ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)$ tells us how many variables are necessary for presenting $f$, while ${\mbox{EssVar}}(f)$ tells us how we can find such variables. In particular, it is clear that, if $${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)=r\mbox{ and }{\mbox{EssVar}}(f)=\langle y_1,\ldots,y_r
\rangle,$$ then there exists $g\in k[y_1,\ldots, y_r]\subset S$ such that $f=g$.
Consider the form $f=f(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(x_1+x_2){(x_1-x_3)}^2$ in $k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$. Clearly $f$ is an element of the subring $k[y_1,y_2]$, where $y_1=x_1+x_2$ and $y_2=x_1-x_3$. Hence ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)\leq 2$ and equality holds by Remark \[rk1rem\], as $\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_f)\neq 1$ and $f$ is not a pure power. Also, notice that ${\mbox{EssVar}}(f)=\langle x_1+x_2, x_1-x_3\rangle$ and sets of possible essential variables are: $\{x_1+x_2,x_1-x_3\}$, $\{x_2+x_3,2x_1+x_2-x_3\}$, etc..
Using apolarity we can effectively determine ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}$ and ${\mbox{EssVar}}$ for a given form:
\[propNEssVar&EssVar\] Let $f$ be a homogeneous element in $S=k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and $T=k[\partial_1,\ldots,\partial_n]$ denote the ring of differential operators. Then $${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)=\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_f),$$ i.e. the number of essential variables of $f$ is the rank of its first catalecticant matrix, and $$EssVar(f)=\langle D\circ f : D \in T_{d-1}\rangle,$$ i.e. the essential variables of $f$ span the space of its $(d-1)^{\mbox{th}}$ partial derivatives.
If ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)=r$, then $f\in k[y_1,\ldots,y_r]$ for some linear forms $y_1,\ldots, y_r$ in $S$. Let $$\langle y_1,\ldots, y_r\rangle^\perp=\langle L_1,\ldots,
L_{n-r}\rangle\subset T_1$$ and notice that $(f^\perp)_1\supseteq \langle L_1,\ldots,
L_{n-r}\rangle$. Thus, by Lemma \[catalectLEM\], we have $\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_f)\leq{N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)$.
If $\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_f)=t$, then $(f^\perp)_1=\langle
D_1,\ldots, D_{n-t}\rangle$. Complete this to a basis of $T_1$ $$\langle D_1,\ldots, D_{n-t},Y_1,\ldots,Y_t\rangle$$ and consider the dual basis of $S_1$ defined by the apolarity perfect pairing $$\langle z_1,\ldots, z_{n-t},y_1,\ldots,y_t\rangle.$$ Hence, after a linear change of variables, we have $f=f(z_1,\ldots, z_{n-t},y_1,\ldots,y_t)$. But $D_j$ annihilates all the elements of the chosen basis of $S_1$ but $z_j$. As $(f^\perp)_1=\langle D_1,\ldots, D_{n-t}\rangle$ we conclude that $$f\in k[y_1,\ldots,y_t]$$ and $\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_f)\geq{N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)$.
To conclude the proof, notice that the prefect pairing $S_1\times
T_1\rightarrow k$ induces a well defined perfect pairing of $k$-vector spaces $$V\times\left(\frac{T}{f^\perp}\right)_1\longrightarrow k$$ where $$V=\left((f^\perp)_1\right)^\perp=\langle l : l\in S_1, L\circ
l=0\mbox{ for all } L\in(f^\perp)_1\rangle$$ and, with the notations above, $\left(\frac{T}{f^\perp}\right)_1=\langle Y_1,\ldots,Y_t\rangle$ and hence $V={\mbox{EssVar}}(f)$. The result follows applying Lemma \[saturatedLEM\] ($i=1$ case) which yields $$V=\langle D'\circ f: D'\in T_{d-1} \rangle.$$
\[ex2\] Given the form $$f=x_{1\, }^{3} + x_{1\, }^{2}x_{2\, }-2x_{1\, }^{2}x_{3\,
}-2x_{1\, }x_{2\, }x_{3\, } + x_{1\, }x_{3\, }^{2} + x_{2\,
}x_{3\, }^{2}$$ we want to determine ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)$ and ${\mbox{EssVar}}(f)$. In order to apply Proposition \[propNEssVar&EssVar\], we compute the first catalecticant matrix of $f$ $$\mathcal{C}_f=
\left( \begin{array}{rrrrrr}
3 & 2 & -4 & 0 & -2 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
-2 & -2 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 0 \end{array}\right).$$ Hence ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)=\mbox{rk}(\mathcal{C}_f)=2$ and $f$ can be presented as a form in two variables. To determine the essential variables of $f$, it is enough to compute the span of the second partial derivatives of $f$: $${\mbox{EssVar}}(f)=\langle x_2+x_3,x_1-x_3\rangle.$$ Summing these up, we see that there exists a degree 3 form $g(y_1,y_2)\in k[y_1,y_2]$ such that $$g(x_2+x_3,x_1-x_3)=f(x_1,x_2,x_3),$$ but how can we find $g$?
To complete our analysis, we want to present a form $f$ as a polynomial only involving essential variables: this can be done almost tautologically, but the notation are quite involved. We begin with an example.
\[ex3\] Consider the form $f\in S=k[x_1,x_2,x_3]$ in Example \[ex2\]. We already showed that there exists $g\in k[y_1,y_2]\subset S$ such that $f=g$. To determine $g(y_1,y_2)$, consider ${\mbox{EssVar}}(f)=\langle x_2+x_3,x_1-x_3\rangle$ and complete its basis to a basis of $S_1$: we choose $\{y_1=x_2+x_3,y_2=x_1-x_3,z_1=x_1\}$. Hence we have a linear change of variables given by $$\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{l}
x_1=z_1,\\
x_2=y_1+y_2-z_1,\\
x_3=z_1-y_2.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The basic requirement of the form $g(y_1,y_2)$ is to satisfy the relation $$g(x_2+x_3,x_1-x_3)=f(x_1,x_2,x_3).$$ From this, changing variables, we get $$g(y_1,y_2)=f(z_1,y_1+y_2-z_1,z_1-y_2)=y_1y_2^2+y_2^3,$$ which is the desired presentation in essential variables. As a byproduct, we readily see that $$f=(x_2+x_3)(x_1-x_3)^2+(x_1-x_3)^3$$ which is quite surprising considering the original presentation $$f=x_{1\, }^{3} + x_{1\, }^{2}x_{2\, }-2x_{1\, }^{2}x_{3\,
}-2x_{1\, }x_{2\, }x_{3\, } + x_{1\, }x_{3\, }^{2} + x_{2\,
}x_{3\, }^{2}.$$
The procedure showed in the previous Example works in general. Given a form $f=f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in S$, we compute ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)=r$ and we choose a basis for ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)=\langle
y_1,\ldots, y_r\rangle$; to avoid triviality, assume $r<n$. Now, our goal is to determine $g=g(y_1,\ldots,y_r)\in
k[y_1,\ldots,y_r]\subset S$ such that $f=g$. To do this, complete the basis of ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)\subset S_1$ to a basis of $S_1$ $$S_1=\langle y_1,\ldots, y_r, z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}\rangle.$$ As $S_1=\langle x_1,\ldots,x_n \rangle$, the completed basis yields a linear change of variables $$(\dagger)\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{l}
x_1=x_1(y_1,\ldots, y_r, z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}),\\
\vdots\\
x_n=x_n(y_1,\ldots, y_r, z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}).
\end{array}
\right.$$ Notice that $y_1,\ldots,y_r$ are linear forms in $S$ and hence there exist linear functions such that $y_i=y_i(x_1,\ldots,x_r),i=1,\dots,r$. Moreover, the following identities hold by construction of $(\dagger)$ $$y_i=y_i(x_1(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}),\ldots,x_r(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}))$$ for $i=1,\ldots ,n$.
To determine $g$, it is enough to consider the desired relation $$f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=g(y_1(x_1,\ldots,x_r),\ldots,y_r(x_1,\ldots,x_r)).$$ and to apply the linear change of variables $(\dagger)$. Thus we obtain $g(y_1,\ldots,y_r)$:
$$\begin{array}{c}
g(y_1,\ldots,y_r) = \\
=g(y_1(x_1(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}),\ldots,x_r(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r})),\ldots \\
\ldots,y_r(x_1(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}),\ldots,x_r(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r})))= \\
=f(x_1(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}),\ldots,x_n(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r})).
\end{array}$$ Notice that, as $f$ and the functions $x_i(y_1,\ldots, y_r,
z_1,\ldots,z_{n-r}),i=1,\ldots,n,$ are [*explicitly*]{} known, we have completely determined $g$ as an element in $k[y_1,\ldots,y_r]$.
\[cylinderRM\] As a straightforward application of the theory, we consider the detection of cylinders (i.e. algebraic surfaces ruled by a family of parallel lines moving along a fixed curve). Suppose you are given the polynomial equation of a surface $\mathcal{F}:f(x,y,z)=0$ in three space and you want to decide whether $\mathcal{F}$ is a cylinder or not. It is well known that $\mathcal{F}$ is a cylinder if and only if its defining equation is a function of two planes, i.e. there exist linear forms $m(x,y,z)$ and $l(x,y,z)$ such that $f(x,y,z)=g(m,n)$ for some polynomial $g$. Hence, we readily have an effective procedure for cylinder detection: $$\mathcal{F} \mbox{ is a cylinder if and only if }{N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f^h)\leq
3,$$ where $f^h$ denotes the homogenization of $f$ (see Example \[cylinderEX\]). Clearly, the method applies in any dimension for deciding whether a given hypersurface is a cylinder or not.
Using a computer {#pcSEC}
----------------
The results of our analysis can be easily translated into algorithms and we wrote down procedures to be used with the Computer Algebra system [**CoCoA**]{}.
We begin with reporting a [**CoCoA**]{} session illustrating the use of our algorithms to work out the expository Examples \[ex2\] and \[ex3\].
First we define the form we want to study
F:=x^3 + x^2y - 2x^2z - 2xyz + xz^2 + yz^2;
To compute the number of essential of variables, use the function [NEssVar(F)]{}:
NEssVar(F);
2
-------------------------------
To determine a choice of essential variables, use the function [EssVar(F)]{}:
EssVar(F);
[y + z, x - z]
-------------------------------
Finally, [NewPres(F)]{} produces a presentation of the form involving the essential variables [$\mathtt{y[1]=y+z,y[2]=x-z}$]{}:
NewPres(F);
y[1]y[2]^2 + y[2]^3
-------------------------------
Usually, a given polynomial $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ will essentially involve $n$ variables, i.e. ${N_{\mbox{ess}}}(f)=n$. Hence our algorithms [*do not*]{} help in solving the polynomial equation $f=0$. Nevertheless, our procedure should be used as a pre-processing tool. In fact, [*if*]{} the number of variables can be decreased, then the numerical solution of the equation can be performed much more efficiently. We illustrate this with the following “extreme” example.
We consider the degree three polynomial in four variables $$f(x,y,z,t)=f_0(x,y,z,t)+f_1(x,y,z,t)+f_2(x,y,z,t)+f_3(x,y,z,t),$$ where $$\begin{array}{lcl}
f_0 & = & 3 \\
f_1 & = & - x - y + 2z + 3t\\
f_2 & = & 5 x^{2} + 10xy + 5y^{2}-20xz-20yz + 20z^{2}-30xt-30yt +
60zt + 45t^{2} \\
f_3 & = & x^{3} + 3x^{2}y + 3xy^{2} + y^{3}-6x^{2}z-12xyz-6y^{2}z
+ 12xz^{2} + 12yz^{2}+\\
& & -8z^{3}-9x^{2}t-18xyt-9y^{2}t + 36xzt + 36yzt-36z^{2}t + 27xt^{2} +
27yt^{2}+ \\
& & -54zt^{2}-27t^{3}.
\end{array}$$ In order to solve the equation $f(x,y,z,t)=0$, we apply our algorithms to the degree 2 and 3 pieces of $f$:
EssVar(F2);
[x + y - 2z - 3t]
-------------------------------
NewPres(F2);
5y[1]^2
-------------------------------
and hence $f_2(x,y,z,t)=5{y_1}^2$, where $y_1=x+y-2z-3t$. Similarly
EssVar(F3);
[x + y - 2z - 3t]
-------------------------------
NewPres(F3);
y[1]^3
-------------------------------
which yields $f_3(x,y,z,t)={y_1}^3$. In conclusion, to solve the equation $f(x,y,z,t)=0$, it is enough to solve the equation in one variable $${y_1}^3+5{y_1}^2-y_1+3=0$$ and to apply some linear algebra to find all the solutions.
We conclude with a Geometric example about cylinder detection.
\[cylinderEX\] Consider the degree five surface in three space $\mathcal{F}:
f(x,y,z)=0$, where $$f=f_0+f_2+f_5$$ and $$f_0=-1, f_2=x^{2} - xy-2y^{2}-3yz - z^{2},$$ $$\begin{array}{lll}
f_5 & = &x^{5} +
2x^{4}y-2x^{3}y^{2}-8x^{2}y^{3}-7xy^{4}-2y^{5}+3x^{4}z-18x^{2}y^{2}z-24xy^{3}z+\\
& &-9y^{4}z + 2x^{3}z^{2}-12x^{2}yz^{2}-30xy^{2}z^{2}-16y^{3}z^{2}-2x^{2}z^{3}-16xyz^{3}+\\
& &-14y^{2}z^{3}-3xz^{4}-6yz^{4}- z^{5}.
\end{array}$$ In order to decide whether $\mathcal{F}$ is a cylinder or not, we follow Remark \[cylinderRM\]. Introduce a new variable $t$ and consider the homogenization of $f$, $f^h=t^5 f_0+t^3 f_2+f_5$. Using [**CoCoA**]{} and denoting by [FH]{} the form $f^h(x,y,z,t)$, we get:
NEssVar(FH);
3
-------------------------------
EssVar(FH);
[t, y + 2/3z, x + 1/3z]
-------------------------------
NewPres(FH);
-y[1]^5 - 2y[1]^3y[2]^2 - 2y[2]^5 - y[1]^3y[2]y[3] -
7y[2]^4y[3] + y[1]^3y[3]^2 - 8y[2]^3y[3]^2 - 2y[2]^2y[3]^3 +
2y[2]y[3]^4 + y[3]^5
-------------------------------
In conclusion, $f^h(x,y,z,t)=g(y_1,y_2,y_3)$ where $g$ is the output of the function [NewPres(FH)]{} and $$\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{lll}
y_1=t\\
\\
y_2=y+\frac{2}{3}z\\
\\
y_3=x+\frac{1}{3}z
\end{array}
\right. .$$
Hence, we have the polynomial equality $f(x,y,z)=g(1,y_2,y_3)$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is a cylinder ruled by lines parallel to the line $y_2=y_3=0$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For the modelling of pedestrian dynamics we treat persons as self-driven objects moving in a continuous space. On the basis of a modified social force model we qualitatively analyze the influence of various approaches for the interaction between the pedestrians on the resulting velocity-density relation. To focus on the role of the required space and remote force we choose a one-dimensional model for this investigation. For those densities, where in two dimensions also passing is no longer possible and the mean value of the velocity depends primarily on the interaction, we obtain the following result: If the model increases the required space of a person with increasing current velocity, the reproduction of the typical form of the fundamental diagram is possible. Furthermore we demonstrate the influence of the remote force on the velocity-density relation.'
author:
- Armin Seyfried
- Bernhard Steffen
- Thomas Lippert
title: Basics of Modelling the Pedestrian Flow
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Microscopic models are state of the art for computer simulation of pedestrian dynamics. The modelling of the individual movement of pedestrians results in a description of macroscopic pedestrian flow and allows e.g. the evaluation of escape routes, the design of pedestrian facilities and the study of more theoretical questions. For a first overview see [@PED01; @PED03]. The corresponding models can be classified in two categories: the cellular automata models [@MURA99; @BLUE00; @NAGA02; @SCHA01; @SCHR02] and models in a continuous space [@HELB95; @HOOG02; @THOM95; @KOEN01]. We focus on models continuous in space. They differ substantially with respect to the ‘interaction’ between the pedestrians and thus to the update algorithms as well. The social force model for example assumes, among other things, a repulsive force with remote action between the pedestrians [@HELB95; @MOLN96; @HELB00a; @HELB00b; @HELB01; @HELB01b; @HELB03]. Other models treat pedestrians by implementing a minimum inter-person distance, which can be interpreted as the radius of a hard body [@THOM95; @KOEN01].
One primary test, whether the model is appropriate for a quantitative description of pedestrian flow, is the comparison with the empirical velocity-density relation [@SCHR02b; @SCHA04; @HOOG02b; @RIMEA]. In this context the fundamental diagram of Weidmann [@WEID93] is frequently cited. It describes the velocity-density relation for the movement in a plane without bottlenecks, stairs or ramps. A multitude of causes can be considered which determine this dependency, for instance friction forces, the ’zipper’ effect [@HOOG05] and marching in step [@NAV69; @SEYF05]. As shown in [@SEYF05] the empirical velocity-density relation for the single-file movement is similar to the relation for the movement in a plane in shape and magnitude. This surprising conformance indicates, that lateral interferences do not influence the fundamental diagram at least up to a density-value of $4.5 \,m^{-2}$. This result suggests that it is sufficient to investigate the pedestrian flow of a one-dimensional system without loosing the essential macroscopic characteristics. We modify systematically the social force model to achieve a satisfying agreement with the empirical velocity-density relation (fundamental diagram). Furthermore we introduce different approaches for the interaction between the pedestrians to investigate the influence of the required space and the remote action to the fundamental diagram.
Modification of the Social Force Model
======================================
Motivation
----------
The social force model was introduced by [@HELB95]. It models the one-dimensional movement of a pedestrian $i$ at position $x_i(t)$ with velocity $v_i(t)$ and mass $m_i$ by the equation of motions
$$\frac{d x_i}{d t} = v_i \quad \quad m_i \frac{d v_i}{d t} = F_i = \sum_{j\neq i}
F_{ij}(x_j,x_i,v_i).$$
The summation over $j$ accounts for the interaction with other pedestrians. We assume that friction at the boundaries and random fluctuations can be neglected and thus the forces are reducible to a driving and a repulsive term $F_i=F^{drv}_i+F^{rep}_i$. According to the social force model [@HELB95] we choose the driving term
$$F^{drv}_{i}= m_i \frac{v^0_i-v_i}{\tau_i},$$
where $v^0_i$ is the intended speed and $\tau_i$ controls the acceleration. In the original model the introduction of the repulsive force $F^{rep}_i$ between the pedestrians is motivated by the observation that pedestrians stay away from each other by psychological reasons, e.g. to secure the private sphere of each pedestrian [@HELB95]. The complete model reproduces many self-organization phenomena like e.g. the formation of lanes in bi-directional streams and the oscillations at bottlenecks [@HELB95; @MOLN96; @HELB00a; @HELB00b; @HELB01; @HELB01b; @HELB03]. In the publications cited, the exact form of this repulsive interaction changes and the authors note that most phenomena are insensitive to its exact form [@HELB01b]. We choose the force as in [@HELB00a].
$$F^{rep}_{i}=\sum_{j\neq i} - \nabla A_i \left(\|x_j-x_i\|-d_{i}\right)^{-B_i}
\label{FREP}$$
The hard core, $d_i$, reflects the size of the pedestrian $i$ acting with a remote force on other pedestrians. Without other constraints a repulsive force which is symmetric in space can lead to velocities which are in opposite direction to the intended speed. Furthermore, it is possible that the velocity of a pedestrian can exceed the intended speed through the impact of the forces of other pedestrians. In a two-dimensional system this effect can be avoided through the introduction of additional forces like a lateral friction, together with an appropriate choice of the interaction parameters. In a one-dimensional system, where lateral interferences are excluded, a loophole is the direct limitation of the velocities to a certain interval [@HELB95; @MOLN96].
Another important aspect in this context is the dependency between the current velocity and the space requirement. As suggested by Pauls in the extended ellipse model [@PAULS04] the area taken up by a pedestrian increase with increasing speed. Thompson also based his model on the assumption, that the velocity is a function of the inter-person distance [@THOM95]. Furthermore Schreckenberg and Schadschneider observed in [@SCHR02b; @SCHA04], that in cellular automata model’s the consideration, that a pedestrian occupies all cells passed in one time-step, has a large impact on the velocity-density relation. Helbing and Molnár note in [@HELB95] that the range of the repulsive interaction is related to step-length. Following the above suggestion we specify the relation between required space and velocity for a one-dimensional system. In a one-dimensional system the required space changes to a required length $d$. In [@SEYF05] it was shown that for the single-file movement the relation between the required lengths for one pedestrian to move with velocity $v$ and $v$ itself is linear at least for velocities $0.1\,m/s < v < 1.0\,m/s$.
$$d = a + b\,v \quad \mbox{with} \quad a=0.36\,m \quad \mbox{and} \quad b=1.06\,s$$
Hence it is possible to determine one fundamental microscopic parameter, $d$, of the interaction on the basis of empirical results. This allows focusing on the question if the interaction and the equation of motion result in a correct description of the individual movement of pedestrians and the impact of the remote action. Summing up, for the modelling of regular motions of pedestrians we modify the reduced one-dimensional social force model in order to meet the following properties: the force is always pointing in the direction of the intended velocity $v_i^0$; the movement of a pedestrian is only influenced by effects which are directly positioned in front; the required length $d$ of a pedestrian to move with velocity $v$ is $d=a + b \, v$.
Interactions {#INTER}
------------
To investigate the influence of the remote action both a force which treats pedestrians as simple hard bodies and a force according to Equation \[FREP\], where a remote action is present, will be introduced. For simplicity we set $v^0_i > 0$, $x_{i+1} > x_i$ and the mass of a pedestrian to $m_i=1$.\
[**[Hard bodies without remote action]{}**]{}
$$\begin{aligned}
F_i(t) = \left\{\begin{array}{r@{\quad:\quad}l}
\frac{v^0_i-v_i(t)}{\tau_i} & x_{i+1}(t)-x_i(t) > d_{i}(t) \\
- \delta(t) v_i(t) & x_{i+1}(t)-x_i(t) \leq d_{i}(t)
\end{array}\right.
\label{NODIST}\end{aligned}$$
with $$d_i(t) = a_i + b_i v_i(t)\nonumber$$
The force which acts on pedestrian $i$ depends only on the position, its velocity, and the position of the pedestrian $i+1$ in front. As long as the distance between the pedestrians is larger than the required length, $d_i$, the movement of a pedestrian is only influenced by the driving term. If the required length at a given current velocity is larger than the distance the pedestrian stops (i. e. the velocity becomes zero). This ensures that the velocity of a pedestrian is restricted to the interval $v_i = [0,v_i^0]$ and that the movement is only influenced by the pedestrian in front. The definition of $d_i$ is such that the required length increases with growing velocity.\
[**[Hard bodies with remote action]{}**]{}
$$F_i(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{r@{\quad:\quad}l}
G_i(t) & v_i(t) > 0 \\
\max\left(0,G_i(t)\right) & v_i(t) \leq 0
\end{array} \right.
\label{DIST}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
\quad G_i(t)= \frac{v^0_i-v_i(t)}{\tau_i}
-e_{i}\left(\frac{1}{x_{i+1}(t)-x_i(t)-d_{i}(t)}\right)^{f_i}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$d_i(t) = a_i + b_i v_i(t)\nonumber$$
Again the force is only influenced by actions in front of the pedestrian. By means of the required length, $d_i$, the range of the interaction is a function of the velocity $v_i$. Two additional parameters, $e_i$ and $f_i$, have to be introduced to fix the range and the strength of the force. Due to the remote action one has to change the condition for setting the velocity to zero. The above definition assures that the pedestrian $i$ stops if the force would lead to a negative velocity. With the proper choice of $e_i$ and $f_i$ and sufficiently small time steps this condition gets active mainly during the relaxation phase. Without remote action this becomes important. The pedestrian can proceed when the influence of the driving term is large enough to get positive velocities.\
This different formulation of the forces requires different update algorithms, which will be introduced in the next section. A special problem stems from the periodic boundary conditions enforced for the tests of the fundamental diagram, as these destroy the ordering by causality, which otherwise could avoid blocking situations.
Time stepping algorithm
-----------------------
The social force model gives a fairly large system of second order ordinary differential equations. For the hard body model with remote action, where the right hand side of the ODE’s is continuous along the solution, an explicit Euler method with a time step of $\Delta t=0.001\,s$ was tested and found sufficient. Within that time, the distance between two persons does not change enough to make the explicit scheme inaccurate.
The situation for the hard body model without remote force is more complicated. Here the right hand side is a distribution, and the position of the Dirac spikes is not known a priory. Hence the perfect treatment is an adaptive procedure, where each global time step is restricted to the interval up to the next contact. Unfortunately, this is a complicated and time consuming process. For a simple time step we choose the following procedure: Each person is advanced one step ($\Delta t=0.001\,s$) according to the local forces. If after this step the distance to the person in front is smaller than the required length, the velocity is set to zero and the position to the old position. Additionally, the step of the next following person is reexamined. If it is still possible, the update is completed. Otherwise, again the velocity is set to zero and the position is set to the old position, and so on. This is an approximation to the exact parallel update. It is not completely correct, however. To test its independence from the ordering of persons, computations using different orders were performed. The differences were minute and not more than expected from reordering of arithmetic operations.
Results
=======
To enable a comparison with the empirical fundamental diagram of the single-file movement [@SEYF05] we choose a system with periodic boundary conditions and a length of $L=17.3\,m$. For both interactions we proofed that for system-sizes of $L=17.3, 20.0, 50.0\,m$ finite size effects have no notable influence on the results. The values for the intended speed $v^0_i$ are distributed according to a normal-distribution with a mean value of $\mu=1.24\,m/s$ and $\sigma=0.05\,m/s $. In a one-dimensional system the influence of the pedestrian with the smallest intended speed masks jamming effects which are not determined by individual properties. Thus we choose a $\sigma$ which is smaller than the empirical value and verified with $\sigma=0.05, 0.1, 0.2\,m/s$, that a greater variation has no influence to the mean velocities at larger densities.
In reality the parameters $\tau,a,b,e$ and $f$ are different for every pedestrian $i$ and correlated with the individual intended speed. But we know from experiment [@SEYF05] that the movement of pedestrians is influenced by phenomena like marching in step and in reality the action of a pedestrian depends on the entire situation in front and not only on the distance to the next person. Therefore it’s no point to attempt to give fully accurate values of this parameter and we may choose identical values for all pedestrians. We tested variations of the parameters and found that the behavior changes continuously. According to [@HELB03], $\tau=0.61\,s$ is a reliable value.
For every run we set at $t=0$ all velocities to zero and distribute the persons randomly with a minimal distance of $a$ in the system. After $3 \times 10^5$ relaxation-steps we perform $3 \times 10^5$ measurements-steps. At every step we determine the mean value of the velocity over all particles and calculate the mean value over time. The following figures present the dependency between mean velocity and density for different approaches to the interaction introduced in section \[INTER\]. To demonstrate the influence of a required length dependent on velocity we choose different values for the parameter $b$. With $b=0$ one get simple hard bodies.
![Velocity-density relation for hard bodies with $a=0.36\,m$ and without a remote action in comparison with empirical data from [@SEYF05]. The filled squares result from simple hard bodies. The introduction of a required length with $b=0.56\,s$ leads to a good agreement with the empirical data.[]{data-label="HDSPH"}](\DIR/fig1.eps){width="1.15\columnwidth"}
Figure \[HDSPH\] shows the relation between the mean values of walking speed and density for hard bodies with $a=0.36\,m$ and without remote action, according to the interaction introduced in Equation \[NODIST\]. If the required length is independent of the velocity, one gets a negative curvature of the function $v=v(\rho)$. The velocity-dependence controls the curvature and $b=0.56\,s$ results in a good agreement with the empirical data. With $b=1.06\,s$ we found a difference between the velocity-density relation predicted by the model and the empirical fundamental diagram. The reason for this discrepancy is that the interaction and equation of motion do not describe the individual movement of pedestrian correctly. To illustrate the influence of the remote force, we fix the parameter $a=0.36\,m,\,\,b=0.56\,s$ and set the values which determine the remote force to $e=0.07\,N$ and $f=2$.
![Velocity-density relation for hard bodies with remote action in comparison with hard bodies without a remote action (filled circles). Again we choose $a=0.36\,m$ and $b=0.56\,s$. The parameter $e=0.07\,N$ and $f=2$ determine the remote force. With $b=0$ one gets a qualitative different fundamental diagram and a gap for the resulting velocities.[]{data-label="SZFRC"}](\DIR/fig2.eps){width="1.15\columnwidth"}
The fundamental diagram for the interaction with remote action according to Equation \[DIST\] is presented in Figure \[SZFRC\]. The influence is small if one considers the velocity-dependence of the required length. But with $b=0$ one gets a qualitative different fundamental diagram. The increase of the velocity can be expected due to the effective reduction of the required length. The gap at $\rho\approx1.2\,m^{-1}$ is surprising. It is generated through the development of distinct density waves, see Figure \[DNSW\], as are well known from highways. From experimental view we have so far no hints to the development of strong density waves for pedestrians [@SEYF05]. The width of the gap can be changed by variation of the parameter $f$ which controls the range of the remote force. Near the gap the occurrence of the density waves depends on the distribution of the individual velocities, too.
![Time-development of the positions for densities near the velocity-gap, see Figure \[SZFRC\]. For $\rho>1.2\,m^{-1}$ density waves are observable. Some individuals leave much larger than average gaps in front.[]{data-label="DNSW"}](\DIR/fig3.eps "fig:"){width="1.2\columnwidth"} ![Time-development of the positions for densities near the velocity-gap, see Figure \[SZFRC\]. For $\rho>1.2\,m^{-1}$ density waves are observable. Some individuals leave much larger than average gaps in front.[]{data-label="DNSW"}](\DIR/fig4.eps "fig:"){width="1.2\columnwidth"}
Discussion and summary
======================
For the investigation of the influence of the required space and remote action on the fundamental diagram we have introduced a modified one-dimensional social force model. The modifications warrant that in the direction of intended speed negative velocities do not occur and that the motion of the pedestrians is influenced by objects and actions directly in front only. If one further takes into account that the required length for moving with a certain velocity is a function of the current velocity the model-parameter can be adjusted to yield a good agreement with the empirical fundamental diagram. This holds for hard bodies with and without remote action. The remote action has a sizeable influence on the resulting velocity-density relation only if the required length is independent of the velocity. In this case one observes distinct density waves, which lead to a velocity gap in the fundamental diagram.
Thus we showed that the modified model is able to reproduce the empirical fundamental diagram of pedestrian movement for a one-dimensional system, if it considers the velocity-dependence of the required length. For the model parameter $b$ which correlates the required length with the current velocity, we have found that without remote action the value $b=0.56\,s$ results in a velocity-density relation which is in a good agreement with the empirical fundamental diagram. However, from the same empirical fundamental diagram one determines $b=1.06\,s$, see [@SEYF05]. We conclude that a model which reproduces the right macroscopic dependency between density and velocity does not necessarily describe correctly the microscopic situation, and the space requirement of a person at average speed is much less than the average space requirement. This discrepancy may be explained by the ’short-sightedness’ of the model. Actually, pedestrians adapt their speed not only to the person immediately in front, but to the situation further ahead, too. This gives a much smoother movement than the model predicts.
The above considerations refer to the simplest system in equilibrium and with periodic boundary conditions. In a real life scenario like a building evacuation, where one is interested in estimates of the time needed for the clearance of a building and the development of the densities in front of bottlenecks, one is confronted with open boundaries and conditions far from equilibrium. We assume that a consistency on a microscopic level needs to be achieved before one can accurately describe real life scenarios. The investigation presented provides a basis for a careful extension of the modified social force model and an upgrade to two dimensions including further interactions.
We thank Oliver Passon for careful reading and Wolfram Klingsch for discussions.
[99]{}
M. Schreckenberg and S.D. Sharma (Ed.), [*Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics*]{} (Springer 2001)
E. R. Galea (Ed.), [*Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics*]{} (CMS Press 2003)
M. Muramatsu, T. Irie and T. Nagatani, Physica [**A267**]{}, 487 (1999)
V. J. Blue and J. L. Adler, Journal of the Transportation Research Board [**1678**]{}, 135 (2000)
K. Takimoto and T. Nagatani, Physica [**A 320**]{}, 611 (2003)
C. Burstedde, K. Klauck, A. Schadschneider and J. Zittartz, Physica [**A 295**]{}, 507 (2001)
A. Ke[ß]{}el, H. Klüpfel, J. Wahle and M. Schreckenberg, in [@PED01], p. 193
D. Helbing and P. Molnár, Phys. Rev. [**E51**]{}, 4282 (1995)
S. P. Hoogendoorn and P. H. L. Bovy, in [*Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Adelaide, 2002*]{}, edited by M. Taylor (University of South Australia, Adelaide, 2002), p. 219
P. Thompson and E. Marchant, Fire Safety Journal [**24**]{}, 131 (1995)
V. Schneider and R. Könnecke, in [@PED01], p. 303
P. Molnár, [*Modellierung und Simulation der Dynamik von Fußgängerströmen*]{}, Dissertation, (Shaker, Aachen, 1996)
D. Helbing, I. Farkas and T. Vicsek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 1240 (2000)
D. Helbing, I. Farkas, and T. Vicsek, Nature [**407**]{}, 487 (2000)
D. Helbing, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 1067 (2001)
D. Helbing, I. Farkas, P. Molnar and T. Vicsek, in [@PED01], p. 21
T. Werner and D. Helbing, in [@PED03], p. 17
T. Meyer-König, H. Klüpfel and M. Schreckenberg, in [@PED01], p. 297
A. Kirchner, H. Klüpfel, K. Nishinari, A. Schadschneider and M. Schreckenberg, J. Stat. Mech. [**P10011**]{} (2004)
S. P. Hoogendoorn, P. H. L. Bovy and W. Daamen, in [@PED01], p. 123
U. Weidmann, [*Transporttechnik der Fu[ß]{}gänger*]{}, Schriftenreihe des IVT Nr. 90, zweite ergänzte Auflage, ETH Zürich (1993)
S. P. Hoogendoorn, W. Daamen, Transportation Science [**39/2**]{}, 0147 (2005)
P. D. Navin and R. J. Wheeler, Traffic Engineering [**39**]{}, 31 (1969)
A. Seyfried, B. Steffen, W. Klingsch and M. Boltes, available for download at [http://arxiv.org]{}, physics/0506170 (2005)
J. L. Pauls, in [*Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, Belfast, 2004*]{} (Intersience Communications, London, 2004)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'A. Kuźmicz , B. Czerny,'
- 'C. Wildy'
bibliography:
- 'aa.bib'
date: 'Received September XX, XXX; accepted XXX, 2018'
title: Stellar populations in hosts of giant radio galaxies and their neighbouring galaxies
---
=1
[Giant radio galaxies (with projected linear size of radio structure larger than 0.7 Mpc) are very rare and unusual objects. Only $\sim$5% of extended radio sources reach such sizes. Understanding of the processes responsible for their large sizes is crucial to further our knowledge about the radio source’s evolution.]{} [We check the hypothesis that giants become extremely large due to the specific history of their host galaxy formation, as well as in the context of the cluster or group of galaxies where they evolve. Therefore we study the star formation histories in their host galaxies and in galaxies located in their neighbourhood. ]{} [We studied 41 giant-size radio galaxies as well as galaxies located within a radius of 5 Mpc around giants to verify whether the external conditions of the intergalactic medium somehow influence the internal evolution of galaxies in the group/cluster. We compared the results with a control sample of smaller-sized Fanaroff–Riley type II radio galaxies and their neighbouring galaxies. We fit stellar continua in all galaxy spectra using the spectral synthesis code STARLIGHT and provide statistical analysis of the results. ]{} [We find that hosts of giant radio galaxies have a larger amount of intermediate age stellar populations compared with smaller-sized FRII radio sources. The same result is also visible when we compare neighbouring galaxies located up to 1.5 Mpc around giants and FRIIs. This may be evidence that star formation in groups with giants was triggered due to global processes occurring in the ambient intergalactic medium. These processes may also contribute to mechanisms responsible for the extremely large sizes of giants.]{}
Introduction
============
Amongst many types of extragalactic radio sources, which cover a wide range of radio structures, morphologies and sizes, the giant radio sources (GRS) are very peculiar ones. The linear sizes of their radio structures are defined to be larger than 0.7 Mpc (assuming $H_{0}$=71 km/s/Mpc, $\rm \Omega_{M}$ = 0.27, $\rm \Omega_{vac}$ = 0.73; [@spargel2003]), what is comparable with sizes of galaxy clusters. The class of GRSs is not very large. To date we know just 348 confirmed GRSs [@kuzmicz2018] but that number is still growing, thanks to low-frequency telescopes, high resolution radio surveys and large spectroscopic surveys.\
Previous studies focused on the properties of individual objects (e.g. [@jamrozy2005; @subrahmanyan2006; @konar2009; @orru2010; @machalski2011]), but a few studies also consider larger samples of giants. They concentrate on the role of some factors which could be responsible for the gigantic size of radio structures. In these studies the authors consider the properties of the ambient intergalactic medium (IGM; [@machalski2006; @subrahmanyan2008; @kuligowska2009]), the advanced age of the radio structures (e.g. [@mack1998; @machalski2009]), recurrent radio activity (e.g. [@subrahmanyan1996; @schoenmakers2000; @machalski2011]), as well as the radio core and the central active galactic nuclei’s (AGN) specific properties [@ishwara1999; @kuzmicz2012].\
Studies carried out in recent years show that the GRSs can be used as barometers of the intergalactic medium. When the radio lobes expand, they first interact with the interstellar medium, then the intergalactic, and finally with the intracluster medium. These interactions can be a reason for asymmetries in radio structures. @subrahmanyan2008 and @safouris2009 showed that there is a clear connection between properties of radio lobes and the distribution of neighbouring galaxies. They showed that the asymmetries in radio morphology of some giants can be a result of inhomogeneities in the distribution of ambient intergalactic gas, which follows the large scale structure of the universe.\
The series of investigations by @chen2011a [@chen2011b; @chen2012a; @chen2012b] focus on the environmental properties around a few giant radio sources. In their studies they analyse the distribution and properties of companion galaxies around giants and find that they tend to lie near the radio lobes. They also show that in some cases (e.g. NGC6251, NGC315) the velocity dispersion of group members is not consistent with that expected from correlation curves of X-ray luminosity versus velocity dispersion [@mulchaey1998]. They conclude that the density of X-ray emitting gas is unusually low around studied giants and it can be the explanation of their extremely large sizes of radio structures.\
GRSs are also very valuable tools for investigating the large-scale structure of the Universe. The authors @malarecki2013 [@malarecki2015], @pirya2012, @peng2015 used their large sizes to probe the distribution of the warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) in filaments of the large-scale structure of the Universe focusing on evidence of radio lobe interactions with the ambient medium.\
On the other hand, the role of the environment for the galaxy properties and evolution is not irrelevant. The past mergers influence, for example, the galaxy morphology, star formation, and accretion processes. Also the cluster density is closely related to the morphological types of its galaxies. It has been shown that early-type galaxies dominate high density environments in contrast to late-type galaxies that dominate low-density ones [@dressler1980]. There are also a few studies aimed at the connection between cluster environment and star formation history. @moran2005 find that the central galaxies in clusters are older than those at larger distances from cluster centre. Furthermore, @demarco2010 showed that the dense cluster environment stops star formation in low mass galaxies when they enter the cluster. They also find that less massive galaxies formed stars more recently than more massive ones.\
There are also numerous studies investigating the stellar populations of radio sources (e.g. [@holt2007; @wills2008]). They concentrated on the identification of the young stellar populations in radio galaxies to establish the timescales of radio activity relative to the merger event. The young stellar populations are observed in $\sim$15–25% of all powerful extragalactic radio sources [@tadhunter2011]. They found that in most of those galaxies the radio activity occurs simultaneously with the starburst and it is explained as a result of a merger event with a gas-rich galaxy. There are also a group of radio galaxies where the radio activity is triggered a long time after the starburst. @raimannl2005 find that radio galaxies are dominated by intermediate age ($\sim$1 Gyr) stars, suggesting a connection between the radio activity and a starburst which occurred 1 Gyr ago. They also propose that more massive starbursts have led to more powerful radio emission.
In our analysis we have attempted to answer the question of whether or not the history of giant radio galaxy (GRG) host formation may be responsible for the growth of its radio structures. Galaxy formation is related to internal processes such as star formation, but it also depends on the global properties of the ambient medium, intergalactic gas and galaxies which comprise the galaxy cluster. In this paper we present the results of a stellar population analysis for the sample of GRGs, but also extend our studies to galaxies located in the same group/cluster as giants. We used a control sample of smaller-sized radio galaxies to look for systematic differences between stellar populations of giants and non-giants, and to find such properties of GRGs which distinguish them from smaller radio galaxies, which may be responsible for GRGs origin.\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present the sample of galaxies used in our analysis, in Section 3 we describe the data reduction procedures and methods of spectral synthesis, in Section 4 and 5 we discuss our results, and in Section 6 we present the summary and the conclusions.
Data and sample selection
=========================
Selection of GRGs and comparison sample
---------------------------------------
The sample of GRGs is extracted from the catalogue of GRSs by @kuzmicz2018. From their sample we selected 72 galaxies for which optical spectra were available in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 13 (SDSS DR13; [@albareti2016]). We restrict this number to 41 by including only those galaxies around which we found neighbouring galaxies (at least one galaxy) for which SDSS optical spectra are also available. The details of the selection process for neighbouring galaxies are presented in Section \[neighbours\]. In our analysis we are required to use only spectra of good quality. The selection criteria restricted the sample to nearby GRGs with redshifts in the range of 0.03$<$z$<$0.31, with mean 1.4 GHz total radio luminosity logP$_{tot}$=24.92 and mean projected linear size D=1.2 Mpc.\
As a comparison sample, we used the FRII-type radio galaxies from @koziel2011, in which the authors study properties of 401 FRII radio galaxies with a wide range of radio powers and radio structure sizes. Among them there are also 18 GRGs, and therefore we excluded them from the comparison sample. Similarly to GRGs selected for further analysis, we used only those radio sources for which we found at least one companion galaxy with an available optical spectrum (see Section \[neighbours\]). As a result, the final comparison sample consists of 217 FRII radio galaxies in a redshift range of 0.008$<$z$<$0.4 and with a mean projected linear size D=0.2 Mpc.\
In Figure \[zDP\] we present the characteristics of radio galaxies considered in this paper. We plot the distribution of redshifts, projected linear sizes and 1.4 GHz total radio luminosities for the sample of GRGs and FRIIs. All of the considered radio galaxies are nearby objects (up to z=0.4) with a wide range of radio powers.
![Distributions of redshift (top panel), projected linear size (middle panel) and 1.4 GHz total luminosity (bottom panel) for GRG and FRII samples studied in this paper.[]{data-label="zDP"}](distrib_z.pdf "fig:"){width="0.98\columnwidth"}\
![Distributions of redshift (top panel), projected linear size (middle panel) and 1.4 GHz total luminosity (bottom panel) for GRG and FRII samples studied in this paper.[]{data-label="zDP"}](distrib_D.pdf "fig:"){width="0.98\columnwidth"}\
![Distributions of redshift (top panel), projected linear size (middle panel) and 1.4 GHz total luminosity (bottom panel) for GRG and FRII samples studied in this paper.[]{data-label="zDP"}](distrib_P.pdf "fig:"){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
Selection of neighbouring galaxies {#neighbours}
----------------------------------
We looked for neighbouring galaxies around each radio galaxy (GRG, and FRII from comparison sample) using SDSS DR13. We selected all galaxies within a radius of about $\sim$5 Mpc from radio galaxy host with measured spectroscopic redshifts corresponding to the redshift of radio galaxy host. We adopted the redshift difference between a neighbouring galaxy and the radio galaxy host equal to $\Delta z\leqslant$ 0.003 that corresponds to $\sim$800km/s. The total number of neighbouring galaxies found around all of GRGs was 789 and around FRII radio galaxies was 3692. All of selected galaxies was used in further analysis. The completeness of spectroscopically selected group/cluster members depends on the completeness of SDSS. The SDSS main spectroscopic galaxy sample is complete within the magnitude range 14$<$r$<$18. The hosts of radio galaxies are usually associated with the brightest galaxy in the group and the neighbouring galaxies are up to few magnitude fainter. For bright radio galaxy hosts ($\sim$14 SDSS r-band magnitude) the completeness of fainter spectroscopic group members is $\sim$90% (in the range of 14$<$r$<$19 mag ), but for weak radio source hosts (with $\sim$18 SDSS r magnitude) the completeness of spectroscopic data below r$>$18 mag is much lower. Therefore, we counted neighbouring galaxies based on the SDSS photometric data to see how spectroscopic selection can be incomplete. We counted all galaxies which are up to five magnitudes fainter than hosts of radio sources requiring their photometric redshift estimations to correspond to the spectroscopic redshift of the radio galaxy host with the $\Delta$z$_{phot}\leqslant$0.02, equal to the error of SDSS photometric redshift estimations [@beck2016].
In Table \[tab1\] we list the principal parameters of analysed GRGs, arranging it as follows: column 1 – galaxy name; columns 2 and 3 – J2000.0 galaxy coordinates; column 4 – redshift; column 5 – linear size; column 6 – number of galaxies in group with available spectroscopic data; column 7 – number of galaxies within the radius of 0.5 Mpc from GRG; column 8 – number of galaxies between radius of 0.5 Mpc and 1 Mpc around GRG; column 9 – number of galaxies between radius of 1 Mpc and 1.5 Mpc around GRG; column 10 – number of galaxies between radius of 1.5 Mpc and 3 Mpc around GRG; column 11 – number of galaxies between radius of 3 Mpc and 5 Mpc around GRG; column 12 – number of galaxies in group which are five magnitudes fainter than host of GRG with $\Delta$z$_{phot}\leqslant$0.02.\
We can see that the number of galaxies selected from photometric data (column 12) is much larger than number of galaxies selected from spectroscopic data (column 6). However, the number of photometrically selected galaxies should be treated with a caution because of large error of SDSS photometric redshift estimation which causes that some of selected galaxies could not belong to the same galaxy group/cluster. Our studies base only on the spectroscopically selected galaxies despite of the fact that in some groups the completeness can be low. However, we have not studied particular group of galaxies, but groups in general, therefore the low completeness in some groups does not affect the final results in a significant way. All the radio maps of GRGs and the positions of neighbouring galaxies with available spectroscopic and photometric radshifts, are presented in Appendix A.
------ ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --- --- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- -----------
IAU $\alpha$(2000) $\delta$(2000) z D n n$_{0.5}$ n$_{0.5-1}$ n$_{1-1.5}$ n$_{1.5-3}$ n$_{3-5}$ n$_{m,z}$
name (h m s) ($\rm^{o}$ ’ ") & & (Mpc) & & & & & & &\
(1) & (2) & (3) &(4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9) & (10) & (11) & (12)\
J0003$+$0351 & 00 03 31.50 & $+$03 51 11.3 & 0.095 & 2.03 & 12 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 4 & 3 & 142\
J0010$-$1108 & 00 10 49.69 & $-$11 08 12.9 & 0.077 & 0.80 & 20 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 6 & 7 & 99\
J0042$-$0613 & 00 42 46.85 & $-$06 13 52.6 & 0.124 & 0.85 & 6 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 125\
J0115$+$2507 & 01 15 57.24 & $+$25 07 20.3 & 0.184 & 1.06 & 3 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 147\
J0120$-$0038 & 01 20 12.51 & $-$00 38 37.8 & 0.235 & 0.71 & 6 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 2 & 108\
J0134$-$0107 & 01 34 12.80 & $-$01 07 28.2 & 0.079 & 1.21 & 54 & 9 & 2 & 4 & 12 & 26 & 168\
J0135$-$0044 & 01 35 25.66 & $-$00 44 47.3 & 0.156 & 1.06 & 9 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 2 & 5 & 128\
J0259$-$0018 & 02 59 42.88 & $+$00 18 40.9 & 0.183 & 0.73 & 5 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 2 & 159\
J0751$+$4231 & 07 51 08.79 & $+$42 31 23.6 & 0.203 & 1.19 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 85\
J0857$+$0131& 08 57 01.76 & $+$01 31 30.9 & 0.273 & 1.30 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1& 95\
J0858$+$5620 & 08 58 32.78 & $+$56 20 14.7 & 0.240 & 0.87 & 4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 92\
J0902$+$1737 & 09 02 38.42 & $+$17 37 51.4 & 0.164 & 1.19 & 3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 90\
J0914$+$1006 & 09 14 19.53 & $+$10 06 40.5 & 0.308 & 1.71 & 5 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 135\
J0918$+$3151 & 09 18 59.42 & $+$31 51 40.6 & 0.062 & 0.78 & 31 & 5 & 3 & 4 & 9 & 9 & 93\
J0926$+$6519 & 09 26 00.90 & $+$65 19 23.0 & 0.140 & 0.78 & 12 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 4 & 3 & 79\
J0932$+$1611 & 09 32 38.32 & $+$16 11 57.8 & 0.191 & 0.76 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1& 86\
J1004$+$5434 & 10 04 51.83 & $+$54 34 04.4 & 0.047 & 0.81 & 125 & 9 & 9 & 12 & 36 & 58 & 131\
J1006$+$3454 & 10 06 01.77 & $+$34 54 10.2 & 0.099 & 4.23 & 12 & 0 & 5 & 0 & 4 & 2& 69\
J1021$+$1217 & 10 21 24.22 & $+$12 17 05.3 & 0.129 & 1.97 & 16 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 142\
J1021$+$0519 & 10 21 31.47 & $+$05 19 01.0 & 0.156 & 2.23 & 9 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 111\
J1032$+$2756 & 10 32 14.09 & $+$27 56 00.2 & 0.085 & 1.04 & 19 & 3 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 9 & 113\
J1032$+$5644 & 10 32 59.02 & $+$56 44 53.8 & 0.045 & 0.97 & 84 & 9 & 9 & 8 & 18 & 39 & 74\
J1111$+$2657 & 11 11 24.97 & $+$26 57 46.6 & 0.034 & 1.12 & 149 & 10 & 14 & 12 & 31 & 81 & 245\
J1147$+$3501 & 11 47 22.12 & $+$35 01 08.0 & 0.063 & 0.85 & 31 & 7 & 5 & 2 & 7 & 9 & 88\
J1247$+$6723& 12 47 33.33 & $+$67 23 16.5 & 0.107 & 1.35 & 12 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 5 & 3 & 121\
J1253$+$4041 & 12 53 12.28 & $+$40 41 23.7 & 0.229 & 1.01 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 90\
J1308$+$6154& 13 08 44.75 & $+$61 54 15.3 & 0.162 & 1.48 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 105\
J1311$+$4059 & 13 11 43.06 & $+$40 59 00.0 & 0.110 & 0.74 & 15 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 5 & 102\
J1327$+$5749 & 13 27 41.32 & $+$57 49 43.4 & 0.120 & 1.61 & 15 & 3 & 0 & 3 & 3 & 5 & 196\
J1328$-$0307 & 13 28 34.33 & $-$03 07 45.0 & 0.085 & 1.28 & 33 & 1 & 4 & 5 & 7 & 15 & 142\
J1345$+$5403 & 13 45 57.50 & $+$54 03 17.0 & 0.163 & 0.80 & 3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 170\
J1400$+$3019 & 14 00 43.44 & $+$30 19 18.2 & 0.206 & 2.19 & 7 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 3 & 140\
J1409$-$0302 & 14 09 48.85 & $-$03 02 32.5 & 0.138 & 1.37 & 10 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 4 & 2 & 138\
J1418$+$3746 & 14 18 37.65 & $+$37 46 24.5 & 0.135 & 1.09 & 14 & 0 & 3 & 1 & 4 & 5 & 153\
J1428$+$2918 & 14 28 19.24 & $+$29 18 44.2 & 0.087 & 1.42 & 17 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 7 & 7 & 128\
J1429$+$0715 & 14 29 55.38 & $+$07 15 12.9 & 0.055 & 0.71 & 47 & 3 & 5 & 4 & 10 & 24 & 116\
J1507$+$0234 & 15 07 03.78 & $+$02 34 07.2 & 0.124 & 0.83 & 7 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 132\
J1540$-$0127 & 15 40 56.82 & $-$01 27 10.2 & 0.149 & 0.76 & 7 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 112\
J1555$+$3653 & 15 55 00.42 & $+$36 53 37.4 & 0.247 & 1.34 & 3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0& 106\
J1615$+$3826 & 16 15 52.25 & $+$38 26 31.8 & 0.185 & 0.81 & 5 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1& 173\
J1635$+$3608 & 16 35 22.54 & $+$36 08 04.7 & 0.165 & 0.90 & 10 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 148\
------ ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --- --- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- -----------
Optical analysis
================
The spectra of giant radio galaxies, as well as galaxies from the comparison sample and all neighbouring galaxies, were processed through the standard procedures of the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility[[^1]]{} (IRAF). Each spectrum was corrected for Galactic extinction $A_V$ taken from the NASA/IPAC extragalactic database. The extinction-corrected spectra were then transformed to the rest frame in each case using the redshift values given in the SDSS. For all analysed spectra we applied the simple stellar population (SSP) synthesis code STARLIGHT [@cidfernandes2005] to model the observed spectra through fitting a galaxy spectral continuum. STARLIGHT code combines N spectra from a base of individual stellar populations in search of linear combinations matching an observed spectrum. The base consists of stellar spectra with different ages and metallicities extracted from the evolutionary synthesis models of @bruzual2003. The modelled spectrum is fitted using a Metropolis and Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques which explore the parameter space and searches for the minimum of $\chi^2$ between observed and modelled spectrum. For more details see [@cidfernandes2005]. In our modelling we used a base of 150 SSPs with 25 values of stellar ages (between 1 Myr and 18 Gyr) and six metallicities (from 0.005 to 2.5 Z$\odot$). Each SSP with a given age and metallicity contributes to the model flux, and it can be expressed as a light fraction population vector x$_j$, and mass fraction population vector $\mu_j$. As a result of modelling we obtain mean stellar ages, present-day stellar mass, mean metallicities, velocity dispersion, star formation and chemical evolution histories. In Figure \[1006\] we present an example of modelled spectrum and the light fraction population vector as a function of stellar age which represents the stellar composition of galaxy.
![Spectral modelling using STARLIGHT synthesis code for J1006+3454 GRG. [**Top:** ]{}Observed spectrum is ploted by black colour, modelled spectrum by red and residual spectrum by the green colour. [**Bottom:**]{} Age distribution in the light fraction population vector.[]{data-label="1006"}](1006.pdf "fig:"){width="0.92\columnwidth"}\
![Spectral modelling using STARLIGHT synthesis code for J1006+3454 GRG. [**Top:** ]{}Observed spectrum is ploted by black colour, modelled spectrum by red and residual spectrum by the green colour. [**Bottom:**]{} Age distribution in the light fraction population vector.[]{data-label="1006"}](1006pop.pdf "fig:"){width="0.92\columnwidth"}\
Analysis and results
====================
Stellar populations {#Stellar populations}
-------------------
In our analysis we compared the parameters obtained for GRGs with those of smaller FRII radio galaxies, as well as their hosts with neighbouring galaxies and neighbours around those two groups of radio galaxies between each other. To examine whether there are any differences in the stellar populations, we firstly model the SSPs for each galaxy and then we average the resultant SSPs for each class of galaxies: for GRGs, FRII radio galaxies, neighbours of giants, and neighbours of FRIIs.
Figures \[populations\] and \[populations2\] show the mean light-weighted population vector $\Sigma x_j$ (left column) and mass-weighted $\Sigma \mu_j$ (right column) population vector as a function of stars age $t$. We plotted these figures for particular samples and for five different radii around radio galaxy hosts (0.5, 1, 1.5, 3 and 5 Mpc). The $\Sigma x_j$ and $\Sigma \mu_j$ vectors are summarized by metallicity and then averaged in each galaxy sample. To preserve the clarity of Figures \[populations\] and \[populations2\], we binned the results using 12 age bins instead of 25.\
The results of stellar population composition in studied galaxies are summarized in Table \[tab2\], where the obtained SSPs are divided into three age bins: young populations with stellar ages t$_{\star}<5\times10^8$yr, intermediate populations with $9\times10^8$ yr $<$t$_{\star}$$<7.5\times10^9$ yr, and old populations with t$_{\star}>10^{10}$yr. Contributions of each age bin are given in percentage of $\Sigma$x$_j$ and $\Sigma$$\mu_j$ separately. The uncertainties of $\Sigma$x$_j$ and $\Sigma$$\mu_j$ in each sample of galaxies were calculated as the standard deviation of the mean value.\
In first two rows of Figure \[populations\] we show the comparison of stellar populations between hosts of radio galaxies (GRGs and FRIIs) and their neighbours. We can see that both for GRGs and smaller-sized FRIIs the host galaxies are dominated by stellar populations with ages above 1 Gyr. In comparison with their neighbouring galaxies they have a larger fraction of the oldest populations ($\sim$10 Gyr) and a smaller fraction of intermediate age stars ($\sim$1 Gyr). This fact can be explained by the different types of galaxies considered in the samples. The hosts of radio galaxies are old ellipticals located predominantly in the centres of clusters/groups of galaxies, while their neighbours are of various types where the star formation processes are more common than in ellipticals.
In the next step we compare the SSPs of GRGs with smaller-sized FRIIs. As it can be seen in Figure \[populations\] and Table \[tab2\] the GRGs have a larger fraction of intermediate age stars ($\sim$1 Gyr) and significantly smaller fraction of the oldest ones ($\sim$10 Gyr). This fact is evidence of the differences in the structure of GRG hosts compared with hosts of smaller-sized counterparts. The same difference in SSP composition is observed for neighbours of GRGs and FRIIs. Galaxies located around GRGs have a larger fraction of middle age stars compared with galaxies around FRIIs. It is also clearly visible that this effect is more significant when we take into account galaxies located closer to the radio source’s host (up to radius of 1.5 Mpc). The difference between SSPs in neighbouring galaxies of GRGs and FRIIs is not as prominent as for radio galaxy hosts, however we observe that the intermediate age populations in neighbours of GRGs are systematically higher than in neighbours of FRIIs, while old stellar populations are systematically lower.\
The above results show that giants, together with their neighbouring galaxies, could have different formation histories comparing to the groups with smaller sized radio galaxies. It may be evidence of different global properties of the ambient medium where those groups evolve. For example, the scenario of a close interaction or minor merger event in the central part of a galaxy group can indicate larger star formation in the most central galaxies.
We also have carried out simple statistical analyses of the types of neighbouring galaxies in a radius of 5 Mpc from the radio galaxy host. Based on the SDSS classification of galaxies, we found that 31% of spectroscopic GRG neighbours are star forming galaxies, 6% are starburst galaxies and 2.4% are AGNs. In a sample of FRII neighbours we observe 27% star forming galaxies, 5.7% starburst galaxies and 2.7% AGNs. It shows that environments around GRGs and FRIIs statistically consist of similar galaxies and the obtained larger amount of intermediate age populations in GRG neighbours is not due to the larger amount of galaxies which formed stars more recently.
In all graphs which show the distribution of ages represented by the light fraction population vector we observe a large contribution of stars with ages $\sim$1 Gyr. Some authors (e.g. [@chen2010]) found that the fraction of $\sim$1 Gyr stars depend on the stellar libraries used in spectral modelling, however qualitatively it does not affect the obtained results, since we use the same fitting procedures for all of our galaxies. Otherwise, the evidence of intermediate age stellar populations was suggested by other authors to be common in local elliptical galaxies (e.g. [@huang2009]).
{width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"}\
{width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"}\
{width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"}\
{width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"}
{width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"} {width="0.92\columnwidth"}
--------------------- -------------- ----------------- --------------
$\Sigma$x$_j$
Young Intermediate Old
GRGs 8.1$\pm$4.1 39.4$\pm$6.2 52.5$\pm$0.5
FRIIs 7.3$\pm$3.3 26.5$\pm$3.6 66.2$\pm$0.2
[**R$<$0.5 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 18.7$\pm$6.1 50.4$\pm$4.4 30.9$\pm$1.1
Neighbours of FRIIs 19.6$\pm$3.6 46.4$\pm$2.4 34.0$\pm$0.5
[**R$<$1 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 13.9$\pm$6.3 52.5$\pm$4.6 33.6$\pm$0.9
Neighbours of FRIIs 19.5$\pm$2.5 47.0$\pm$1.7 33.5$\pm$0.4
[**R$<$1.5 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 16.2$\pm$6.5 50.4$\pm$5.1 37.8$\pm$1.0
Neighbours of FRIIs 14.9$\pm$3.1 44.3$\pm$2.5 40.8$\pm$0.3
[**R$<$3 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 15.4$\pm$5.3 46.2$\pm$4.1 38.4$\pm$0.6
Neighbours of FRIIs 15.4$\pm$2.5 44.3$\pm$1.8 40.3$\pm$0.2
[**R$<$5 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 15.2$\pm$4.4 45.3$\pm$3.3 39.5$\pm$0.6
Neighbours of FRIIs 16.1$\pm$2.2 43.8$\pm$1.5 40.1$\pm$0.2
$\Sigma$$\mu_j$
Young Intermediate Old
GRGs 0.5$\pm$2.6 17.1$\pm$7.5 82.4$\pm$0.1
FRIIs 0.1$\pm$1.1 8.5$\pm$3.5 91.5$\pm$0.2
[**R$<$0.5 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 0.4$\pm$4.6 36.4$\pm$6.1 63.2$\pm$0.1
Neighbours of FRIIs 0.5$\pm$1.9 35.4$\pm$3.5 64.1$\pm$0.1
[**R$<$1 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 1.0$\pm$3.5 34.7$\pm$6.9 64.3$\pm$0.3
Neighbours of FRIIs 0.6$\pm$1.3 34.8$\pm$2.5 64.6$\pm$0.1
[**R$<$1.5 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 0.6$\pm$2.1 37.3$\pm$4.2 62.1$\pm$0.1
Neighbours of FRIIs 0.7$\pm$1.1 35.7$\pm$2.0 63.6$\pm$0.1
[**R$<$3 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 0.6$\pm$1.9 36.8$\pm$3.2 62.6$\pm$0.1
Neighbours of FRIIs 0.7$\pm$1.3 35.8$\pm$2.1 63.5$\pm$0.1
[**R$<$5 Mpc**]{}
Neighbours of GRGs 0.6$\pm$1.3 37.8$\pm$2.5 61.6$\pm$0.1
Neighbours of FRIIs 0.8$\pm$1.2 35.6$\pm$1.9 63.6$\pm$0.1
--------------------- -------------- ----------------- --------------
: Summarized light and mass fraction population vector for samples of GRGs, smaller-sized FRIIs and neighbouring galaxies of GRGs and FRIIs, divided into three age bins: young (t$_{\star}<5\times10^8$yr), intermediate ($9\times10^8$yr$<$t$_{\star}$$<7.5\times10^9$yr), and old (t$_{\star}>10^{10}$yr) stellar populations. []{data-label="tab2"}
Uncertainty of STARLIGHT fitting
--------------------------------
In our studies we obtain relatively small differences between resultant SSPs for studied samples of galaxies, therefore it is important to consider the uncertainties of fitting procedure. [@cidfernandes2005] check the recovery of spectral parameters modelled by STARLIGHT based on mock spectra with an assumed star formation history. The synthetic spectra were perturbed to obtain different signal-to-noise ratios (S/N) and the error spectrum was adopted to reconstruct real observed spectrum. The authors find that individual components of x$_j$ are very uncertain but the binning x$_j$ on to young, intermediate and old components gives the robust description of the star formation. Other output parameters, for example $\left<\log t^{\star}\right>_L$, $\left <\log t^{\star}\right >_M$ also recover the input parameters well. On average our spectra have S/N equal to 15. According to parameter uncertainties obtained by [@cidfernandes2005] (listed in their Table 1.) the mean and the dispersion between input and output values of xj in an individual objects are equal to $0.62 \pm 4.04$%, $0.01 \pm 7.88 $%, and $-0.63 \pm 7.61$% for young, intermediate and old stellar populations respectively. Thus for an individual galaxy the dispersion is large. On the other hand, we finally compare a sample of 41 giant radio galaxies, so these uncertainties reduce to $0.62 \pm 0.63$%, $0.01 \pm 1.23 $%, and $-0.63 \pm 1.19$%, respectively, due to the reduction of the dispersion. For $\mu_j$ the uncertainties of parameter recovery for a single galaxy are equal to $0.16 \pm 1.18$%, $0.93 \pm 6.10$% and $-1.09 \pm 6.54$%, reducing to $0.16 \pm 0.18$%, $0.93 \pm 0.95$% and $-1.09 \pm 1.02$%. The uncertainties are much lower than the differences we report in Table 2.
The ages and masses
-------------------
Based on stellar continuum fits for individual galaxies we determine the stellar mass, black hole mass, light and mass weighted mean stellar age $\left <\log t^{\star}\right >$ and metallicity $\left <\log Z^{\star}\right >$ defined by @cidfernandes2005 as
$$\left <\log t^{\star}\right >_L=\sum_{j=1}^{N} x_j \log t_j \hspace{0.5cm} and \hspace{0.5cm} \left <\log Z^{\star}\right>_L=\sum_{j=1}^{N} x_j \log Z_j\\
\label{eq1}$$
$$\left <\log t^{\star}\right >_M=\sum_{j=1}^{N} \mu_j \log t_j \hspace{0.5cm} and \hspace{0.5cm} \left <\log Z^{\star}\right>_M=\sum_{j=1}^{N} \mu_j \log Z_j
\label{eq2}
.$$
In Figure \[distrib\] we plot the distributions of stellar mass, $\left <\log t^{\star}\right >_L$, and $\left <\log Z^{\star}\right >_L$ obtained for individual galaxies in each sample. In the first graph, where we present the distribution of mean stellar mass, it can be seen that the stellar masses in hosts of radio sources are mostly higher than masses of neighbouring galaxies, but in both samples of neighbours we also observe galaxies with stellar masses as high as in radio sources.
![Distributions of mean stellar mass, mean stellar age and mean stellar metallicity for samples of GRGs, smaller-sized FRII radio sources, and their neighbouring galaxies.[]{data-label="distrib"}](Mgw_distrib.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![Distributions of mean stellar mass, mean stellar age and mean stellar metallicity for samples of GRGs, smaller-sized FRII radio sources, and their neighbouring galaxies.[]{data-label="distrib"}](tgw_distrib.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![Distributions of mean stellar mass, mean stellar age and mean stellar metallicity for samples of GRGs, smaller-sized FRII radio sources, and their neighbouring galaxies.[]{data-label="distrib"}](Z_distrib.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
In the next two panels we plot the distributions of light weighted stellar ages and metallicities. Similarly to the graphs with mass distributions, the plotted parameters obtained for neighbouring galaxies span a wide range of values and the hosts of radio sources from GRG and FRII samples are concentrated in the right end of these ranges.\
To find any difference in properties between the groups concentrated around GRGs and FRIIs, we determine the parameters characterizing groups as a whole (the host of a radio galaxy with its neighbours). We summed up the stellar masses, $\left <\log t^{\star}\right >_L$, and $\left <\log Z^{\star}\right >_L$ of individual galaxies in each galaxy group separately. In Figure \[group\] we plot the normalized distributions of above parameters. We obtained that both for groups with GRGs and FRIIs, all of the parameters span similar ranges of values and have similar distribution shapes. However, we observe that the summarized stellar mass in groups with giants have slightly higher values than in groups with smaller FRIIs. This is evidence that the larger amount of stellar mass is cumulated in galaxies around giants.
In Table \[tab3\] we summarize the average values of light and mass-weighted stellar ages, metallicities and stellar masses obtained for all galaxies in each sample. However, it can be seen that there are no statistically significant differences between considered samples. Also when we compare the values characterizing the whole groups with GRGs and FRIIs, we do not see the differences in mean stellar ages, metallicity and stellar masses. The obtained parameters for groups with giants and smaller-sized FRIIs are nearly the same, so all considered groups look very similar. However, the effects of environmental influences on internal properties of cluster members can be small enough to be visible. It can only be well recognized in studies of individual groups for which we have good quality spectroscopic data for all cluster members. Any subtle differences are usually not visible when we average the large number of values, because the uncertainties of these quantities become larger than presumed differences.\
![Normalized distributions of mean stellar masses, ages and metallicities for groups of galaxies with GRGs and smaller-sized FRIIs.[]{data-label="group"}](Mgr_norm.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![Normalized distributions of mean stellar masses, ages and metallicities for groups of galaxies with GRGs and smaller-sized FRIIs.[]{data-label="group"}](tgr_norm.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![Normalized distributions of mean stellar masses, ages and metallicities for groups of galaxies with GRGs and smaller-sized FRIIs.[]{data-label="group"}](Zgr_norm.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
--------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
$\left <\log t^{\star}\right >_L$ $\left <\log t^{\star}\right >_M$ $\left <\log Z^{\star}\right >_L$ $\left <\log Z^{\star}\right >_M$ logM$_{\star}$
\[yr\] \[yr\] \[$\odot$\]
GRGs 9.54$\pm$0.49 9.96$\pm$0.34 -1.82$\pm$0.26 -1.65$\pm$0.15 11.38$\pm$0.39
FRIIs 9.71$\pm$0.41 10.07$\pm$0.29 -1.79$\pm$0.19 -1.64$\pm$0.11 11.48$\pm$0.34
Neighbours of GRGs 9.11$\pm$0.58 9.80$\pm$0.32 -1.95$\pm$0.34 -1.85$\pm$0.33 10.46$\pm$0.61
Neighbours of FRIIs 9.12$\pm$0.59 9.80$\pm$0.46 -1.95$\pm$0.35 -1.86$\pm$0.35 10.51$\pm$0.72
Groups with GRGs 9.13$\pm$0.29 9.89$\pm$0.17 -1.84$\pm$0.15 -1.72$\pm$0.15 11.92$\pm$0.24
Groups with FRIIs 9.45$\pm$0.35 9.94$\pm$0.23 -1.86$\pm$0.18 -1.73$\pm$0.16 11.89$\pm$0.27
--------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------
Star formation rate
-------------------
For each galaxy we derived the star formation rate (SFR) and specific star formation rate (SSFR) using the definition of [@asari2007]:
$$SFR(t_*)=\frac{M_{*}^c {\rm log} e}{t_*}\frac{\mu_{s}^c(t_*)}{\Delta {\rm log} t_*}
\label{eq3}$$
where $M_{*}^c$ is the total mass converted to stars throughout the galaxy life, and $\mu_{s}^c(t_*)$ is the fraction of this mass in the $t_*$ bin. $$SSFR(t_*)=\frac{ {\rm log} e}{t_*}\frac{\mu_{s}^c(t_*)}{\Delta {\rm log} t_*}
\label{eq4}
,$$ which measures the star formation rate with respect to the mass already converted into stars. Time-dependent star formation rates can be derived from the stellar population synthesis and they are in a good agreement with SFR estimations from H$\alpha$ line [@asari2007]. In Figure \[SFR\] we present the averaged SFR(t) and SSFR(t) for each sample of galaxies considered in this paper. It can be seen that star formation occurred $\sim$1 Gyr ago in GRGs started earlier and was higher than in FRII galaxies. However, there are no differences between neighbours of giants and neighbours of FRIIs.
![ Average time-dependent star formation rate ([**top graph**]{}) and specific star formation rate ([**bottom graph**]{}) for sample of GRGs, FRIIs, neighbours of GRGs and neighbours of FRIIs.[]{data-label="SFR"}](SFR.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![ Average time-dependent star formation rate ([**top graph**]{}) and specific star formation rate ([**bottom graph**]{}) for sample of GRGs, FRIIs, neighbours of GRGs and neighbours of FRIIs.[]{data-label="SFR"}](SSFR.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
According to our results from Section \[Stellar populations\], the neighbours of giants have larger fraction of intermediate age populations compared to their counterparts around FRII galaxies, but this effect is visible for galaxies located up to 1.5 Mpc from the host. Therefore, we plotted the same figure as Figure \[SFR\] but for neighbouring galaxies located within a radius of 1.5 Mpc. In Figure \[SFR2\] it is clearly visible that in case of neighbours of giants the $\sim$1 Gyr starburst also started earlier. It confirms that in groups with giants (within a radius of 1.5 Mpc) star formation processes were triggered at almost the same time indicating the specific global conditions occurred in the intergalactic medium of a group.
![Average time-dependent star formation rate ([**top graph**]{}) and specific star formation rate ([**bottom graph**]{}) for sample of GRGs, FRIIs, neighbours of GRGs within a radius of 1.5 Mpc and neighbours of FRIIs within a radius of 1.5 Mpc. []{data-label="SFR2"}](SFR3.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![Average time-dependent star formation rate ([**top graph**]{}) and specific star formation rate ([**bottom graph**]{}) for sample of GRGs, FRIIs, neighbours of GRGs within a radius of 1.5 Mpc and neighbours of FRIIs within a radius of 1.5 Mpc. []{data-label="SFR2"}](SSFR3.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Galaxy distribution around GRGs
-------------------------------
The distribution of galaxies around GRGs was previously studied by several authors (e.g. [@malarecki2015; @pirya2012; @chen2011a; @chen2011b; @chen2012a; @chen2012b]). They used GRGs to probe the properties of the ambient IGM. As a result they find evidence of radio jet interaction with the group of galaxies around some GRGs. They also find that in most giants, the shorter jet is brighter, suggesting asymmetries in the IGM which may not be apparent in the distribution of neighbouring galaxies [@pirya2012]. Also the asymmetries and deformations of radio lobes indicate the influence of environment on to the radio source. @malarecki2015 find that there is a tendency for GRG’s lobes to grow in directions that avoid dense regions that have large number of galaxies (i.e. perpendicular to filaments) on both small and large scales. Hence they state that GRGs can grow to large sizes due to their specific location in large scale structure of Universe.\
In Appendix A we plot the maps of all GRGs from our sample and marked all spectroscopically confirmed neighbours as well as photometric candidates for galaxy group members. Eight of the GRGs from our sample was also studied by @pirya2012 (J0926+6519, J1006+3454, J1147+3501, J1247+6723, J1311+4059, J1328-0307, J1400+3019, J1428+2918, J1635+3608). Based on the distribution of spectroscopically identified galaxies that we study in this paper, we can see that many GRGs have radio lobes directed towards the less dense regions in the cluster (as it was shown by [@malarecki2015]), but there are some evident examples of GRGs where the radio jets are directed to the denser regions (e.g. J0134-0107, J0918+3151, J1004+5434, J1021+1217, J1032+5644, J1311+4058 and J1429+0715). In these radio sources we observe neighbouring galaxies located along the radio lobes with few or no galaxies in the orthogonal direction. Another example of such a giant is DA240 studied by @chen2011b who show that neighbouring galaxies lie along the major axis of the radio source. It shows that GRGs are located in relatively various environments and future studies are needed to verify if their orientation in large scale structure of Universe can be a significant factor responsible for their sizes. We also note that a large fraction (45%) of GRGs from our sample have at least one relatively close neighbouring galaxy 0.2 Mpc away from GRG’s host, while in a comparison sample of smaller sized FRIIs we observe close neighbours in 36% of radio galaxies, but this tendency also have to be tested in future studies.
Discussion
==========
There are many factors which are closely related to star formation in galaxies. We can distinguish two groups of them: the factors related to physical properties of individual galaxies (e.g. mass, luminosity, morphological type, gas richness, etc.), and the environmental factors (galaxy interactions and mergers, tidal forces, cold streams, gas stripping, strangulation, density of IGM, etc.) Some of them can trigger a starburst, and some of them can suppress star formation. The results obtained for groups with GRGs and FRIIs indicate the importance of environmental factors because we observe higher fractions of $\sim$1 Gyr aged star formation not only in hosts of GRGs but also in their neighbouring galaxies.
Merger events
-------------
Galaxy interactions and mergers are thought to be a major process driving galaxy formation and they may be responsible for triggering the star formation in interacting galaxies. However, it is well known that major galaxy mergers are rare in the nearby Universe (e.g. [@patton2000]). We also know that the majority of galaxy stellar mass was reached at the cosmic time corresponding to z$\sim$2–3 (e.g. [@stott2013]). This star formation epoch is visible as the peak of light and mass fraction population vectors in Figures \[populations\] and \[populations2\] near 10 Gyrs.\
A significant fraction of intermediate age stars ($\sim$1 Gyr) are visible in all samples considered in this paper. This was also found by @raimannl2005 for a sample of 24 radio galaxies. They suggest that there is a connection between starburst episodes occurring 1 Gyr ago and the radio activity at the present time. They also state that the starbust was a consequence of, for example, interaction with a passing external galaxy, or merger. This scenario is also proposed by @huang2009 although they do not find any obvious evidence of morphological disturbance in a sample of low redshift elliptical galaxies. They also state that the merger events leading to star formation are relatively minor and that the morphological disturbances could not already be visible. It is also confirmed by the observations that massive galaxies ($>$10$^{10} M\odot$) passed one or two major merger events within z$<$1.2 [@conselice2009]. According to these results it is possible that star formation which happened $\sim$1 Gyr ago is a result of mergers at z$\sim$1.\
Merger events could be a good explanation of $\sim$1 Gyr starbursts in GRGs and smaller sized radio galaxies. However, it is more significant for central galaxies of the group. The galaxies located at larger distances from the centre are not disturbed by the central merger, so the $\sim$1 Gyr star formation visible in these galaxies is likely to have other origin.
Environment
-----------
Global star formation may be a result of environmental factors. The environmental influence on star formation has been studied by many authors. For example the studies of @hoyle2005a [@hoyle2005b] show that galaxies located inside voids have higher star formation rates than galaxies in denser regions and that they are still forming stars at the same rate as in the past. However the GRSs are mostly located out of cosmic voids [@kuzmicz2018].\
Also @ceccarelli2008 find that bluer galaxies with a wide range of luminosity and local density, which are located at the void peripheries, show increased star formation. They explain this effect as a consequence of lower accretion and the merger history of galaxies arriving at void walls from the emptier inner void regions.\
Cold streams
------------
The other possible explanation of global star formation in groups of galaxies is the interaction of group galaxies with cold (10$^4$K – 10$^5$K) intergalactic gas which penetrates the galaxies. Such cold flows are filamentary and clumpy [@keres2005], particularly in the low density environment. The star formation caused by cold streams occurs only in low-mass galaxy halos ($<$10$^{12}\odot$). For more massive halos the cold stream is preheated in a standing shock to nearly virial temperature of 10$^6$K and star formation does not follow [@dekel2006]. Therefore, when we consider cold streams as an explanation of higher star formation occurring $\sim$1 Gyr ago, it can only be the case for low mass galaxy halos.\
The evidence of cold streams passing through the galaxy group should be visible in the ages of stellar populations. The typical velocities of cold streams are $\sim$10$^4$ km/s [@zinger2018] and to pass the distance equal to the assumed diameter of the group ($\sim$10 Mpc) it needs about 1 Gyr. The intermediate-age stellar populations have ages in the range of $9\times10^8$yr $<$t$_{\star}$$<7.5\times10^9$ yr, so we should be able to see evidence of higher star formation in the whole group along the cold stream. For our sample of GRGs we do not see any evidence that the starburst occurred along any preferred direction which could correspond to the cold stream direction. In some cases the $\sim$1 Gyr starburst is initially visible in central galaxies of the group, and in some cases it initially occurs at the edges. However, we do not know the sizes and geometries of these supposed cold streams and it is possible that they could pass through the galaxy group in more complicated ways.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we studied the stellar populations of 41 GRGs and galaxies which belong to the groups around them. We compare our results with a sample of 217 smaller-sized FRII radio galaxies and their neighbours in order to find systematic differences in properties of the GRG’s hosts and their environment, which can be responsible for the origin of large scale radio lobes. The main conclusions of this work can be summarized as follows:
The average stellar populations in samples of galaxies – the GRG hosts, FRII hosts, neighbours of GRGs and neighbours of FRIIs – are dominated by old stellar populations (t$_{\star}>10^{10}$yr) but they also comprise significant fraction of intermediate age populations with ages $9\times10^8$yr$<$t$_{\star}$$<7.5\times10^9$yr.
The GRG’s hosts have larger intermediate age stellar populations compared to smaller-sized FRIIs, in which the larger fraction of the oldest populations with ages above t$_{\star}>10^{10}$yr can be observed. The same effect can be seen for neighbouring galaxies located up to 1.5 Mpc from radio galaxy host – the neighbours of giants have larger fractions of intermediate age populations compared to their counterparts around FRII galaxies.
We do not find differences in the mean values of stellar mass, $\left <\log t^{\star}\right >_L$, and $\left <\log Z^{\star}\right >_L$ obtained for each sample of galaxies. Also, the differences in these parameters derived for individual groups of galaxies are statistically insignificant, indicating that groups with GRGs and groups with smaller-sized FRIIs are similar.
Based on the distribution of neighbouring galaxies around GRGs, we found that radio jets are usually oriented towards the regions with smaller numbers of surrounding galaxies, however there are also a fraction of giants with jets oriented towards the dense regions. Therefore, future detailed studies are needed to confirm the scenario of specific orientation of GRGs in large scale structure of Universe, postulated as a possible explanation of large sizes of giants.\
The larger fraction of intermediate age stellar populations in GRGs and their neighbouring galaxies can be explained as, for example, a result of past merger events or cold streams penetrating the group of galaxies, which can trigger star formation. The smaller radio sources also have a large fraction of intermediate age stellar populations but this number is lower than in GRGs. This means that in groups with GRGs, the processes responsible for star formation could be globally more efficient and they not only occurred in the central elliptical galaxy, but also in surrounding members of the group. These processes have larger significance on spatial scales of 1.5 Mpc around the radio source. Therefore, either the global properties of the intergalactic medium or past events that happened in the galaxy groups can be responsible for the giant sizes of radio structures. Both mergers and cold streams may also supply the central AGN of the radio source. This indicates that in such galaxies the central black hole is fed by new material and the radio activity mode may persist for a longer time, or it occurs more frequently than in smaller radio sources. This scenario may support the idea that the longer activity phase of central AGN in GRGs may be responsible for giant radio source sizes. The obtained results show that future studies of larger samples of GRGs with accompanying multi-object spectroscopy can be very helpful in investigations of GRGs origin and evolution in cluster environments.
This project was supported by the Polish National Center of Science under decision UMO-2016/20/S/ST9/00142.
Radio maps of giant radio galaxies
==================================
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"} {width="0.45\columnwidth"}\
\
{width="0.45\columnwidth"}
[^1]: http://iraf.noao.edu
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'While non-action-generated, but identically conserved, abelian/YM gauge vectors exist, they are unsuitable for building alternate field equations, because they have no stress-tensor, hence do not permit Poincare generators and, most physically, cannot consistently couple to gravity. Separately, their geometric analogues, covariantly conserved non-Lagrangian symmetric tensors, probably do not even exist, but their weak field, abelian, counterparts do, and share the vector fields’ absence of generators.'
---
BRX TH-6645\
CALT-TH 2019-01
[**Non-Lagrangian Gauge Field Models are Physically Excluded**]{}
[S. Deser]{}
[ *Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics,\
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125;\
Physics Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454\
[[email protected]]{}* ]{}
Introduction
============
This work answers an open question regarding massless gauge (abelian and non-) vector, and (less strongly) geometric tensor fields: Are there viable models with identically conserved field equations’ “left-hand-side" terms that are not derivable from actions? It is a non-trivial one, both formally and physically, as neither existence of such terms nor the proper physical grounds to exclude them are obvious; indeed it is still not known if non-singular geometrical terms even exist \[1\]. Vector terms do, but have no corresponding stress-tensors, hence no Poincare generators can even be defined there. More physically, they cannot consistently couple to gravity if they couple to any normal matter — or merely if their Lagrangian counterparts are also present. Geometric tensors’ (if any!) weak field versions also exist; the latter are excluded on the more formal, absence of Poincare generators, grounds. These no-go results preclude a large class of speculative models.
Vectors
=======
A sufficiently general set of abelian vector field equations is
$$M^\mu = \partial_\nu \left[ X(F^2, \,^*F F) F^{\mu\nu}(A)\right] = j^\mu$$
where $\,^*F$ is the usual dual of $F$ and the arbitrary scalar $X$ depends only on the two simplest, algebraic, invariants. The divergence identities $\partial_\mu M^\mu=0$ are manifest from the antisymmetry of $F^{[\mu\nu]}$ contracted with the symmetric $\partial^2_{\mu\nu}$, irrespective of $X$. However, not all such $M^\mu$ are variations of an action: they must obey the Helmholz integrability conditions, which set stringent limits on $X$. So identical conservation does NOT require an action, already in these simple examples of vectors $V^\mu=\dd_\nu H^{[\mu\nu]}$. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not a purely abelian property, but holds also for non-abelian fields: there, we replace $\partial_\mu$ by the usual covariant color derivatives $D_\mu$ whose commutator is now the non-abelian field strength, $[D_\mu, D_\nu] = F_{\mu\nu}$. Yet the generalization of (1) remains transverse, owing to the antisymmetric structure constants, since $f_{abc} F^b_{\, \, \mu\nu} F^{c \mu\nu} = 0$ (the arguments of $X$ are now the color-singlet traces of $F^2$ and $\,^*FF$). Again, only algebraic symmetry properties are relevant. Indeed, even in curved space, ordinary conservation of (1) holds, because the divergence of the contravariant tensor density $\sqrt{-g} X F^{\mu\nu}$ is still a partial derivative and so in turn is its divergence, being that of a contravariant vector density. Are there any physically permitted models exploiting the above conservation properties, either stand-alone or by adding terms like (1) to Maxwell- or YM- like equations? Clearly, charge conservation is not affected, since both sides of (1) are conserved. To be sure, the expression for the charge does becomes a bit byzantine, involving both the longitudinal AND transverse electric fields, $$\oint d^2 {\bf S} \cdot X {\bf E} = \int d^3 x j^0 = Q.$$
Instead, the real obstruction is due first to the loss of Poincare generators caused by the absence of an action for the $\partial (XF)$ term: no action means no conserved $T_{\mu\nu}$. For example, the divergence of a would-be $T_{\mu\nu} = X T_{\mu\nu}(\hbox{Maxwell})$ is $\sim F^2 \dd_\mu X \ne 0$; the general proof is obvious since the only possible terms are $A F_{\mu\alpha} F^\alpha_{\, \, \, \nu} + g_{\mu\nu} B F^2$. Since adding non-action terms forbids stress-tensors, there are no Poincare generators; mass and spin cannot even be defined (the generators are as essential at classical as at quantum level). However, the more striking — and physical–contradiction comes when attempting (unavoidably, if these fields are to interact with any normal ones) to couple to gravity: the added terms (while still conserved, as we saw) depend on the metric, hence are acted on but do not react on, gravity, absent a properly conserved $T_{\mu\nu}$ contribution to gravity’s equations. This seeming violation of Newton’s third law is not immediately inconsistent — rather, the non-Lagrangian gauge field equation represents a sort of “test-field": the (source-free) gravitational and gauge field equations are separate. However, if there is also a normal, say Maxwell, part — its $T_{\mu\nu}$ is no longer conserved, and consistency is lost. Generally, if any normal matter interacts with the gauge field, its stress tensor will also no longer be conserved (on its shell) since it effectively contains the $A$-field as an “external", rather than (normal) dynamical, parameter. Note the contrast with Chern-Simons (CS) electrodynamics (or YM) in this respect: the CS term’s stress-tensor vanishes identically, yet the original Maxwell/YM stress-tensor stays conserved on full CS shell. A large class of speculative Maxwell and Yang-Mills extensions can thus be neglected.
Gravity
=======
Assume the (unlikely \[1\]) existence of identically conserved non-Lagrangian symmetric geometric tensors $S_{\mu\nu}$ ($D^n$ curvature; $g_{\alpha\beta}$) and consider the physical effects of adding them to normal gravitational field equations, $$G_{\mu\nu} + S_{\mu\nu} = T_{\mu\nu}(\hbox{matter;} g),$$ where $G_{\mu\nu}$ denotes any Lagrangian-based tensor (or $0$) and the (normal) matter source is covariantly conserved on its shell, independent of the metric’s dynamics. At linearized curvature level, where all explicit metrics as well as derivatives are flat-space, these models are similar to the abelian vector case: There are again identically conserved projection operators, generalizing $\partial_\nu H^{[\mu\nu]}$, namely the so-called superpotentials[^1] $V^{\mu\nu}=\partial^2_{\alpha\beta} H^{[\mu\alpha] [\nu\beta]}$, where $H$ has the algebraic symmetries of the Riemann tensor. For example, in $D=2$, $H$ degenerates to ${\epsilon}^{\mu\alpha} {\epsilon}^{\nu\beta} S$, so $V_{\mu\nu}$ becomes the transverse projector $(\partial^2_{\mu\nu} -\eta_{\mu\nu} \Box) S$, where $S$ is any scalar. Any non-Lagrangian linearized $S_{\mu\nu}$ is allowed, but as in the vector case, it has no associated stress tensor, hence loss of Poincare generators at this linearized level — corresponding to the Maxwell limit of the vector case. But this destroys all non-linear would-be models as well, since they would all have an abelian limit, just as YM contains Maxwell. Separately, we know \[1\] that any $S_{\mu\nu}$, were it to exist, starts (at least) at fourth derivative order on the curvatures, with obvious negative implications for ghost-like, and external non-Schwarzchild (if there are terms solely involving the Weyl tensor), solutions of (3).
Comments
========
We have seen that while infinitely many non-Lagrangian conserved vector gauge terms exist, they are forbidden in flat space model-building owing to their obstruction to defining Poincare generators. This failure is compounded by the direct physical contradiction that they cannot consistently couple to (any) gravity, because they cannot affect the geometry as legitimate (on-shell) conserved sources, being only acted on by the metric without reacting on the latter’s dynamics, not having conserved stress tensors. Yet if they are to couple to any normal matter or even if a normal, “Maxwell", part is included, they would have to — but cannot — contribute in order to insure consistency, as we have seen. Separately, while existence of conserved symmetric non-Lagrangian geometric tensors is not (yet) excluded, we noted that even if they do exist, their abelian limit encounters the corresponding vector problems.
Finally, a referee-induced comment on the use of Lagrange multipliers, the usual last resort. We could add a new vector field $B_\mu$, with a Lagrangian $L= B_\mu M^\mu$, or equivalently $L=B_{\mu\nu} X F^{\mu\nu}$, with a conserved $T_{\mu\nu}$ on $(A+B)$ shell, but it course vanishes if we set the multiplier $B=0$. The pitfall here is that spurious degrees of freedom are introduced, as is clear when $X=1$ there $L$ describes a $2$-photon system.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, under Award Number de-sc0011632. Long-term collaboration with Y. Pang, and with A. Waldron, on a complex of related problems is happily acknowledged. I thank J. Franklin for tech help.
[99]{}
S. Deser and Y. Pang arXiv:1811.03124.
[^1]: In the GR literature, quantities of this type are used to represent harmless ambiguities of flat space stress tensors because they cannot contribute to any generators, whereas we use them as putative field equation contributions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A Kloosterman refinement for function fields $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ is developed and used to establish the quantitative arithmetic of the set of rational points on a smooth complete intersection of two quadrics $X\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{n-1}_{K}$ , under the assumption that $q$ is odd and $n\geq 9$.'
address: |
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Durham University\
Durham\
DH1 3LE\
United Kingdom
author:
- 'P. Vishe'
title: 'Rational points on complete intersections over ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Let $X\subset
{\mathbb{P}}^{n-1}_K $ denote a smooth projective complete intersection defined over a global field $K$ of multi degree type $(d_1,...,d_R)$, i.e., it corresponds to the zero locus of a non-singular system of homogeneous polynomials $F_1({\mathbf{x}}),...,F_R({\mathbf{x}})$ of degrees $d_1,...,d_R$ respectively. Establishing properties of the set of $K$-rational points on $X$, denoted by $X(K)$, is a key focus of Diophantine Geometry. An important tool in establishing the Hasse principle and weak approximation is presented by the Hardy-Littlewood circle method. A feature of this method is that it not only gives an existence of the rational points on $X$, but also provides an asymptotic formula for the number of rational points in an expanding box, establishing the quantitative arithmetic of $X(K)$.
Let $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$, let $\scrO={\mathbb{F}}_q[t]$ be the ring of integers in $K$ and let $K_\infty$ denote the completion of $K$ with respect to the $\infty$-norm on $K$, denoted by $|\cdot |$. Let ${\mathbb{T}}=\{|x|<1\}\subset K_\infty$ be an analogue of the unit interval in this setting. The circle method starts with considering an integral $$\label{eq:circlebeg}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^R}S({\underline{\alpha}})d{\underline{\alpha}},$$ where $d{\underline{\alpha}}$ denotes a suitably normalised Haar measure and $S({\underline{\alpha}})$ denotes a suitable exponential sum, made explicit in Section \[sec:circle\]. Given any $Q>0$, a version of the Dirichlet’s approximation theorem (see [@Lee11 Lemma 5.1], [@lee-thesis]) gives $$\label{eq:Dirichlet}
{\mathbb{T}}^R=\bigcup_{\substack{r\in \cO\\ |r|\leq q^Q\\ \scriptsize{\mbox{$r$
monic}}} }
\bigcup_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\in \cO^R\\ |{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|\\
\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1} }D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q),\qquad\textrm{where}\qquad
D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q)=\left\{{\underline{\xi}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^R: |{\underline{\xi}}-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r|< |r|^{-1}q^{-Q/R}\right\}.$$ Here, given any ${{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}\in K_\infty^R$, $|{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}|=\max\{|x_1|,|x_2|,...,|x_R|\}$ denotes the maximum norm of its co-ordinates.
The study of rational points on low degree $d$ smooth hypersurfaces ($R=1$) has seen major advances over the years. However, this success has not been mirrored in the $R>1$ case, with Myerson’s recent works being one of the notable exceptions. We will try to explain one of the major hurdles here. When $R=1$ and $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$, provides an exact splitting of ${\mathbb{T}}$, effectively enabling us to utilise non-trivial cancellations in the averages $$\sum_{\substack{r\in \cO\\ |r|=q^Y\\ \scriptsize{\mbox{$r$
monic}}} }\sum_{\substack{a\in \cO\\ |a|<|r|\\
\gcd(a,r)=1} }S(a/r+z),$$ usually called as a double Kloosterman refinement. This was a key idea in the author’s previous work (w. Browning) [@Browning_Vishe15]. This idea was employed there to establish the quantitative arithmetic of cubic hypersurfaces over ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$, as long as $n\geq 8$ and $\textrm{Char}({\mathbb{F}}_q)>3$. When $R\geq 2$, a major log-jam is posed by the fact that so far there is no known way for obtaining a suitable partition of ${\mathbb{T}}^R$ with approximating fractions of the type ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$. The only other available approach is due to Munshi [@Munshi15]. When $K={\mathbb{Q}}$ and $R=2$, he essentially used a hybrid of two $1$-dimensional Kloosterman refinements. Upon translating his approach to the function field setting, it amounts to using approximating fractions of the type $(a_1/r_1,a_2/r_2)$, which in turn needs [*too many*]{} sets to cover ${\mathbb{T}}^2$. Therefore, it fails to generalise beyond the $\vecd=(2,2)$ case in a fruitful way.
The primary goal of this paper is to overcome this lacuna by producing a refinement of , which will present us with a suitable partition of ${\mathbb{T}}^2$. This will provide a route for establishing a double Kloosterman refinement, capable of dealing with a system of two forms ($R=2$) over $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$. We illustrate the utility of this new approach by providing an asymptotic formula for a suitable counting function for any smooth complete intersection of two quadrics ($\vecd=(2,2)$) defined over $K$, as long as, $n\geq 9$ and $2\nmid q$.
We begin with a survey of some existing results. For $X$ of the type $(d,...,d)$ over $K={\mathbb{Q}}$, a long standing result by Birch [@Birch61] implies that $n> (d-1)2^{d-1}R(R+1)$ suffices for the Hasse Principle to hold. This was generalised to a general $\vecd$ type by Browning and Heath-Brown [@Browning-Heath-Brown14]. In Birch’s original setting, a recent major breakthrough was achieved by Myerson in [@Myer], [@Myer1], [@Myer2], where he managed to obtain the Hasse principle as long as $n\geq d2^dR+R$ and $X$ is suitably [*generic*]{}. When $d=2$ and $3$, he is able to drop the genericity condition on $X$ and obtain results for all smooth complete intersections. However his results do not improve those of Birch’s when $d$ and $R$ are relatively small. The above results use the Hardy-Littlewood circle method and therefore also provide us with an asymptotic formula for the number of rational points on $X$, when counted in an expanding box.
When $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$, the Hasse Principle for $n> d_1^2+...+d_R^2$ is an easy consequence of the Lang-Tsen theory. Establishing weak approximation turns out to be a much harder task. A folklore conjecture predicts that $X$ should satisfy weak approximation as long as $n> d_1^2+...+d_R^2$. It is usually believed that perhaps with a lot more technical work, most of the previously mentioned results over $K={\mathbb{Q}}$ could be translated to the function field setting. This is seen in Lee’s PhD thesis [@lee-thesis], [@Lee11], where he obtained an ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ analogue of [@Birch61]. A novelty is typically attained when one obtains better results over ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ as compared with the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-setting, often aided by the proven analogue of the generalised Riemann hypothesis over function fields.
When $\vecd=(2,2)$ and $2\nmid\textrm{Char}(K)$, a conjecture of Colliot-Thélène, Sansuc and Swinnerton-Dyer [@CSS Sec 16] predicts weak approximation to hold as long as $n\geq 6$. The geometry of a complete intersection of two quadrics is well understood and therefore the geometric methods have been quite effective. When $K$ is an arbitrary number field, weak approximation for $n\geq 9 $ was established by Colliot-Thélène, Sansuc and Swinnerton-Dyer [@CSS0] and [@CSS]. This was improved by Heath-Brown in [@Heath-Brown18], where he established the $n=8$ case. When $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$, a remarkable result of Tian [@tian] establishes weak approximation as long as $2\nmid q$ and $n\geq 6$, settling the aforementioned folklore conjecture in this case. The methods in all these results however are purely geometric and fail to shed further light on the structure of rational points $X(K)$. Moreover, they do not generalise to be able to deal with a more general types of complete intersections. The only known improvement of Birch’s result in this setting is due to Munshi [@Munshi15], where for $K={\mathbb{Q}}$, he established the quantitative arithmetic as long as $n\geq 11$. Browning and Munshi [@Browning-Munshi13] established the quantitative arithmetic when $K={\mathbb{Q}}$ and $n\geq 9$ under the assumption that the singular locus of $X$ consists of a pair of conjugate singular points defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}(i)$. When $\vecd=(2,3)$, Browning, Dietmann and Heath-Brown established an asymptotic formula for the Hasse principle as long as $n\geq 29$. Heath-Brown and Pierce [@HeathBrown_Pierce17] and Pierce, Schindler and Wood [@Pierce-S-W] investigated systems of quadratic forms attaining almost every integer value simultaneously.
Main results
------------
We start by stating our main results. From now on, we fix $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ and $\vecd=(2,2)$. While inspecting , it is easy to construct sub-families of overlapping sets appearing there. For instance, the sub-family $$\{D((a,a),r,Q): \gcd(a,r)=1, r \textrm{ monic }, |r|\leq q^Q\},$$ contains a lot of sets which overlap with each other. However, this phenomenon can be easily explained by the fact that they cover a region around $\{x_1-x_2=0\}\cap {\mathbb{T}}^2$, a rational line segment of low height. The Diophantine approximation of rational points lying on $\{x_1-x_2=0\}$ is explained by the $R=1$ case in . This rationale sets the stage for our partition of ${\mathbb{T}}^2$. We first begin by writing ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ as a union of nicely placed regions around rational lines of suitable height. Then using techniques in Diophantine approximation, we show that these lines repel each other, ensuring that our regions are disjoint. Now, around each individual line, we invoke the one dimensional Diophantine approximation to get rid of some of the overlapping sets to produce the required partition.
Before stating the result, we begin by making our notion of a [*generalised line*]{} concrete: given $d\in\scrO$, and a primitive vector ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in \scrO^2$, we define the corresponding [*generalised line*]{} as $$\label{eq:ducdef}L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}):=\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in {\mathbb{T}}^2\cap L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k)\textrm{ for some } k\in \scrO: \gcd(a_1,a_2,r)=\gcd(d,k )=1\},$$ where $L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k)$ denotes the affine line $$\label{eq:ducdef1}
L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k):=\{{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}\in K_\infty^2: d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}=k\}.$$ To clarify our previous comments, $|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}| $ will denote the height of $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. Here and throughout the rest of this work, we say that ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=(c_1,c_2)\in\cO^2$ is primitive if $\gcd(c_1,c_2)=1$, and either $c_1$ is monic or $c_1=0$ and $c_2$ is monic. As a result, the relevant vectors $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\neq(0,0)$. The following theorem will feature our partition of ${\mathbb{T}}^2$:
Given any $Q>0$, we have the following: \[thm:split\] $$\label{eq:Dirichlet2}
{\mathbb{T}}^2=\bigsqcup_{\substack{r\textrm{ {\em monic}}\\ |r|\leq q^Q}}\qquad\bigsqcup\limits_{\substack{d\mid r \textrm{ {\em monic, }} {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in\scrO^2\textrm{ {\em primitive}}\\ |r|q^{-Q/2}\leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq |r|^{1/2}\\ |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}}}\,\,\,
\bigsqcup_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\in\scrO^2\\|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|\\ \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1\\ {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}} D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q).$$
Theorem \[thm:split\] will eventually be proved in Section \[sec:split\]. Let us give a brief explanation of how will be derived from . We first begin by using the pigeon hole principle to prove that every rational ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$ lies on a generalised line of height at most $ |r|^{1/2}$. The extra condition $|dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}$ guarantees that these lines don’t intersect each other at rationals of relatively [*small*]{} denominators. The rational points on each line of low height are much closer to each other and therefore, we remove neighbourhoods around the rationals of relatively high denominator lying on these lines, as each such rational is sufficiently close to one with the denominator $ \leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|q^{Q/2}$, effectively handing us the condition $|r|q^{-Q/2}\leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|$. Finally, the condition $d\mid r$ is guaranteed from our definition of $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$.
It should be noted that the partition obtained in is purely based on some fundamental properties of the distribution of rationals in ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, making it rather natural. Besides, any further refinements of must address the fact that the rationals in ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ accumulate on lines of low height, making our version in as pivotal for any future ones. Let us now briefly explain how Theorem \[thm:split\] would lead to a double Kloosterman refinement. provides a decomposition of ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ as a disjoint union of the sets $D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q)$ placed at rationals ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$ lying on [*lines*]{} $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ satisfying the conditions $$\label{eq:Thm1cond}
\begin{split}
|r|q^{-Q/2}\leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq |r|^{1/2},\,\,\, |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2},\,\,\, d\mid r.
\end{split}$$ An important observation to make here is that apart from the condition $d\mid r$, only depends on the absolute values $|r|,|c_1|$, $|c_2|$ and $|d|$. We may therefore readily interchange the sums over $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ and $r$. After an application of Theorem \[thm:split\] to , we are able to consider averages of the type $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SUM}
\sum_{|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|=q^{Y_1}}\sum_{\substack{|r|=q^{Y_2}\\d\mid r}}\,\,\sum_{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}S({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r+{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}).\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed value of ${{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}$, this presents us with a way to utilise oscillations in the values $S({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r+{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})$, for rationals ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$ appearing in . As far as our knowledge, this provides the first [*classical*]{} version of Kloosterman refinement for a system of forms. Theorem \[thm:split\] should be able to be inductively generalised to produce partitions of ${\mathbb{T}}^R$, for arbitrary values of $R$. We intend to return to this topic in a subsequent work.
We now move on to an application of Theorem \[thm:split\]. Let $F_1({\mathbf{x}}),F_2({\mathbf{x}})\in \cO[x_1,...,x_n]$ be two quadratic forms defining a smooth complete intersection. We fix $N\in\cO$ and a vector ${\mathbf{b}}$ such that $F_1({\mathbf{b}})\equiv F_2({\mathbf{b}})\equiv 0\bmod{N} $. An object of focus for us is the following affine counting function: given a non-zero parameter $P\in \cO$ and a smooth, compactly supported function $\omega $ over $K_\infty^n$, let $$\label{eq:Count}
N(P):=N_{X,K,\omega}(P,{\mathbf{b}},N):=\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{x}}\in\scrO^n\\ F_1({\mathbf{x}})=F_2({\mathbf{x}})=0\\ {\mathbf{x}}\equiv {\mathbf{b}}\bmod{N}}}\omega({\mathbf{x}}/P).$$ We apply Theorem \[thm:split\] to detect the condition $F_1({\mathbf{x}})=F_2({\mathbf{x}})=0$ to obtain the following asymptotic formula for $N(P)$:
\[thm:count\] Let $X\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{n-1}_K$ be a smooth complete intersection of two quadrics over $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ satisfying $2\nmid q$. Then given any non-zero $P\in\cO$ and $\omega$, the characteristic function of a fixed suitable hypercube around a non-singular point ${\mathbf{x}}_0\in K_\infty^n$, there exists an ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ and a constant $C_{\omega,F}>0$ such that we have $$N(P)=C_{\omega,F} |P|^{n-4}+O(|P|^{n-4-{\varepsilon}_0}),$$ as long as $n\geq 9$.
We thus establish the quantitative arithmetic for a pair of quadrics in the setting of the aforementioned folklore conjecture requiring $n>d_1^2+...+d_R^2$ and thus also record an improvement of [@Munshi15] in the function field setting. The asymptotic formula, without the condition $C_{\omega,F}>0$, could essentially be proved for the characteristic function $\omega$ of any fixed hypercube in $K_\infty^n$. However, for it to be meaningful, we must have $C_{\omega,F}>0$. This can only be guaranteed as long as the hypercube is close enough to a smooth point ${\mathbf{x}}_0\in K_\infty^n$. The hypothesis $2\nmid q$ is vital as well. For a fixed value of $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ in , we consider the sum $$\sum_{\substack{|r|=q^{Y}\\d\mid r}}\sum_{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}) }S({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r+{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}),$$ which translates to considering averages of one dimensional exponential sums corresponding to the quadratic form $-c_2F_1+c_1F_2$, a well studied object. This allows us to save a factor of size $O(|r|)$ upon utilising the average over ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$ as well as over $r$, when ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is generic. This amounts to obtaining a double Kloosterman refinement over each line $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. The readers familiar with the exponential sums for quadratic forms may notice that when $n$ is even, in a generic situation, we are in fact able to save a factor of size $O(|r|^{3/2})$, which in theory would let us take care of the $n=8$ situation. However, when $r$ consists of non-generic primes, this saving is reduced to a factor of size $O(|r|^{1/2})$ instead, rendering the $n=8$ case out of our reach. See Remark \[rem:1\] for a further explanation.
Ideally, one would also like to obtain some extra cancellations from the sum over different lines $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ of a fixed height in . However, so far, we have been unable to do so. The most straightforward generalisation of our mthod to a general $R$ situation is likely to facilitate us to save a factor of the size $O(|r|)$ in the square-free case. It would be interesting to see if it could be used to save more. One must also be wary of saving more than a factor of size $O(|r|)$ in the square-free case, as these bounds need to be matched by their square-full counterparts. Typically, while dealing with the rationals with $\ell$-full denominators $r$, where $\ell$ is large, one gives up on any saving from the extra averages over ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$ and $r$ but instead benefits from the sparseness of $\ell$-full numbers. This standard trick would not be enough to save a factor of size $O(|r|^{1+\delta})$. However, as is a feature of these methods, the results produced by them would be more remarkable when the total degree $d_1+...+d_R$ is relatively low.
Finally, there are wider implications of obtaining analogous asymptotic formulae (where $\deg(P)$ remains fixed but $q\rightarrow\infty$) for the counting function over ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$. Let $X$ be a smooth complete intersection over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Studying the geometry of the space of rational curves on $X$ is essential in understanding the rationality properties of $X$. Let $\overline{\mathrm{Mor}}_{a,b}(X,e)$ denote the Kontsevich moduli space of rational curves of degree $e$ on $X$ passing through points $a$ and $b$. When $a=b=0$, this coincides with the space of all rational curves of degree $e$ on $X$. Following a strategy of Ellenberg and Venkatesh, a previous work of the author (with Browning) [@Browning_Vishe17-2] establishes facts about the irredicubility of these moduli spaces when $a=b=0$, $R=1$ and $n$ large enough with respect to the degree of the hypersurface $d$. These techniques can be pushed further to obtain other geometric results regarding the aforementioned moduli spaces and their generalisations, as demonstrated by [@Browning_Vishe17-2] and subsequent works by Browning and Sawin [@Browning_Sawin17], [@Browning_Sawin18] and Mânzăeanu [@Manzateanu18]. A feature of these methods is that they are able to establish the results for all smooth $X$ satisfying the given conditions, while the geometric methods are usually able to hand us results for smooth and generic $X$.
Techniques in this work are likely to facilitate us to obtain the irreducibility of $\overline{\mathrm{Mor}}_{a,b}(X,e)$, when $e$ is sufficiently large as compared with $n$, as long as $n\geq 9$ and $X$ is a smooth complete intersection of two quadrics, for suitably chosen $a$ and $b$. The dependence on $n$ would be better for larger values of $n$, as also seen in [@Manzateanu18]. We plan to obtain this in a follow up work. To facilitate this, we have tried to keep an explicit dependence on $q$ in the constants appearing in a large portion of our auxiliary estimates obtained in this work.
Acknowledgements
----------------
We would like to thank Tim Browning and Roger Heath-Brown for helpful discussions and providing us with useful references. Special thanks are also due to Will Sawin whose generous help is greatly acknowledged.
Auxiliary results for ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$
=========================================
The objective of this section is to state and prove various auxiliary results about $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ which will be useful at various junctures in this manuscript.
Notation {#sec:notation}
--------
We will follow the notation in [@Browning_Vishe15 Sec 2] closely. We refer the reader there for the proofs and explanations of many of the facts stated below. We will always assume that $2\nmid q$. Throughout this work, for any real number $R$, let ${\widehat}{R}:=q^R$. Let $\cO={\mathbb{F}}_q[t]$ be the ring of integers of $K$, and let $\Omega$ denote the set of places of $K$ including the infinite place. Given any finite prime $v\in \Omega$, let $\nu_v(x):=\operatorname{ord}_v(x)$ denote the standard valuation. Each valuation $\nu_v$ gives rise to an absolute value $|\cdot|_v$ on $K$. Throughout, we will write $|\cdot|=|\cdot|_\infty$. For each $v\in\Omega$, let $K_v$ denote the completion of $K$ with respect to the absolute value $|\cdot|_v$, and let $\scrO_v=\{x\in K_v: |x|_v\leq 1\}$. We also define $$\scrO^\sharp:=\{b\in\scrO:b\textrm{ monic, }{\varpi}^2\nmid b,\forall {\varpi}\textrm{ prime }\},$$ to be the set of monic, square-free integers in $\scrO$.
An important role will be played by $K_\infty$, which can be identified with the set of truncated Laurent series with the coefficients in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. We will set ${\mathbb{T}}=\{x\in K_\infty: |x|<1\}$. Let $d\alpha$ denote the Haar measure on $K_\infty$, normalised so that $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}}d\alpha=1.$$ Let $\psi:K_\infty\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^*$ denote the non-trivial unitary character as defined in [@Browning_Vishe15 Sec 2.2]. Given any ${\mathbf{x}}\in K_\infty^m$ for any $m\geq 1$, let $|{\mathbf{x}}|=\max_i\{|x_i|\}$ denote the maximum norm of the co-ordinates of ${\mathbf{x}}$.
Given a polynomial $f({\mathbf{x}})\in K_\infty[x]$, let $H_f$ denote the maximum of the $\infty$-norms of the coefficients appearing in the equation of $f$. Similarly, given any tuple $\underline{f}({\mathbf{x}})=(f_1({\mathbf{x}}),...,f_R({\mathbf{x}}))$ of polynomials $f_1,...,f_R$, $H_{\underline{f}}$ will denote the maximum of $H_{f_1},...,H_{f_R}$.
To distinguish between the integral over ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ and over $K_\infty^n$ appearing in our work later, we will typically use the notation ${{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}=(x_1,x_2)$ to denote a pair in $K_\infty^2$, and the notation ${\mathbf{x}}=(x_1,...,x_n)$ to denote a vector in $K_\infty^n$, with our notation ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}$ defined in Sec. \[sec:minor\] being an exception.
We say that ${{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}=(x_1,x_2)\in\scrO^2\setminus \underline{0}$ is ‘monic’ if $x_1\neq 0$ is monic or $x_1=0 $ and $x_2$ is monic. As already defined before Theorem \[thm:split\], ${{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}$ will be called primitive if ${{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}$ is monic and $\gcd(x_1,x_2)=1$.
Let $C\in M_{k}(\scrO)$ be an arbitrary $k\times k$ matrix. We will frequently use a Smith normal form to write $C=TDS$, where $S,T\in \GL_k(\scrO)$ be matrices satisfying $\det(S),\det(T)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$. Here $D=\diag(\mu_1,...,\mu_n)$ is a diagonal matrix satisfying $\mu_1\mid\mu_2\mid...\mid \mu_n$.
Our integral bounds would require us to often integrate on regions of the form $\{{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\in K_\infty^2: |z_i|={\widehat}{Z_i}\} $, where $Z_i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. We will therefore introduce the following notation: given ${\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, let $$\label{eq:uzUZ}
\{\langle {{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\rangle=\langle {\widehat}{\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}\rangle\}:=\{{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\in K_\infty^2: |z_i|={\widehat}{Z_i}\}.$$ In order to facilitate our optimisation process in Sec. \[sec:minor\], given any $x,y\in \scrO$, we define: $$\label{eq:a||b}
y\mid x^\infty\Rightarrow \{{\varpi}\mid y\Rightarrow {\varpi}\mid x \}.$$ Throughout, we will use the notation $A\ll B$ to denote $A\leq CB$ for some absolute constant $C$. For a large portion of this work, we have tried to keep the implied constant to be independent of $q$, which will mainly be useful in our future applications to arithmetic geometry.
Some exponential integral bounds
--------------------------------
Given non-zero polynomials $G_1, G_2\in K_\infty[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, given $\gamma\in {K_\infty}$ and ${\mathbf{w}}\in
{K_\infty}^n$, integrals of the form $$\label{eq:J}
J_{{\underline{G}}}({\underline{\alpha}};{\mathbf{w}})=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^n} \psi\left( \alpha_1 G_1({\mathbf{x}})+\alpha_2G_2({\mathbf{x}})+{\mathbf{w}}.{\mathbf{x}}\right)d{\mathbf{x}}$$ will feature prominently in our work. Our goal here will be to build on the results in [@Browning_Vishe15 Sec. 2.4] and obtain analogues of Lemmas 2.6 and 2.7 from there. Generalising [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.6] is relatively straightforward. We will therefore omit its proof. After noting $H_{\alpha_1 G_1+\alpha_2G_2}\leq \max\{|\alpha_1|H_{G_1},|\alpha_2|H_{G_2}\}$, a slight modification of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.6] gives us
\[lem:J-easy\] We have $
J_{{\underline{G}}}({\underline{\alpha}};{\mathbf{w}})=0$ if $|{\mathbf{w}}|> \max\{1,|\alpha_1| H_{G_1}, |\alpha_2| H_{G_2}\}$.
We also need a generalisation of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.7], obtained in the following lemma:
\[lem:small\] Given any ${\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}=(Z_1,Z_2)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ and for any ${\mathbf{w}}\in K_\infty^n$ satisfying $|{\mathbf{w}}|\leq \max\{1,{\widehat}{Z_1}, {\widehat}{Z_2}\}H_{{\underline{G}}}$, we have $$\int\limits_{\langle{\underline{\alpha}}\rangle=\langle {\widehat}{{\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}}\rangle} J_{{\underline{G}}}({\underline{\alpha}};{\mathbf{w}})d{\underline{\alpha}}= \int_{\Omega} \psi\left(\alpha_1 G_1({\mathbf{x}})+\alpha_2G_2({\mathbf{x}})
+{\mathbf{w}}.{\mathbf{x}}\right) d{\mathbf{x}}d{\underline{\alpha}},$$ where $\langle{\underline{\alpha}}\rangle=\langle {\widehat}{{\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}}\rangle$ as in and $$\begin{split}
\Omega=\{({\underline{\alpha}},{\mathbf{x}})\in \{\langle {\underline{\alpha}}\rangle=\langle {\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}\rangle\}\times {\mathbb{T}}^n: &|\alpha_1G_1({\mathbf{x}})|,|\alpha_2G_2({\mathbf{x}})|\leq \max\{1,H_{{\underline{G}}}\}\max\{1,
{\widehat}{Z_1}^{1/2},{\widehat}{Z_2}^{1/2}\},\\& |\alpha_1\nabla G_1({\mathbf{x}})+\alpha_2\nabla G_2({\mathbf{x}})+ {\mathbf{w}}|\leq H_{{\underline{G}}}\max\{1,
{\widehat}{Z_1}^{1/2},{\widehat}{Z_2}^{1/2}\}\}.
\end{split}$$
Note that the new ingredient here, as compared with [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.7], is provided by the condition $|\alpha_1G_1({\mathbf{x}})|,|\alpha_2G_2({\mathbf{x}})|\leq \max\{1,H_{{\underline{G}}}\}\max\{1,
{\widehat}{Z_1}^{1/2},{\widehat}{Z_2}^{1/2}\}$. This will be obtained by utilizing the extra average over ${\underline{\alpha}}$ in the integral. This refined bound will be useful in the proof of Lemma \[lem:red\].
Without loss of generality, let us assume that $Z_1\geq Z_2$. We may also assume that $Z_1\geq 0$, since otherwise, the lemma is trivial. For now, we proceed with an extra assumption $Z_2\geq Z_1/2$. Let $$\Omega_0=\{\langle {\underline{\alpha}}\rangle=\langle {\widehat}{\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}\rangle\}\times{\mathbb{T}}^n\setminus \Omega.$$ We break the integral over $\Omega_0$ into a sum of integrals over smaller regions. Let $\delta\in K_\infty$ be such that $|\delta|={\widehat}{Z_1}^{-1/2}$. We introduce dummy sums over ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\in \{\langle {\underline{\alpha}}\rangle=\langle {\widehat}{\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}\rangle\}/(\delta^{-1} {\mathbb{T}})^2$ and ${\mathbf{y}}\in ({\mathbb{T}}/\delta{\mathbb{T}})^n$. Here, the sum over ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$ will run through a fixed set of coset representatives of $ \{\langle {\underline{\alpha}}\rangle=\langle {\widehat}{\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}\rangle\}/(\delta {\mathbb{T}})^2$. Using the change of variables ${\underline{\alpha}}={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}+\delta^{-1}{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}$, ${\mathbf{x}}={\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}}$, we obtain $$\label{eq:omg}
\begin{split}
&\int_{\Omega_0} \psi\left( {\underline{\alpha}}\cdot {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{x}})+{\mathbf{w}}.{\mathbf{x}}\right) d{\mathbf{x}}d{\underline{\alpha}}\\
&=
\sum_{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}}\sum_{{\mathbf{y}}\in ({\mathbb{T}}/\delta{\mathbb{T}})^n}
\int_{\{({\underline{\mathrm{b}}},{\mathbf{z}})\in {\mathbb{T}}^{n+2}: ({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}+\delta^{-1}{\underline{\mathrm{b}}},{\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}})\in \Omega_0\}}\psi\left(({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}+\delta^{-1}{\underline{\mathrm{b}}})\cdot{{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}})+{\mathbf{w}}\cdot ({\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}})
\right)d{\mathbf{z}}d{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}.
\end{split}$$ For a fixed value of ${\mathbf{y}}$ and ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$, for any $i=1,2$ and for any $|{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}|,|{\mathbf{z}}|<1$, $$\begin{aligned}
|(a_i+\delta^{-1} b_i)G_i({\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}})-a_i G_i({\mathbf{y}})|<\max\{{\widehat}{Z_1}|\delta|H_{{\underline{G}}}+H_{{\underline{G}}}/|\delta|\}= H_{{\underline{G}}}{\widehat}{Z_1}^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if for some ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$ we have $$\label{eq:aigi}
|a_i G_i({\mathbf{y}})|\geq {\widehat}{Z_1}^{1/2}\max\{1,H_{{\underline{G}}}\}, \textrm{ for some }i\in\{1,2\},$$ then this implies that the above holds for all $({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}+\delta{\underline{\mathrm{b}}},{\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}})$ for all $|{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}|,|{\mathbf{z}}|<1$, further implying that all these points belong to $\Omega_0$. For such a choice of ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$, the integral over $b_i$ could be evaluated separately. Using the orthogonality of additive characters on $K$ (see [@Browning_Vishe15 Sec. 2.1]), for any ${\mathbf{y}}$ satisfying , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|b_i|<1}\psi(\delta^{-1} b_i G_i({\mathbf{y}}+\delta {\mathbf{z}}))db_i=0, \textrm{ since } &|G_i({\mathbf{y}}+\delta {\mathbf{z}})|\geq \max\{1,H_{{\underline{G}}}\}{\widehat}{Z_1}^{1/2}/{\widehat}{Z_i}\geq {\widehat}{Z_1}^{-1/2}= |\delta|
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the contribution from the values of ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$ satisfying to the corresponding inner integrals in is zero. We may now assume that for remaining ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}},{\mathbf{y}}$ we must have $$|(a_i+\delta^{-1} b_i)G_i({\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}})|\leq \max\{1,H_{{\underline{G}}}\}|\delta|^{-1},$$ for all $|{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}|,|{\mathbf{z}}|<1$ and for $i=1,2$. For ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$ satisfying the above condition, they appear in only if for some $|{\mathbf{z}}_0|<1$ and for some $|{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}_0|<1$, $$\begin{aligned}
|({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}+\delta^{-1}{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}_0)\cdot \nabla {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}}_0)+{\mathbf{w}}|>H_{{\underline{G}}}/|\delta|.\end{aligned}$$ Since, $|({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}+\delta^{-1}{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}_0)\cdot \nabla {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}}_0)-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot\nabla {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{y}})|<H_{{\underline{G}}}/|\delta|$, we must further have $$\begin{aligned}
|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot \nabla {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{y}})+{\mathbf{w}}|>H_{{\underline{G}}}/|\delta|\Rightarrow \forall |{\underline{\mathrm{b}}}|,|{\mathbf{z}}|<1, |({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}+\delta^{-1}{\underline{\mathrm{b}}})\cdot \nabla {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{y}}+\delta{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})+{\mathbf{w}}|>H_{{\underline{G}}}/|\delta|.\end{aligned}$$ We may now emulate the recipe of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.7] and utilise the integral over ${\mathbf{z}}$ to obtain that the inner integral in vanishes if ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}},{\mathbf{y}}$ satisfy $$\label{eq:gut}
|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot\nabla {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{y}})+{\mathbf{w}}|>H_{{\underline{G}}}|\delta|^{-1},$$ which would further imply that $({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}+\delta^{-1}{\underline{\mathrm{b}}},{\mathbf{y}}+\delta{\mathbf{z}})\in\Omega_0$ for all $({\underline{\mathrm{b}}},{\mathbf{z}})\in{\mathbb{T}}^{n+2}$ and thus the whole contribution from is $0$.
Recall that throughout, we have assumed that $Z_2\geq Z_1/2$. If $Z_2<Z_1/2$, then this automatically implies $|\alpha_2G_2({\mathbf{x}})|<H_{{\underline{G}}}{\widehat}{Z_1}^{1/2}$, rendering this condition as vacuously true. We may now fix $\alpha_2$ and modify the above process by utilising the integrals over over $\alpha_1$ as well as over ${\mathbf{x}}$ to get the required bound.
Quadratic exponential sum bounds {#sec:quad}
--------------------------------
The bounds for exponential sums corresponding to a quadratic polynomial will play a key part in our analysis. Throughout, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fdef1}
f({\mathbf{x}})=F({\mathbf{x}})+{\mathbf{f}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}+m,\end{aligned}$$ be a quadratic polynomial in $\scrO[x]$. Here, $F({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbf{x}}^tM{\mathbf{x}}$ be the leading quadratic form defined by an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix $M$ with entries in $\scrO$ and with a non-zero determinant. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:f*def}
F^*({\mathbf{v}})=\det(M){\mathbf{v}}^t M^{-1}{\mathbf{v}},\end{aligned}$$ denote the dual form of $F$. Let $$\label{eq:S}
S_r({\mathbf{v}})={\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|r|}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|r|}\psi\left(\frac{af({\mathbf{x}})-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{r}\right),$$ denote a complete quadratic exponential sum. It is well known that as long as a prime does not divide $\det(M)$, ${\mathbb{Q}}$-analogues of these sums could be explicitly evaluated modulo any power of such a prime. Our main goal here will be to establish this in the function field setting, the focus of Lemma \[lem:Expsum’\] below.
We will first begin by obtaining explicit bounds for the function field avatars of the Gauss sums, $\tau_r$ defined below. Given $r\in\scrO$, let $$\tau_r=\sum_{x\bmod{r}}\psi(x^2/r).$$
\[lem:gauss\] Let ${\varpi}$ be a prime such that $|{\varpi}|=q^L$ and let $q=p^{\ell_0} $, then for any integer $k$, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{{\varpi}^k}=\begin{cases}
|{\varpi}|^{k/2} & \text{if }k \textrm{ is even},\\
-|{\varpi}|^{k/2}i_p^{L\ell_0} & \text{if }k \textrm{ is odd},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ipdef}
i_p=\begin{cases}
-1 & \text{if }p\equiv 1\bmod{4},\\
-i & \text{if }p\equiv 3\bmod{4}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Let $k_0=\lfloor (k-1)/2\rfloor$. We begin by writing $$\tau_{{\varpi}^k}=\sum_{|a_0|,...|a_{k-1}|<|{\varpi}|}\psi((a_0+a_1{\varpi}...+a_{k-1}{\varpi}^{k-1})^2/{\varpi}^k)=\sum_{|a_0|,...|a_{k-1}|<|{\varpi}|}\psi\left({\varpi}^{-1}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}a_ia_{k-1-i}\right).$$ Since $2\nmid q$, for any fixed choice of $a_{k_0+1},...,a_{k-1}$, the sum on the right hand side vanishes unless $a_{k_0+1}=...=a_{k-1}=0$. Therefore, $\tau_r=|{\varpi}|^{k/2}$, if $k$ is even, and $$\tau_{{\varpi}^{k}}=|{\varpi}|^{(k-1)/2}\sum_{|a|<|{\varpi}|}\psi\left({\varpi}^{-1}a^2\right)=|{\varpi}|^{(k-1)/2}\tau_{\varpi}.$$ The lemma now follows from the standard bounds for quadratic Gauss sums over finite fields, cf. [@Evans81 Eq. (6)] for example.
The following lemma will follow a proof similar to [@Heath-Brown96 Lemma 26].
\[lem:Expsum’\] Let $f$ be a quadratic polynomial as . Let ${\varpi}$ be a prime satisfying ${\varpi}\nmid \det(M)$. Let $|{\varpi}|=q^L$, and $q=p^{\ell_0}$. Then $$S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})=\psi({\overline}{2}{\mathbf{f}}^t M^{-1} {\mathbf{v}})\left(\frac{\det(M)}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\tau_{{\varpi}^k}^nK_n(-{\overline}{4}F_1({\mathbf{f}})+m,-{\overline}{4}F_1({\mathbf{v}}),{\varpi}^k).$$ Here, $K_n$ denotes the Kloosterman sum when $n$ is even and the Salié sum when $n$ is odd, and $F_1({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbf{x}}^t M^{-1}{\mathbf{x}}$, where the inverse could be assumed to be taken modulo ${\varpi}^k$. As a consequence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:firstB}
|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq |{\varpi}|^{(n+1)k/2}|\gcd(F^*({\mathbf{f}})-4\det(M)m,F^*({\mathbf{v}}),{\varpi}^k)|^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ More explicitly, when ${\mathbf{f}}=\vecnull$ and $m=0$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})=\begin{cases}
|{\varpi}|^{nk/2}(|{\varpi}|^k\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid F^*({\mathbf{v}})}-|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k-1}\mid F^*({\mathbf{v}})}), & \text{if }2\mid k,\\
\left(\frac{\det(M)}{{\varpi}}\right)|{\varpi}|^{kn/2}i_p^{L\ell_0n}(|{\varpi}|^k\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid F^*({\mathbf{v}})}-|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k-1}\mid F^*({\mathbf{v}})}), &\textrm{ if } 2\mid n,2\nmid k,\\
\left(\frac{-F^*({\mathbf{v}})}{{\varpi}}\right)|{\varpi}|^{k(n+1)/2}i_p^{L\ell_0(n+1)}, &\textrm{ if } 2\nmid n,2\nmid k,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ with $i_p$ as in .
Since $aF({\mathbf{x}}+ M^{-1} ({\mathbf{f}}/2-{\mathbf{v}}/2a))+am = af({\mathbf{x}}) - {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}+ aF_1({\mathbf{f}})/4+F_1({\mathbf{v}})/4a-{\mathbf{f}}^t M^{-1} {\mathbf{v}}/2$, where $F_1({\mathbf{v}})={\mathbf{v}}^t M^{-1}{\mathbf{v}}$ modulo ${\varpi}^k$. Therefore by a suitable change of variables, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})=\psi({\mathbf{f}}^t M^{-1} {\mathbf{v}}/2){\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi(- F_1({\mathbf{v}})/4a-a(F_1({\mathbf{f}})/4-m))\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi\left(\frac{aF({\mathbf{x}})}{{\varpi}^k}\right).\end{aligned}$$ At this point, we use the fact that since ${\varpi}\nmid \det(M)$, $M$ may be diagonalised, i.e., $M=R^t\textrm{Diag}(\beta_1,...,\beta_n)R$. After changing the variable again to ${\mathbf{y}}=R{\mathbf{x}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(-{\mathbf{f}}^t M^{-1} {\mathbf{v}}/2)S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})&={\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi(- F_1({\mathbf{v}})/4a-a(F_1({\mathbf{f}})/4-m))\prod_{i=1}^n\sum_{|y_i|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi\left(\frac{a\beta_iy_i^2}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\\&=\left(\frac{\det(M)}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\tau_{{\varpi}^k}^n{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi(- F_1({\mathbf{v}})/4a-a(F_1({\mathbf{f}})/4-m))\left(\frac{a}{{\varpi}^k}\right)^n,\\
&=\left(\frac{\det(M)}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\tau_{{\varpi}^k}^n{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi(- F_1({\mathbf{v}})/4a-a(F_1({\mathbf{f}})/4-m))\left(\frac{a}{{\varpi}^k}\right)^n\end{aligned}$$ using some standard Gauss sum manipulations. We thus end up with $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})=\psi({\overline}{2}{\mathbf{f}}^t M^{-1} {\mathbf{v}})\left(\frac{\det(M)}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\tau_{{\varpi}^k}^nK_n(-{\overline}{4}F_1({\mathbf{f}})+m,-{\overline}{4}F_1({\mathbf{v}}),{\varpi}^k),\end{aligned}$$ where when $n$ is even, $K_n$ denotes the Kloosterman sum, and the Salié sum when $n$ is odd. Using a standard bound for the Kloosterman sums, we get $$\begin{aligned}
|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|&\ll|{\varpi}|^{(n+1)/2}|\gcd(F_1({\mathbf{f}})-4m,F_1({\mathbf{v}}),{\varpi}^k)|^{1/2}\\
&\ll |{\varpi}|^{(n+1)/2}|\gcd(F^*({\mathbf{f}})-4\det(M)m,F^*({\mathbf{v}}),{\varpi}^k)|^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $F^*({\mathbf{v}})=\det(M)F_1({\mathbf{v}}) $, as before. In the special case when ${\mathbf{f}}=\vecnull, m=0$, the sums $K_n$ simplify. We will henceforth assume that ${\mathbf{f}}=\vecnull, m=0$. If $2\mid k$, Lemma \[lem:gauss\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})&=|{\varpi}|^{nk/2}{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi(F_1({\mathbf{v}})a)=|{\varpi}|^{nk/2}(|{\varpi}|^k\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid F_1({\mathbf{v}})}-|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k-1}\mid F_1({\mathbf{v}})}).\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, when $k$ is odd and $n$ is even, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})&=\left(\frac{\det(M)}{{\varpi}}\right)|{\varpi}|^{k/2}i_p^{L\ell_0n}(|{\varpi}|^k\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid F_1({\mathbf{v}})}-|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k-1}\mid F_1({\mathbf{v}})}),\end{aligned}$$ where $i_p$ is defined by . Lastly, when both $n,k$ are odd, then $$K_n(0,-{\overline}{4}F_1({\mathbf{v}}),{\varpi}^k)={\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi(-F_1({\mathbf{v}})a)\left(\frac{a}{{\varpi}}\right)=\left(\frac{-F_1({\mathbf{v}})}{{\varpi}}\right)\tau_{{\varpi}^k}.$$
The final bound follows from applying Lemma \[lem:gauss\], along with the fact that $\det(M)F_1({\mathbf{v}})\equiv F^*({\mathbf{v}})\bmod{{\varpi}^k}$.
The above lemma although is powerful, it only works when $M$ is invertible and ${\varpi}$ doesn’t divide $\det(M)$. When this is not the case, we may supplement this using the following bound, which is obtained using a standard squaring argument (see [@HeathBrown_Pierce17 (4.17)]):
\[lem:pointwise\] Let $S=\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<{\varpi}^k}\psi\left(\frac{f({\mathbf{x}})}{{\varpi}^k}\right)$, where $f({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbf{x}}^tM{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{f}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}+m$ is any quadratic polynomial. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
|S|\leq |{\varpi}|^{nk/2}\# N({\varpi}^k)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ where $N({\varpi}^k)=\#\{{\mathbf{x}}\bmod{{\varpi}^k}:{\varpi}^k\mid M{\mathbf{x}}\} $.
The lemma follows from essentially squaring the sum and applying a change of variable ${\mathbf{x}}_3={\mathbf{x}}_1-{\mathbf{x}}_2 $ $$\begin{aligned}
|S|^2=\sum_{{\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2\bmod{{\varpi}^k}}\left(\frac{f({\mathbf{x}}_1)-f({\mathbf{x}}_2)}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\leq \sum_{{\mathbf{x}}_2\bmod{{\varpi}^k}}\left|\sum_{{\mathbf{x}}_3\bmod{{\varpi}^k}}\left(\frac{(M{\mathbf{x}}_2+{\mathbf{f}})\cdot {\mathbf{x}}_3}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\right|\leq |{\varpi}|^{nk}N({\varpi}^k).\end{aligned}$$ The last equality follows from the fact that the difference between any two solutions ${\mathbf{x}}_2'$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_2''$ of $M{\mathbf{x}}_2+{\mathbf{f}}\equiv\vecnull\bmod{{\varpi}^k}$ satisfy the equation $M({\mathbf{x}}_2'-{\mathbf{x}}_2'')\equiv \vecnull\bmod{{\varpi}^k}$.
Integer points on affine hypersurfaces
--------------------------------------
In this work, we will need to supplement the integer point counting estimate in [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.9] with two others, obtained in Lemmas \[lem:B2\] and \[lem:Bro\] below.
Let $F(x)$ be a non-singular quadratic form in $\scrO[x_1,...,x_n]$. We need an estimate on the number of integer solutions of $F({\mathbf{x}})=x_{n+1}^2$, with an explicit dependence on $H_F$. This will be obtained by producing a slight generalisation of an ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$-analogue of [@HeathBrown02 Theorem 2]. We start by proving an auxiliary result (cf. [@HeathBrown98 Theorem 3]). The proofs of these results are almost straightforward adaptations of those of Heath-Brown in ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ setting. Therefore, we shall be brief.
\[lem:B1\] Let $F$ be a non-singular ternary quadratic form in $\scrO[x_1,x_2,x_3]$ such that the binary form $F(x_1,x_2,0)$ is also non-singular. Then there exists an absolute constant $A$ such that for any $k\in\scrO$, the equation $F(x_1,x_2,k)=0$ has at most $O((\log(BH_{F}))^A)$ solutions satisfying $|x_1|,|x_2|\leq B $.
We may diagonalise $F$ using a matrix $M$ with entries in $r^{-1}\scrO$, for some $r\in\scrO$ satisfying $|r|\ll H_{F}^A$, for a fixed constant $A$. We may also choose the last row to be $(0\,\, 0\,\, 1)$. This transforms (after possibly multiplying by a power of $r$) $F({\mathbf{x}})=0$ to $$\label{eq:Frede}
aL_1(x_1,x_2,k)^2+bL_2(x_1,x_2,k)^2=ck^2,$$ where $L_1$ and $L_2$ are linearly independent linear forms over $\scrO$, and $|a|,|b|,|c|, \|L_1\|, \|L_2\|\ll H_{F}^{A'}$. The problem of bounding the number of solutions of can be easily converted to that of estimating the number of solutions for the equation $x^2+dy^2=e$, for a fixed choice of $d,e\in\scrO$.
The bound now follows from a standard bound for the number of elements of a specified norm in quadratic extensions of $K$.
This leads to our first main estimate:
\[lem:B2\] Let $F({\mathbf{x}})$ denote a non-singular quadratic form in $n\geq 2$. Then there exists a constant $A$ such that given any $B>0$, $$\label{eq:B1}
\#\{F({\mathbf{x}})=x_{n+1}^2:|{\mathbf{x}}|\leq B\}\ll_{{\varepsilon},q}(\log(H_{F}B))^A B^{n-1}.$$
Following the steps in [@HeathBrown02 Section 5], we may find $ M\in\GL_n(\scrO)$ satisfying $|M|\ll 1$, and $$\label{eq:T1}\det(M)T_{11}\det(T_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq 2}\det(T_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq 3}\neq 0.$$ Here, $T$ is the defining matrix of the quadratic form $f({\mathbf{y}})=F(M{\mathbf{y}})$. Since if $F({\mathbf{x}})=x_{n+1}^2$ for some ${\mathbf{x}}\in \scrO^n$ and some $x_{n+1}\in\scrO$, then $(\det(M)M^{-1}{\mathbf{x}},\det(M)x_{n+1})$ is a solution of $f({\mathbf{y}})=y_{n+1}^2$, to establish , it is enough to bound the set $\{f({\mathbf{x}})=x_{n+1}^2:|{\mathbf{x}}|\ll B\}$. For any choice of ${\mathbf{u}}\in\scrO^{n-1}$, we now set $$Q_{{\mathbf{u}}}(x,y,z):=f(y,z{\mathbf{u}})-x^2.$$ The determinant of the matrix defining this form is a quadratic polynomial $D({\mathbf{u}})$, say. This does not vanish since $D((1,0...,0))=-\det(T_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq 2}\neq 0$. Moreover, the form $Q_{{\mathbf{u}}}(x,y,0)$ is non-singular, since $T_{1,1}\neq 0$. We now set $z=1$. Thus, we would like to bound $$\{Q_{{\mathbf{u}}}(x,y,1)=0: |x|\ll H_{F}B^{A'},|y|\ll |B|, |{\mathbf{u}}|\ll B\},$$ for some constant $A'$. For any fixed value of $D({\mathbf{u}})\neq 0$, we may invoke Lemma \[lem:B1\] to get that we only have $O((\log(H_{F}B))^{A})$ choices for $(x,y)$, which suffices. On the other hand, there are only $O(B^{n-2})$ choices for $D({\mathbf{u}})=0$, and for each of those, there are at most $O(B)$ choices for the pair $(x,y)$. Combining these bounds, we establish the lemma.
We will also need a bound for the number of integer solutions to the equation $F(x,y)=z^2$, where $F(x,y)$ is a square-free irreducible polynomial of even degree. This will be an ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$-analogue of a very special case of [@Bro_03 Theorem 5]. We have kept the $(\log {\widehat}{Z})^2$ factor in our bound below to have the appearing constant independent of $q$.
\[lem:Bro\] Let $F(x,y)\in\scrO[x,y]$ be a homogeneous square-free polynomial of even degree $2d$ and let $Z\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $H_{F}\leq {\widehat}{Z}^{A}$ for some positive constant $A$, then for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ $$\#\{F(x,y)=z^2:|x|,|y|<{\widehat}{Z}, x,y,z\in\scrO\}\ll_{{\varepsilon},d,A}{\widehat}{Z}^{1+{\varepsilon}}(\log{\widehat}{Z})^2.$$
The proof of this theorem resembles closely with that of [@Bro_03 Theorem 5]. We shall therefore be brief. Let $F_1(x,y,z)=F(x,y)-z^2$. Since $F$ is irreducible, the discriminant $\Delta_F(x,y)$ is a non-zero polynomial of degree $O_d(1)$. If $\Delta_F(x,y)=0$, then the bound $$\#\{ |x|,|y|<{\widehat}{Z}:x\Delta_F(x,y)=0\}\ll_d {\widehat}{Z},$$ is rather straightforward. It is therefore enough to establish the bound $$\#\{F(x,y)=z^2:|x|,|y|<{\widehat}{Z}, x,y,z\in\scrO, x\Delta_F(x,y)\neq 0\}\ll_{A,d,{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Z}^{1+{\varepsilon}}(\log{\widehat}{Z})^2.$$ As in [@HeathBrown02 Lemma 4], for some $r=O_d(\lceil\log(H_{F}{\widehat}{Z})\rceil)$, and for any $P\geq P_0=\log^2(H_{F}{\widehat}{Z})$, there exist primes ${\varpi}_1,...,{\varpi}_r$ satisfying $P\ll_{d}|{\varpi}_j|\ll_d P$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\#\{F(x,y)=z^2:|x|,|y|<{\widehat}{Z}, x,y,z\in\scrO,x\Delta_F(x,y)\neq 0\}\leq \sum_{i=1}^rN(F,Z,{\varpi}_i),\end{aligned}$$ where $$N(F,Z,{\varpi})=\#\{F(x,y)=z^2:|x|,|y|<{\widehat}{Z}, x,y,z\in\scrO,{\varpi}\nmid x\Delta_F(x,y)\}.$$ We may therefore focus on bounding $N(F,Z,{\varpi})$ for a prime ${\varpi}$ satisfying $$|{\varpi}|=O((\log^2({\widehat}{Z}){\widehat}{Z}^{1+{\varepsilon}}),$$ where the implied constant is $\geq 1$. Let $(x_1,y_1,z_1),...,(x_m,y_m,z_m)$ be all distinct pairs in $N(F,Z,{\varpi})$. For any $1\leq j\leq m$, we must have $$\begin{aligned}
|z_j|\leq {\widehat}{Z}^{d+A/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $f(u,v)=F(1,u)-v^2$. For every $1\leq j\leq m$, let $(u_j,v_j)=(y_j/x_j,z_j/x_j^d)$. Then $(u_j,v_j)\in \scrO_{\varpi}^2$ and $f(u_j,v_j)=0$. There are $O_d(|{\varpi}|)$ solutions of $f(u,v)\bmod{{\varpi}\scrO_{\varpi}}$. Upon a possible re-labelling, we may assume that there exists $1\leq k$ such that $(u_j,v_j)\equiv (u_1,v_1)\bmod {\varpi}\scrO_{\varpi}$ for all $1\leq j\leq k$, and $(u_j,v_j)\not\equiv (u_1,v_1)\bmod {\varpi}\scrO_{\varpi}$ for all $j>k$. The lemma will now follow upon showing that $k=O_{d}(1)$. This is achieved by producing a polynomial $g(u,v)$ of degree $O_{A_1,d,{\varepsilon}}(1)$ which is not divisible by $f(u,v)$, such that $g(u_1,v_1)=...=g(u_k,v_k)=0$. Since $f(u,v)$ is irreducible, we may then resort to Bezout’s theorem to infer $k=O_{d,A,{\varepsilon}}(1)$.
Let $D$ be the minimal positive integer satisfying $$D> \max\{2,(4d+A-1)/{\varepsilon}\},\label{eq:Dbo}$$ and let $(a_1,b_1),...,(a_{2D},b_{2D})$ be an enumeration of the set $\{0,...,D-1\}\times \{0,1\}$. Let $$M=[u_i^{a_j}v_i^{b_j}]_{1\leq i\leq k,1\leq j\leq 2D},$$ be a $k\times 2D$ matrix with $\scrO_{\varpi}$ entries. If the rank of $M<2D$, using the fact that $\scrO_{\varpi}$ is complete, this must produce a non-trivial polynomial $g(u,v)$ of degree at most $D$ in $\scrO_{\varpi}[u,v]$, which is at most linear in $v$, such that $g(u_1,v_1)=...=g(u_k,v_k)=0$. Since $g$ is at most linear in $v$, it must not be a multiple of $f(u,v)$, which would prove the lemma. The result is obvious if $k\leq 2D$. We may therefore assume that $k> 2D$. It is enough to show that all $2D\times 2D$ minors of $M$ vanish. Without loss of generality, let $$\Delta=\det[u_i^{a_j}v_i^{b_j}]_{1\leq i\leq 2D,1\leq j\leq 2D}.$$ We will show that $\Delta$ vanishes as long as $D$ satisfies .
Since ${\varpi}\nmid \Delta_F(u_1,v_1)$, we may use the lifting argument of Hensel’s Lemma [@HeathBrown02 Lemma 5] to prove that $u_i\equiv h(v_i)\bmod{{\varpi}^{4D^2}}$, for some polynomial $h(z)\in \scrO_{\varpi}[z]$. Upon making some elementary column operations over $\scrO_{\varpi}$ as in [@Broberg02 Page 201], we may further prove that $${\varpi}^{D(2D-1)}\mid\Delta.$$ On the other hand, if $\Delta\neq 0$, then since $(u_j,v_j)=(y_j/x_j,z_j/x_j^d)$, and that ${\varpi}\nmid x_j$, the valuation $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{\varpi}(\Delta)=\nu_{\varpi}\left(\det[x_i^{D+d-1}u_i^{a_j}v_i^{b_j}]_{1\leq i\leq 2D,1\leq j\leq 2D}\right)=\nu_{\varpi}\left(\det[x_i^{D+d-1-a_j-db_j}y_j^{a_j}z_j^{b_j}]_{1\leq i\leq 2D,1\leq j\leq 2D}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, note that $|z_j|< {\widehat}{Z}^{A/2+d}$, $|x_j|,|y_j|<{\widehat}{Z}$, and $x_j,y_jz_j\in\scrO$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:12}
|{\varpi}|^{\nu_{\varpi}(\Delta)}\leq {\widehat}{Z}^{2D(D+d-1)+(A/2+d)2D}={\widehat}{Z}^{2D(D+2d+A/2-1)}.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, the condition ${\varpi}^{D(2D-1)}\mid\Delta$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:11}
|{\varpi}|^{\nu_{\varpi}(\Delta)}\geq |{\varpi}|^{D(2D-1)}\geq {\widehat}{Z}^{D(2D-1)+{\varepsilon}D(2D-1)}\geq {\widehat}{Z}^{D(2D-1)+{\varepsilon}D^2},\end{aligned}$$ Since $D\geq 2$. and give a contradiction if $D>(4d+A-1)/{\varepsilon}$.
Bounds for the character sums {#sec:Char sums}
-----------------------------
We will need a bound on twisted averages of the quadratic exponential sums in Section \[sec:quad\] over square-free moduli. In the light of Lemma \[lem:Expsum’\], this is equivalent to obtaining a suitable bounds for one dimensional character sums. This fact will simplify our work immensely as compared with bounding the averages of cubic exponential sums considered in [@Browning_Vishe15 Sec. 3].
We begin by making our setting more explicit. Let $N\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ and let $$\chi_{\mathrm{Dir}}: (\mathcal{O}_\infty/ t^{-N} \mathcal{O}_\infty)^* \to {\mathbb{C}}^*$$ be a Dirichlet character. Putting $x=t^{-1}$ and $A={\mathbb{F}}_q[x]$, we note that $(\mathcal{O}_\infty/ t^{-N} \mathcal{O}_\infty)^*\cong (A/ x^{N} A)^*$. As in [@Browning_Vishe15 Sec. 3.5], given $a\in K^*$ and $u\in \prod_{{\varpi}} \scrO_{\varpi}^* $, we may now define a Hecke character $\chi_{\mathrm{Hecke}}: I_K\to {\mathbb{C}}^*$ via $$\chi_{\mathrm{Hecke}}(au)=\chi_{\mathrm{Dir}}(u_\infty).$$ It is constant on $K^*$ and gives a character on the idèle class group $I_K/K^*$. Using this construction, the first relevant character for us is $\eta:\mathcal{O}\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^*$, given by $$\eta(r)=\chi_{\mathrm{Dir}}(r/t^{\deg r} )$$ for any $r\in \mathcal{O}$. Note that $r/t^{\deg r}\in \mathcal{O}_\infty^*$ for any $r\in \mathcal{O}$. The second is a Dirichlet character $$\eta':(\cO/y\cO)^*\to {\mathbb{C}}^*$$ modulo $y$, for some $y\in \scrO$. Let $Y=\deg(y)$. Our ultimate goal will be to establish the following bound for a character sum:
\[lem:Charsum\] Let $\eta$ and $\eta'$ be Hecke characters as above such that $\eta\otimes \eta'(x)$ is not equal to $|x|^{ib}$, for any $b\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Let $\beta=\pm 1$ and given any $x\in\scrO$, let $\Omega(x)$ denote the number of prime factors of $x$ including their multiplicities. Let $S\subset\{b\in\scrO^\sharp: |b|\leq{\widehat}{Z}\} $ be a subset of square-free integers of cardinality at most $O(Z)$. Then given any ${\varepsilon}>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\sum\limits_{\substack{b\in\scrO^\sharp,|b|\leq {\widehat}{Z}\\\gcd(b,S)=1}}\beta^{\Omega(x)}\eta(b)\eta'(b)\right|\ll_{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{Z}^{1/2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{N+Y}^{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this result is standard and will follow that of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemmas 3.4, 3.5] closely. To keep this paper self contained, we will include it here. We consider the Hecke $L$-function $$L(\eta\otimes\eta',s):=\sum_{x\in \scrO, x\textrm{ monic }}\frac{\eta(x)\eta'(x)}{|x|^s}.$$ This Dirichlet series is a-priori convergent for $\sigma:={\text{Re}}(s)>1$. However, due to Tate’s thesis, this function has a meromorphic continuation to the whole complex plane. Moreover, Tate’s thesis also implies that it is entire unless $\eta(x)\eta'(x)=|x|^{ib} $, for some real number $b$. As a consequence, unless $\eta(x)\eta'(x)=|x|^{ib}$, $$\label{eq:Riemann}
L(\eta\otimes\eta',s)=P(q^{-s})=\prod_{j=1}^{N+Y}(1-\alpha_jq^{-s})$$ is a polynomial of degree at most $N+Y$, with $|\alpha_j|=q^{1/2}$. This a standard fact about the Hecke $L$-functions over ${\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$. We will give an outline of how it can be proved. The fact that the $L$-function is a polynomial of degree $O(N+Y)$ follows from proving that the averages $\sum_{|r|={\widehat}{R}}\eta(r)\eta'(r)$ vanish as long as $R\gg N+Y$. If $\eta'$ is non-trivial, note that the value of $\eta(r)$ only depends on the top $N$ coefficients appearing in the expression for $r$ as a polynomial in ${\mathbb{F}}_q[t]$. One may thus write $r=t^{R-N}r_1+r_2$, and treat $r_1$ as fixed and average over $r_2$, which must vanish as long as $R-N\geq Y$, (see [@Rosen Prop 4.3]). If $\eta'$ is trivial, then $\eta$ must be non-trivial and this strategy can be recycled by working with $\eta$ instead. Further, $|\alpha_j|=q^{1/2}$, since the zeroes of this $L$-function lie on the $s=1/2$ line. is a key in the proof of Lemma \[lem:Charsum\].
Since we are interested in a sum over square-free values, we proceed to study the Dirichlet series $$\begin{aligned}
F(s)=\sum\limits_{\substack{b\in\scrO^\sharp\\\gcd(b,S)=1}}\frac{\beta^{\Omega(b)}\eta(b)\eta'(b)}{|{\varpi}|^s}=\prod_{{\varpi}\notin S}\left(1+\frac{\beta\eta\otimes\eta'({\varpi})}{|{\varpi}|^s}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We will begin by obtaining a satisfactory bound for $|F(s)|$ for $\mathrm{Re}(s)=\sigma\geq 1/2+{\varepsilon}$. This will be done in a manner completely analogous to [@Browning_Vishe15 Lem 3.4]. We will obtain a good bound for $\sigma>1$, and a weaker bound for $\sigma>1/2$. The final bound will follow from a use of the Hadamard three circle theorem. We begin by noticing that, for $\sigma>1$, we have $$\label{eq:Fsbound0}
|F(s)|\leq \zeta_K(\sigma),$$ where $\zeta_K$ is the usual zeta function for $K={\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$. Moreover, for any prime ${\varpi}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
1+\frac{\eta\otimes\eta'({\varpi})}{|{\varpi}|^s}=\left(1-\frac{\eta\otimes\eta'({\varpi})}{|{\varpi}|^s}\right)^{-1}\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{|{\varpi}|^{2\sigma}}\right)\right),\end{aligned}$$ leading us to $$\label{eq:FsEs}
F(s)=\begin{cases}L(\eta\otimes \eta',s)E(s),&\textrm{ if }\beta=1\\
L(\eta\otimes\eta',s)^{-1}E(s),&\textrm{ if }\beta=-1,
\end{cases}$$ where $$\label{eq:Esdef}
E(s)=\prod_{{\varpi}\notin S}(1+O(|{\varpi}|^{-2\sigma}))\prod_{{\varpi}\in S}(1+O(|{\varpi}|^{-\sigma})).$$ Using , $E(s)$ is holomorphic in the half plane $\sigma>1/2$. Moreover, taking a logarithm of both sides, for any $\sigma\geq 1/2+{\varepsilon}$, $ {\varepsilon}>0$, it is easy to establish $$\label{eq:Esbound}
\log |E(s)|\ll \log \zeta_K(2\sigma)+Z.$$ Here the implied constant only depends on ${\varepsilon}$ and is independent of $q$. Similarly, using , we may obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\log |L(\eta\otimes\eta',s)|\ll (Y+N)|\log(1+q^{1/2-\sigma})|\ll Y+N.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this bound with the one in , we obtain that for any $\sigma\geq 1/2+{\varepsilon}$, $$\label{eq:Fbound1}
\log |F(s)|\ll \log \zeta_K(2\sigma)+Z+ Y+N.$$ Note that since $1/E(s)$ is also analytic, and since the zeroes of $L(\eta\otimes \eta',s)$ lie on the $\sigma=1/2$ line, $\log F(s)$ is analytic in the half plane $\sigma>1/2$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Fbound2}
{\text{Re}}(\log F(s))=\log |F(s)|\ll_{\varepsilon}\log \zeta_K(2\sigma)+Z+ Y+N.\end{aligned}$$ The rest of the argument will follow exactly from the one in [@Browning_Vishe15 Lem 8.4]. Therefore, we will only sketch the idea here. First, Borel Carathéodory theorem can be used to bound $|\log F(s)|$ using our bound for ${\text{Re}}(\log F(s))$. This obtains a weaker bound for $|F(s)|$ when $\sigma\geq 1/2+{\varepsilon}$. Then the Hadamard’s three circle theorem can be used to obtain the following Lindelöf type bound: $$\label{eq:Fboundfinal}
|F(s)|\ll c({\varepsilon})^{(Z+N+Y)^{1-{\varepsilon}/2}}\ll_{\varepsilon}({\widehat}{Z+N+Y})^{\varepsilon},$$ for some absolute constant $c({\varepsilon})$.
Perron’s formula implies that the sum we need to estimate is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ffinal1}
\frac{a_k}{k^{1/2}}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{2-i\infty}^{2+i\infty}F(s)\frac{{\widehat}{Z}^sds}{s},\end{aligned}$$ where $a_k=\sum\limits_{\substack{b\in\scrO^\sharp, |b|=k\\\gcd(b,S)=1}}\beta^{\Omega(b)}\eta(b)\eta'(b)$. The right hand side of may be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{2-iT}^{2+iT}F(s)\frac{{\widehat}{Z}^sds}{s}+O\left(\frac{{\widehat}{(Z+N+Y})^{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{Z}^3}{T}\right),\end{aligned}$$ for any $T>0$. Using and the fact that $L(\eta\otimes\eta',s)$ is an entire function with all its zeros lying on the line ${\text{Re}}(s)=1/2$, $F(s)$ is holomorphic in the half plane $\sigma>1/2$, the integral over the line joining $2-iT$ and $2+iT$ may be replaced by that of the three remaining sides of the rectangle joining $2+iT,1/2+{\varepsilon}+iT, 1/2+{\varepsilon}-iT, 2-iT$. The integral over horizontal sides can be bounded by $$\frac{({\widehat}{Z+N+Y})^{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{Z}^2}{T}.$$ The remaining line segment joining $1/2+{\varepsilon}-iT$ and $1/2+{\varepsilon}+iT$ satisfies the bound $$\ll {\widehat}{Z}^{1/2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{(Z+N+Y})^{\varepsilon}\int_{|t|\leq T}(1+|t|)^{-1}dt\ll {\widehat}{Z}^{1/2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{(Z+N+Y})^{\varepsilon}T^{\varepsilon}.$$ Upon choosing $T={\widehat}{Z}^3$, we obtain the statement of the Lemma.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:split\] {#sec:split}
==============================
The focus of this section is to prove Theorem \[thm:split\], the result providing us with a partition of ${\mathbb{T}}^2$. Here is an outline of the proof. In Lemma \[lem:Diri\], we will begin by first showing that each rational point ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$ lies on a line $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ of a suitable height. Lemmas \[lem:Dio1dim\] through \[lem:Diogen\] establish the precise distribution of rational points on individual lines $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. This essentially follows from the one dimensional Dirichlet approximation theorem. Later, Lemma \[lem:Dio3\] establishes that the lines $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ stay sufficiently far away from one another. Theorem \[thm:split\] is proved by combining all these ingredients together.
Throughout this section, just for the sake of convenience of the notation, we will treat the tuples ${{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}\in K_\infty^2$ as column vectors (instead of the row vector notation used in Sec. \[sec:notation\] and the rest of the paper). This choice makes little difference to the analysis in the remaining sections, where ${{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}\in K_\infty^2$ can be purely viewed as a tuple (either a row vector or a column).
We start by recalling the definition of lines $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$: $$L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}):=\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in {\mathbb{T}}^2\cap L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k):\textrm{ where } k\in \scrO, \gcd(a_1,a_2,r)=\gcd(d,k )=1\},$$ where $L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k)$ denotes the affine line defined by the equation $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}=k$. Note that $$\label{eq:d|r}
{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\Rightarrow d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}=kr, \textrm{ where }\gcd(k,d)=1\Rightarrow d\mid r.$$
We first start by proving that every rational pair ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$ satisfying $\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1$ lies on one of the lines of suitable height.
\[lem:Diri\] Given any rational ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$ satisfying $\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1$, there exists a primitive ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}={\left( \begin{matrix} c_1 \\ c_2 \end{matrix} \right) }\in \scrO^2$ and a monic $d\in \scrO$ satisfying $|dc_1|\leq |r|^{1/2}, |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}$, such that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$.
Let $|r|=q^L$. We will start by proving the existence of a possibly non-primitive vector ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1$ such that $r\mid{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}$. Using the fact that for any $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $\#\{x\in\scrO:|x|<{\widehat}{N}\}={\widehat}{N}$, we have $$q^L<\#\{(c_1,c_2):|c_1|\leq {\widehat}{L/2}, |c_2|<{\widehat}{L/2}\}=q^{L+1}.$$ Therefore, for any triple $(a_1,a_2,r) $, at least two distinct elements in $\{c_1a_1+c_2a_2:|c_1|\leq {\widehat}{L/2},|c_2|<{\widehat}{L/2}\}$ must have the same residue modulo $r$. This implies that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1=kr$ for some $\underline{0}\neq {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1\in\scrO^2, k\in\scrO$, satisfying the required bound on the size of the co-ordinates of ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1$. If ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1$ is not primitive, let $d=\gcd({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1,r)$. Let $d'=\gcd({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)/d$ and ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}={{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1/\gcd({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)$, where upon possibly multiplying by a unit, we may ensure that ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is monic as well. Note that $\gcd(d',r/d)=1$. We then have $${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1\equiv 0\bmod{r}\Rightarrow {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot d'{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\equiv 0\bmod{r/d}\Rightarrow {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\equiv 0\bmod{r/d}\Rightarrow {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\equiv 0\bmod{r}.$$ We have now proved that $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}=k_1r$ for some $k_1\in \scrO$, where ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is primitive. If $\gcd(d,k_1)=1$, then we are done. Otherwise, if $d_2=\gcd(d,k_1)$, then note that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L_1((d/d_2){{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k_1/d_2)$, which further implies that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L((d/d_2){{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. The required bound for the coordinates of $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ follows from further observing $|d/\gcd({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)|\leq 1$.
We next prove a refinement of the one dimensional Diohantine approximation [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 4.2]:
\[lem:Dio1dim\] Given any $a,r\in\scrO$ such that $\gcd(a,r)=1$ and $|r|={\widehat}{M}$, there exists $a_1,r_1$, such that $|r_1|={\widehat}{M+1}$, $\gcd(a_1,r_1)=1$ and $|a/r-a_1/r_1|={\widehat}{-2M-1}=(|r||r_1|)^{-1}$.
The proof is a direct consequence of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 4.1]. Let $y=a/r+z$, where $z=t^{-2M-1}$. For any $a',r'$ such that $a'/r'\neq a/r$, $|r'|\leq |r|$, note that $|y-a'/r'|\geq {\widehat}{M}^{-1}|r'|^{-1}$. However, a further application of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 4.1] produces $a_1,r_1$, satisfying $|r_1|\leq {\widehat}{M+1}$ and $|a_1/r_1-y|<{\widehat}{M+1}^{-1}|r_1|^{-1}$. Clearly, $|r_1|={\widehat}{M+1}$ by our earlier observation. This implies that $|a_1/r_1-y|<{\widehat}{M+1}^{-2}$. A simple triangle inequality establishes the lemma.
We now investigate the structure of the rational points on each individual line, starting with a line $L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, where ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is primitive.
\[lem:Diomain\] Let $c_1,c_2,r\in \scrO $ satisfying $\gcd(c_1,c_2,r)=1$. Then we have the following equality of residues modulo $r$: $$\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\bmod{r}: \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1,{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv 0\bmod{r}, |{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|\}=\{a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot\bmod{r}: |a|<|r|, \gcd(a,r)=1\},$$ where ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot=(-c_2,c_1)^t$.
We will assume that $r={\varpi}^k$, for some prime ${\varpi}$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that ${\varpi}\nmid c_1$. Clearly, modulo $r$, the left hand side is equal to $$\{y(-c_1^{-1}c_2,1):\gcd(y,r)=1, y\bmod{r}\}=\{yc_1(-c_1^{-1}c_2,1):\gcd(y,r)=1, y\bmod{r}\}.$$ In general, if $r={\varpi}_1^{k_1}...{\varpi}_m^{k_m}$ is a prime decomposition of $r$ into co-prime prime powers, then our previous analysis shows that ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv 0\bmod{r}$ would necessarily imply that for each $1\leq i\leq m$, there exists $b_i$ such that ${\varpi}_i\nmid b_i$ and ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv b_i{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp \bmod{{\varpi}_i^{k_i}}$ . An application of the Chinese remainder theorem will finish the proof of the lemma.
As a direct corollary of Lemma \[lem:Diomain\], we get
\[cor:11\] For every ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, there exists a unique $|a|<|r|$, $\gcd(a,r)=1 $ and a unique ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}\in\scrO^2$ satisfying $|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|$ and ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r=a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}$.
Similarly for any general line $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, we have the following generalisation:
\[lem:Dio\] Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in\scrO^2$ be primitive and $d\in\scrO$. Then, for every ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}),$ there exists a unique ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/(r/d)\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ and a unique ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}'\in \scrO^2$ satisfying $|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}'|<|d|$ such that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}'/d $, where $|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}'|<|d| $. Consequently, ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r=a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}/d$, where $(a,r/d)=1,|a|<|r/d|,\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{d}}},d)=1,{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}\in\scrO^2$.
We begin by recalling that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ implies that $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}=kr$, where $\gcd(k,d)=1$. Thus, ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv 0\bmod{r/d}$. The first part of the lemma is established upon choosing $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'|<|r/d| $ such that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'\equiv {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\bmod{r/d}$. This choice of ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'$ is also unique, since any representation ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1/d$ must satisfy ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1\bmod{r/d}$.
Corollary \[cor:11\] implies that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/(r/d)=a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot/(r/d)+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}''$, for some ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}''\in \scrO^2$, $\gcd(a,r/d)=1$. Thus, ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r=a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}/d$, for some ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}\in\scrO^2$. This implies that $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot (a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}/d)={{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}=k$. Since $(k,d)=1$, $\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{d}}},d)=1$.
As a consequence of the previous lemmas, we are now set to establish results about the distribution of rational points on the generalised lines $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}) $. As before, we start by investigating the lines of the type $L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. The following lemma is a consequence of the one dimensional Dirichlet approximation.
\[lem:Dio2\] Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be primitive and let ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\neq {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2 \in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ satisfying $|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|^2\leq|r_1||r_2|$, then $$|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2|\geq \frac{|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r_1||r_2|}.$$ Moreover, given any ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ satisfying $|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|^2\leq |r|$, there exist ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}) $ satisfying $|r|<|r_1|$ and $$|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1|=\frac{|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r||r_1|}.$$ We can further guarantee that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$ and ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1 $ both lie on the line $L_1({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k)$, for some $k\in\scrO$.
We begin by proving the first part of the lemma. Since ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1,{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, we have $({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i/r_i)\cdot {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=k_i$, for $k_1,k_2\in \scrO$. Thus, $({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2)\cdot {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=k_1-k_2$. If $k_1\neq k_2$, then this implies that $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2|\geq |{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|^{-1} $. The first part now follows from the condition on $r_1,r_2$ and ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$. On the other hand, Corollary \[cor:11\] implies that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1=a_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot/r_1+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1$ and ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2=a_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot/r_2+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_2$. As a result, if $k_1=k_2$, then this necessarily implies $({\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1-{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_2)\cdot {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=0$. Now we use the fact that ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is primitive, along with the fact that $|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1|,|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_2|<|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|$ to get that ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1={\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_2$. The first part now follows from the observation $ |{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2|=|(a_1/r_1-a_2/r_2)(-c_2,c_1)|$.
To prove the second part, we appeal to Lemma \[lem:Dio1dim\]. Suppose, ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r=a(-c_2,c_1)/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}$. Lemma \[lem:Dio1dim\] provides us $a_1/r_1$ such that $|r_1|=q|r|$ and $|a/r-a_1/r_1|=(|r||r_1|)^{-1}$. Now, let ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1=a_1(-c_2,c_1)/r_1+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}$. Clearly $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1|=|(a/r-a_1/r_1)(-c_2,c_1)|=\frac{|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r||r_1|}<1$. Thus, ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\in{\mathbb{T}}$. We must also have $\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1,r_1)=1$, since ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1\equiv a_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp\bmod{r_1}$. We thus have ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. The final part of the lemma follows from choosing $k={\underline{\mathrm{d}}}\cdot {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$.
We further extend this result to the lines of general type:
\[lem:Diogen\] Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be primitive, let $d\in \scrO$ and let ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\neq {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2 \in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ satisfying $|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|^{2}\leq |r_1||r_2|$, then $$|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2|\geq \frac{|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r_1||r_2|}.$$ Moreover, given any ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\cap L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k)$, where $|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|^2\leq |r|$, there exists ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\cap L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k) $ satisfying $|r|< |r_2|$ such that $$|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2|=\frac{|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r||r_2|}.$$
The first part is almost immediate from Lemmas \[lem:Dio\] and \[lem:Dio2\]. The first part of Lemma \[lem:Dio\] implies that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i/r_i={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i'/(dr_i/d)+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_i'/d$, where ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i'/(r_i/d)\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}) $, for $i=1,2$. Thus, $$\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1}{r_1}-\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2}{r_2}=\frac1d\left(\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1'}{r_1/d}-\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2'}{r_2/d}\right)+\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1'-{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_2'}{d}.$$ The second term is clearly bigger than the first one on the right side of the above expression, except when ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1'={\underline{\mathrm{d}}}'_2$, since $|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|/(|r_1r_2|)\leq 1/|d|$, the bound $1/|d|$ is admissible. This leaves us with the case ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1'={\underline{\mathrm{d}}}'_2$. We use Lemma \[lem:Dio2\] to get $\left|\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1'}{r_1/d}-\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2'}{r_2/d}\right|\geq \frac{|d^2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r_1||r_2|}$, which settles this part.
For the second part, we again begin by applying the first part of Lemma \[lem:Dio\] to write ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}/d$, where ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/(r/d)\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}) $. We next use the second part of Lemma \[lem:Dio2\], to obtain ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\in L({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ satisfying $|r/d|<|r_1|$, $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/(r/d)-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1|=d/(|r||r_1|) $ and ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$. Set ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/(r_1d)+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}/d$. Clearly, $$({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2)\cdot d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}={{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}\cdot {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}={{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/(r/d)+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}\cdot {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=k.$$ Since $\gcd(d,k)=1$, it follows that $d\mid r_2 $. This implies that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\cap L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k)$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}}{r}-\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2}{r_2}\right|=\left|\frac{1}{d}\left(\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'}{r/d}-\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1}{r_1}\right)\right|=\frac{|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r||r_1|}\leq\frac{|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r||r_2|}.\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality comes from the fact here that $|dr_1|\geq |r_2|$. However, since $|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|^2\leq |r|$, the first part of the lemma is applicable. This gives $\left|\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}}{r}-\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2}{r_2}\right|\geq \frac{|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|}{|r||r_2|}$, which implies the equality, and that $r_2=dr_1$.
We are now almost ready to prove the fact that the lines $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ stay sufficiently far away from one another, cf. Lemma \[lem:Dio3\] below. We will start with proving an auxiliary result.
\[lem:det0\] Let $C\in M_{ 2}(\scrO)$ be a matrix satisfying that $\varpi\nmid C$ , for some prime $\varpi\in \scrO$. Let $\nu_\varpi(\det(C) )=k_0$, then for any $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, if $k>k_0$ we have $$\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\bmod \varpi^k: \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},\varpi)=1, C{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv\underline{0}\bmod{\varpi^{k}}\}=\emptyset.$$
Let $C= TDS$ be a Smith normal form of $C$. The matrices $S,T\in \GL_2(\scrO)$ and $D={\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} d_1 & 0 \\ 0 & d_2 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr) }$ is a diagonal matrix. Clearly, $\nu_{\varpi}(d_1d_2)=k_0$. Since $S$ and $T$ are invertible modulo $\varpi$, $\gcd(S{\underline{\mathrm{a}}},{\varpi})=1\iff \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},{\varpi})=1$. We thus have the equality: $$\#\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\bmod \varpi^k: \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},\varpi)=1, C{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv\underline{0}\bmod{\varpi^{k}}\}=\#\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\bmod \varpi^k: \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},\varpi)=1, D{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv\underline{0}\bmod{\varpi^{k}}\}.$$ The right hand side is empty, as $\nu_\varpi(d_1d_2)=k_0<k$.
\[lem:Dio3\] Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1={\left( \begin{matrix} c_1 \\ c_2 \end{matrix} \right) }, {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2={\left( \begin{matrix} c_3 \\ c_4 \end{matrix} \right) }\in\scrO^2$ be two primitive vectors, and let $d_1,d_2\in \scrO $ be monic such that there are points ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\in L(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1),{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\in L(d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2)$, satisfying $|d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1|^2\leq |r_1|$ and $|d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2|^2\leq |r_2| $, and $$\left|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\right|<\frac{\max\{|d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1|,|d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2|\}}{|r_1r_2|},$$ then ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2$.
Moreover, if ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)\cap L(d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2)$, where $|d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1|^2$ and $|d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2|^2\leq |r| $, and $|c_1c_4|,|c_2c_3|<|r/d_1d_2|$, then we must have $d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1=d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2$.
We start by proving the second part of the lemma first. We begin by noting that if ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)\cap L(d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2)$, then this implies $C{\left( \begin{matrix} a_1 \\ a_2 \end{matrix} \right) }\equiv {\left( \begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix} \right) }\bmod{r/\ell},$ where $C={\left( \begin{matrix} c_1 & c_2 \\ c_3 & c_4 \end{matrix} \right) }$, and $\ell=\mathrm{lcm}(d_1,d_2) $. Since both ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1,{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2$ are primitive, we can use Lemma \[lem:det0\] to get that $r/\ell\mid\det(C)$. Since $|c_1c_4|< |r|/|d_1d_2| $ and $|c_2c_3|<|r|/|d_1d_2| $, we have $|\det(C)|<|r/\ell|$. This must imply that $\det(C)=0$. This would then confirm that $ {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1={{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2={{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, since ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1,{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2$ are primitive and therefore monic according to our definition in Sec \[sec:notation\].
We now set $r'=\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r), d=r/r'$, where $d$ monic. Clearly, $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r={{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r'\in\scrO$. We also have $\gcd(d,{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}/r')=1$, which implies ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. Moreover, since $d_1{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=k_1r$, where $d_1\mid r$, $\gcd(d_1,k_1)=1$, we then have $d_1({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}/r')=(d_1{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}/r)d=k_1d$. Since $\gcd(d,{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}/r')=1$, we must have $d\mid d_1$, but on the other hand, $\gcd(d_1,k_1)=1$ implies that $d_1\mid d$. Since both of them are monic, this must mean $d_1=d$. We can similarly prove $d_2=d$, settling the second part of the lemma.
For the first part, let ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\neq {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2$. Without loss of generality, we assume $|d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1|\geq |d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2|$ and let $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2|<|d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1|/(|r_1r_2|)$. The first part of Lemma \[lem:Diogen\] asserts ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\notin L(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)$. Using the second part of Lemma \[lem:Diogen\], we have ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/r'\in L(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)$ such that $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/r'|=\left|\frac{d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1}{r_1r'}\right|$, and moreover, ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1, {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/r'\in L_1(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1,k)$, where $\gcd(d_1,k)=1$. If ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\notin L_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},k)$, the volume of the parallelepiped with vertices ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1,{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2,{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/r' $ must be non-zero. This volume is also given by $\left| \det\left(\begin{matrix}
{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\\ {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}'/r'
\end{matrix}\right)\right| $. Clearly, this volume $\geq \frac{1}{|r_1||r_2||r'|}$. On the other hand, it is $<\frac{|d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1|^2}{|r_1|^2|r'||r_2|}\leq \frac{1}{|r_1r_2r'|} $, which is a contradiction.
We are now reduced to the case ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\in L_1(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1,k)$. This implies that $({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2)\cdot d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1=k$. Since $\gcd(d_1,k)=1$, we must have ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\in L(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)$ which is a contradiction, unless, ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2$.
As an immediate corollary of the second part of Lemma \[lem:Dio3\] we have:
\[cor:2\] For any $r\in \scrO$, we have $$\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\in \scrO^2:|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|,\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1\}=\bigsqcup\limits_{\substack{ d \textrm{ {\em monic}, }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ {\em primitive}}\\d\mid r\\|dc_1|\leq |r|^{1/2},|dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}}}\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}:\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1,{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\}.$$
The disjointness of the sets on the right hand side follows immediately from the second part of Lemma \[lem:Dio3\]. The right hand side is obviously contained in the left hand side. Lemma \[lem:Diri\] implies that the left hand side is contained in the right hand side.
We are now ready to establish a refinement of , our main objective in this section,namely, the proof of Theorem \[thm:count\]:
Throughout this argument, we assume that $ d,d_1,d_2,...\in\scrO$ are monic and ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1,{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2\in\scrO^2$ are primitive. Lemma \[lem:Diri\] implies that every ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}) $, for some $d,{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ satisfying $|dc_1|\leq |r|^{1/2}, |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}$. This also implies that $|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|^2\leq|r| $. The proof will follow from an induction on $|r|$. We begin noting that proving Theorem \[thm:split\] is equivalent to proving $$\label{eq:Dirichlet2'}
{\mathbb{T}}^2=\bigsqcup_{0\leq Y\leq Q}\bigsqcup\limits_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ monic },{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive}\\ |r|={\widehat}{Y}, d\mid r\\{\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}}}\,\,\,
{\sideset{}{^*}\bigsqcup}_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|\\ {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})} }D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q).$$ Here $*$ beside $\sqcup$ denotes that the union is over ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\in\scrO^2$ such that $\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1$. We begin by proving the disjointness of the intervals on the right hand of . Let ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\in L(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1), {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2\in L(d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2)$, where $d_i,r_i,{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_i$ satisfy the constraints appearing on the right hand side of . Lemma \[lem:Dio3\] then implies that either ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1={\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2$ or $$|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2|\geq \frac{\max\{|d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1|,|d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2|\}}{|r_1||r_2|}\geq \frac{q^{-Q/2}\max\{|r_1|,|r_2|\}}{|r_1||r_2|}\geq q^{-Q/2}\max\{|r_1|^{-1},|r_2|^{-1}\}.$$ On the other hand, if ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1)\cap L(d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2)$ then the second part of Lemma \[lem:Dio3\] forces $d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_1=d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}_2$, implying disjointness of the right hand side of .
Clearly, the right side of is contained in the left. To prove the other way around, we proceed with induction. We intend to prove that for any $0\leq M\leq Q $, $$\label{eq:Minduct}
\bigcup_{|r|\leq {\widehat}{M}}\,\,\,{\sideset{}{^*}\bigsqcup}_{|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|}D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q)\subseteq \bigsqcup_{0\leq Y\leq M}\bigsqcup\limits_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ monic },{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive}\\ |r|={\widehat}{Y}, d\mid r\\{\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}}}\,\,\,
{\sideset{}{^*}\bigsqcup}_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|\\ {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})} }D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q).$$
The base case $M=0$ is obvious, since we only have one term on the left hand side, namely, $D(\underline{0},1,Q)$. Clearly, it is contained in $L({\underline{\mathrm{e}}}_1)$, where ${\underline{\mathrm{e}}}_1={\left( \begin{matrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{matrix} \right) }$. Let us assume the validity of for all $M\leq M_0<Q$. Note that $d\mid r$ is forced upon us from . Now, let us choose ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$, $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<r,\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1$, such that $|r|={\widehat}{M_0+1} $. Lemma \[lem:Diri\] implies that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, where $|dc_1|\leq |r|^{1/2}, |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}$. This forces $|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|^2\leq |r|$. If $|r|\leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|{\widehat}{Q/2}$, we are done. Otherwise, using Lemma \[lem:Dio\], we write ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r=a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp/r+{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}/d$, where $|a|<|r/d|, \gcd(a,r/d)=1$. A further application of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 4.3] gives us $a'/r'$ satisfying $|r'|\leq |{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|{\widehat}{Q/2}$ such that $|a/(r/d)-a'/r'|<(|r'||{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|{\widehat}{Q/2})^{-1}$. We now set $\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1}{r_1}=\frac{a'{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\bot}{r'd}+\frac{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}}{d}$. If $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r=k$, for some $(k,d)=1$, then clearly, $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1={{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot {\underline{\mathrm{d}}}=k$, as well. Moreover, $d\mid r_1$, and $$\begin{aligned}
|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r-{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1|=|d|^{-1}|a/(r/d)-a'/r'||{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|<(|dr'|{\widehat}{Q/2})^{-1}\leq (|r_1|{\widehat}{Q/2})^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ We use here that $|r_1|\leq |dr'|$. However, since $|r'|<|r/d|$, we have $|r_1|<|r|$. Thus, we have found an ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ satisfying $|r_1|< |r|$, such that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1,r_1,Q)$, which further implies that $D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q)\subseteq D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1,r_1,Q)$. We are now through using induction.
For any $|r|\leq {\widehat}{Q/2}$ and $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<r$, $\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1$, by Lemma \[lem:Diri\], ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, where $|dc_1|\leq |r|^{1/2}, |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}$. Moreover, since $ |r|\leq {\widehat}{Q/2}$, $D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q)$ appears exactly once on the right hand side of . Since ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r$ is was chosen to be arbitrary, this shows that
$$\label{eq:Dirichlet3}
{\mathbb{T}}^2=\bigsqcup_{\substack{|r|\leq {\widehat}{Q/2}\\ r\textrm{ monic }}}\,\,\,
{\sideset{}{^*}\bigsqcup}_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|} }D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q)\bigsqcup\limits_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ monic, }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive}\\ {\widehat}{Q/2}<|r|\leq {\widehat}{Q}\\ |r|\leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|{\widehat}{Q/2}, d\mid r\\ |dc_1|\leq |r|^{1/2}, |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}}}\,\,\,
{\sideset{}{^*}\bigsqcup}_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|\\ {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})} }D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q).$$
This is the same idea that handed us Corollary \[cor:2\]. This is expected, since if $r_1$ and $r_2$ are small, then we do not expect any overlaps in the intervals $D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1,r_1,Q)$ and $D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2,r_2,Q)$. could be used to estimate contribution from low values of $r$ more effectively. More explicitly, we may be able to save a factor of size $O(|r|^{3/2})$ from all square-free values of $|r|\leq {\widehat}{Q/2}$. This saving is not required in this work, but it may be useful in further applications.
Background on a pair of quadrics {#sec:background}
================================
In this section, we will collect some relevant facts regarding smooth complete intersections of two absolutely irreducible quadratic forms. Let $F_1,F_2\in \scrO[x_1,...,x_n]$ be absolutely irreducible quadratic forms defining a smooth complete intersection $X$. Throughout, we will assume that Char$(K)>2$. Let $M_1,M_2$ be symmetric matrices with $\scrO$ entries defining $F_1$ and $F_2$ respectively, i.e., $F_i({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbf{x}}^tM_i{\mathbf{x}}$, for $i=1,2$. Since we are interested in obtaining an asymptotic formula for the counting function $N(P)$ defined in , throughout the paper, we will also fix $N\in \scrO$ and ${\mathbf{b}}\in \scrO^n$ such that $F_1({\mathbf{b}})\equiv F_2({\mathbf{b}})\equiv 0\bmod{N}$. The geometry of $X$ is well-understood, see [@Reid72] and [@HeathBrown_Pierce17] for example. Most of the geometric properties derived there are valid for any smooth complete intersection of two quadrics over any field of odd characteristic, most of which we will just state here without any further explanation.
We begin with defining some notation. For any pair ${{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}=(x,y)\in K_\nu^2$, let $$\label{eq:FuxMuxdef}
F_{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}=-yF_1+xF_2\,\,\,\,\,\textrm{ and }\,\,\,\,\, M_{{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}}=-yM_1+xM_2$$ denote the matrix defining the quadratic form $F_{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}$. As per [@Reid72 Proposition 2.1], we can assume that $M_1$ is of full rank. [@Reid72 Proposition 2.1] also implies that the matrices $M_1$ and $M_2$ are simultaneously diagonalisable over an algebraic closure $\overline{K}$. [@HeathBrown_Pierce17 Condition 4] implies that for any primitive ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in\scrO^2$, $\operatorname{rank}(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\geq k-1$. Moreover, when $c_1\neq 0$, $\operatorname{rank}(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})=k-1$ precisely when $c_2/c_1$ is an eigenvalue of $M_1^{-1}M_2$. However, since $M_1^{-1}M_2 $ has at most $n$ distinct eigenvalues and each primitive vector ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, produces a unique ratio $c_2/c_1$, there are at most $n$ distinct primitive vectors ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$’s for which $\operatorname{rank}(-c_2F_1+c_1F_2)=k-1$. We call such ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$’s as “bad”.
The determinant form $F(x,y)$
-----------------------------
Given any $x,y\in \overline{K}_\infty$, let $$\label{eq:Fxydef}
F(x,y)=\det(-yM_1+xM_2)$$ be a homogeneous binary form of degree $n$. [@HeathBrown_Pierce17 Condition 2] implies that $F(x,y)$ has distinct linear factors over ${\overline}{K}$. Let $K_1$ denote the splitting field of the polynomial $F$ over $K$. Thus, we can factor $$\label{eq:Fsplit}
F(x,y)=h^{-1}\prod_{i=1}^n(\lambda_i x-\mu_iy),$$ where $h\in \scrO$, $\lambda_i,\mu_i\in \scrO_{K_1}$. Let $\rho_i=\lambda_i/\mu_i$ denote the eigenvalues of $M=M_1^{-1}M_2$. $\rho_i$’s must be pairwise distinct and therefore, at most one of them could be $0$. Throughout, we will assume that $\rho_i\neq 0$ for any $1\leq i\leq n-1$. Without loss of generality, let $0\leq n_1\leq n$ is such that $\rho_i\notin K_\infty$ if $ i\leq n_1$ and $\rho_i\in K_\infty$ if $i>n_1$. The norm on $K_\infty$ could be suitably extended to $K_1$. Note that when $K={\mathbb{Q}}$, since $M$ is symmetric, $n_1=0$, and therefore $M$ can be diagonalised over ${\mathbb{R}}$. In the function field setting however, this might not hold. However, we may still be able to obtain the following result, which will be necessary in obtaining a satisfactory bound for our singular integral (see Lemma \[lem:I-hard\]):
\[lem:eigenvalue\] We can find a matrix $U\in \GL_n(K_\infty)$ satisfying $$U^{-1}MU={\left( \begin{matrix} M'_{n_1\times n_1} & M''_{n_1\times (n-n_1)} \\ \vecnull_{(n-n_1)\times n_1} & D(\rho_{n_1+1},...,\rho_{n}) \end{matrix} \right) },$$ where $D$ is a $(n-n_1)\times (n-n_1)$ diagonal matrix with the prescribed diagonal entries. Moreover, the eigenvalues of $M'$ are precisely given by $\rho_1,...,\rho_{n_1}$ and therefore, they do not belong to $K_\infty$.
Moreover, we can also find a constant $0<C_1\leq 1$ such that $|\rho_i|\leq C_1^{-1}$ for any $i$, $C_1\leq |\rho_i|$ for any $i\neq n$, $C_1\leq|\rho_i-\rho_j|$ for any $i\neq j$, and for any $z\in K_\infty$ and for any $1\leq i\leq n_1$, we have $C_1\leq |z-\rho_i|$ and $C_1\leq |z-\rho_i^{-1}|$. If $\rho_n\neq 0$, then we can also make sure that $C_1\leq |\rho_n|\leq C_1^{-1}$.
Let $i$ be any integer satisfying $n_1+1\leq i\leq n$. We have $\det(\rho_iI_n-M)=0$. Let $\rho_iI_n-M=TDS$ be a Smith normal form for the matrix $\rho_iI_n-M$ over $K_\infty$. Therefore $T,S\in\GL_n(K_\infty)$ and $D$ is a diagonal matrix with entries in $K_\infty$. We may also assume that only the last diagonal entry of $D$ is $0$. Let ${\mathbf{e}}_n$ be the vector which contains $1$ at the $n$-th place and $0$’s everywhere else. The vector ${\mathbf{v}}_i=S^{-1}{\mathbf{e}}_n\neq \vecnull$ satisfies $M{\mathbf{v}}_i=\rho_i{\mathbf{v}}_i$. Moreover, since $M$ is symmetric, we must have ${\mathbf{v}}_i\cdot {\mathbf{v}}_j=0$, for $i\neq j$. We thus have an orthogonal system of eigenvectors ${\mathbf{v}}_{n_1+1},...,{\mathbf{v}}_{n}\in K_\infty^n$. Upon extending the basis and changing the standard basis to this new one, we are now guaranteed a matrix $U_1\in \GL_n(K_\infty)$ such that $U_1MU_1^{-1}$ is in the form of the transpose of the required form. We may now use the symmetry of $M$ and choose $U=U_1^t$ to get the required expression.
To prove the second part, we begin by observing that $\rho_1,...,\rho_{n_1}$ have to be the eigenvalues of $M'$. For any $1\leq i\leq n_1$, we must have $\sup_{x\in K_\infty}|\rho_i-x|>0$, since otherwise, using the completeness of $K_\infty$, $\rho_i\in K_\infty$. The existence of a suitable constant $C_1$ now follows from this fact and due to the fact that $\rho_i$’s are all distinct.
Good and bad primes {#sec:goodbad}
-------------------
Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be a primitive pair and let $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=TDS$ denote a smith normal form over $\scrO$. Here, $T$ and $S$ are in $\GL_n(\scrO)$ satisfying $\det(T),\det(S)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$ and $D=\diag(\mu_1,...,\mu_n)$ is diagonal. Moreover, $\mu_1\mid \mu_2\mid\mu_3...\mid\mu_n$. Therefore, $\mu_i\neq 0$ if $i\neq n$, and $\mu_n=0\iff {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is a bad pair. Let ${\mathbf{e}}_j$ denote the $j$-th vector in the standard basis for $\cO^n$. Let ${\mathbf{y}}_j=S^{-1}{\mathbf{e}}_j$ be another basis of $\cO^n$. The quadratic form $$\label{eq:Qucdef}
Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}(x_1,...,x_{n-1}):=F_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}(x_1{\mathbf{y}}_1+...+x_{n-1}{\mathbf{y}}_{n-1}),$$ in $n-1$ variables will feature prominently in our bounds for exponential sums. When ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is bad, $\mu_n=0$. Therefore, $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}{\mathbf{y}}_n=\vecnull$. Moreover, since $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is symmetric, ${\mathbf{y}}_n^tM_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=\vecnull^t$. Therefore, $$F_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}(x_1{\mathbf{y}}_1+...x_n{\mathbf{y}}_n)=F_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}(x_1{\mathbf{y}}_1+...+x_{n-1}{\mathbf{y}}_{n-1})=Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}(x_1,...,x_{n-1}).$$ $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ has to be non-singular, since the set $\{M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}{\mathbf{y}}_1,...,M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}{\mathbf{y}}_{n-1}\}$ is linearly independent and since the rank of $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is $\geq n-1$.
Let $$\label{eq:deltadef}
D_{{\underline{F}}}=Nh\Delta_{{\underline{F}}}\prod_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive and bad}}\Delta(Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\prod_{\sigma\in \mathrm{Gal}(K_1/K)}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\sigma(\lambda_j\mu_i-\mu_i\lambda_j),$$ where $h,\lambda_i,\mu_i$ as in , $\Delta_{{\underline{F}}}$ denotes the discriminant of the binary form $F(x,y)$ and $\Delta(Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ denote the discriminant of the quadratic form $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$. Here, $\mathrm{Gal}(K_1/K)$ denotes the Galois group of the splitting field $K_1$ of the polynomial $F(x,y)$ over $K$. We say that a prime ${\varpi}$ is [*bad*]{} if ${\varpi}\mid D_{{\underline{F}}}$, and the rest of the primes will be called [*good*]{} primes. For any [*good, primitive*]{} ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, if a good prime ${\varpi}$ is such that ${\varpi}\nmid \det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, then we say that ${\varpi}$ is of type I for ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, otherwise, we say that ${\varpi}$ is of type II. Note that for a bad pair ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, every good prime ${\varpi}$ will be of type I, since ${\varpi}\nmid \Delta(Q_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}})$ for any good prime ${\varpi}$. Note that our definition of bad primes differs slightly from that in [@HeathBrown_Pierce17]. For convenience, we have added the primes dividing $N$ as well as the “type II” primes for bad pairs ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ to this list.
The dual variety
----------------
In our analysis, an important role will be played by the following family of dual forms defined by $$F^*(x,y,{\mathbf{v}})={\mathbf{v}}^t\det(-yM_1+xM_2)(-yM_1+xM_2)^{-1}{\mathbf{v}}.$$ For a fixed value of ${\mathbf{v}}$, we may consider $F^*(x,y,{\mathbf{v}})$ as a binary, homogeneous polynomial of degree $n-1$. The discriminant of this polynomial, denoted by $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})$, is a polynomial of degree $4(n-2)$. This polynomial has an albeit more familiar interpretation:
$\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})$ is the polynomial defining the dual variety $X^*$ of the complete intersection $X$.
$F^*(x,y,{\mathbf{v}})=0$ if and only if the quadratic variety $\{-yF_1({\mathbf{x}})+xF_2({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbf{v}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}=0\}$ is singular, since $F^*(x,y,{\mathbf{v}})$ is a non-zero multiple of the determinant of the matrix defining the corresponding quadratic form. On the other hand, if $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})=0$, then the polynomial $F^*(x,y,{\mathbf{v}})=0$ must have a double root $(x_0,y_0)\in \overline{K}^2$. Without loss of generality, let $x_0\neq 0$. Let $X_1=\{-y_0F_1({\mathbf{x}})+x_0F_2({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbf{v}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}=0\}$ and let $M'$ be a $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ matrix defining $X_1$.
If the singular locus of this variety is of projective dimension $\geq 1$, then it must intersect $F_1({\mathbf{x}})=0$, thus producing a singular point in the complete intersection of ${\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}=0$ and $X$. On the other hand, if $X_1$ only has one singular point, it means that the matrix $M'$ defining $X_1$ (up to scalar multiplication) has only one zero eigenvector, say ${\mathbf{x}}_0$. Since, $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})=0$, $(\partial/\partial t)|_{t=0}(\det(M'+tM''))=0$, where $M''$ is the matrix defining $F_1({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}=0$. $M'$ can be diagonalised over ${\overline}{K}$. An easy calculation shows that $(\partial/\partial t)|_{t=0}(\det(M'+tM''))$ is proportional to ${\mathbf{x}}_0^tM''{\mathbf{x}}_0$. Thus we must have ${\mathbf{x}}_0^tM''{\mathbf{x}}_0=0$, which means $F_1({\mathbf{x}}_0)=0$. This implies that ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ belongs to $X\cap \{{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}=0\}$. This further implies that $X\cap\{{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}=0\} $ is singular. Thus, $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})=0$ implies that ${\mathbf{v}}$ belongs to $X^*$. Moreover, according to [@Aznar Theorem 3], the polynomial defining the dual $X^*$ is an irreducible polynomial of degree $4(n-2)$. Therefore, $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})$ must be a polynomial defining the dual variety $X^*$.
Activation of the circle method {#sec:circle}
===============================
Let $w$ denote the characteristic function of ${\mathbb{T}}^n\subset K_\infty^n$, and let ${\mathbf{x}}_0\in K_\infty^n$ be a fixed point satisfying $F_1({\mathbf{x}}_0)=F_2({\mathbf{x}}_0)=0$. Since both forms are homogeneous, we may also assume $|{\mathbf{x}}_0|<1/H_{{\underline{F}}}$. Let $\omega({\mathbf{x}})=w(t^{L}({\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_0))$, where $L\geq 0$ be a suitable integer to be chosen later. The extra conditions $|{\mathbf{x}}_0|<1/H_{{\underline{F}}}$ and $L\geq 0$ are only used to make the constants a bit more explicit. Recall that for any $P\in \scrO$, we consider the counting function $$N(P)=\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{x}}\in\scrO^n\\ F_1({\mathbf{x}})=F_2({\mathbf{x}})=0\\ {\mathbf{x}}\equiv {\mathbf{b}}\bmod{N}}}\omega({\mathbf{x}}/P).$$ We intend to establish an asymptotic formula as $|P|\rightarrow \infty$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:intT2}
N(P)=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2}S(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)d{\underline{\alpha}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S({\underline{\alpha}})=\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{x}}\in\scrO^n\\ {\mathbf{x}}\equiv {\mathbf{b}}\bmod{N}}}\omega({\mathbf{x}}/P)\psi(\alpha_1 F_1({\mathbf{x}})+\alpha_2 F_2({\mathbf{x}})).\end{aligned}$$ We will apply Theorem \[thm:split\] (version ) with $Q$ satisfying $$\label{eq:Qchoice}
|P|^{4/3}\leq {\widehat}{Q}\leq |P|^{4/3}q$$ to replace the integral over ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ in to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:D-Refine}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2}S({\underline{\alpha}})d{\underline{\alpha}}=\sum_{Y=0}^Q\,\,\,\,\,\,\sum_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ monic, }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive}\\ {\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq{\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}\\|r|={\widehat}{Y}, d\mid r}}\,\,\,
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}^{-1}q^{-Q/2}}S(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$S(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})={\sideset{}{^*}\sum}\limits_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\in \cO^2\\ {\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}} S({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r+{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}).$$ This choice of $Q$ is standard for a system of two quadrics. It is chosen in such a way that when $Y=Q$ and $r$ is such that $|r|={\widehat}{Y}$, then for any $\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1$, the measure of the set $D({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r,Q)$ in is $\leq {\widehat}{Q}^{-3}\ll |P|^{-4}$, aiding us to prove the right asymptotic in Theorem \[thm:count\].
For each $L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, we are going to consider the contribution from ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. Let $r_N=rN/\gcd(r,N)$, the least common multiple of $ r$ and $N$. We next use a standard Poisson summation argument as in [@Browning_Vishe15 Section 4] applied to to establish the following result:
\[lem:NP1\] Given any ${\varepsilon}>0$, we have $$N(P)=|P|^n\sum_{0\leq Y\leq Q}\,\,\,\,\,\sum_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ {\em monic,} }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ {\em primitive}}\\ {\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |r|={\widehat}{Y},d\mid r}}|r_N|^{-n}
\int\limits_{\substack{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}^{-1}q^{-Q/2}}}\sum_{{\mathbf{v}}\in\scrO^n}S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}}),d{\mathbf{z}},$$ where $$\label{eq:Sexpsumdef}S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})=\sum_{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{x}}\in\scrO^n\\|{\mathbf{x}}|<|r_N|\\{\mathbf{x}}\equiv{\mathbf{b}}\bmod{N}}}\psi\left(\frac{a_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+a_2F_2({\mathbf{x}})}{r}\right)\psi\left(\frac{-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{r_N}\right),$$ $$I_{s}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})=\int_{K_\infty^n}\omega({\mathbf{x}})\psi\left((z_1P^2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2P^2F({\mathbf{x}})) +P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}/s\right)d{\mathbf{x}},$$ and $r_N=rN/\gcd(r,N)$.
We begin by establishing the following multiplicativity relation for the exponential sums:
\[lem:Multipli\] Let $d\mid r$ and let $r=r_1r_2$, where $\gcd(r_1,r_2)=1$, then there exist ${\mathbf{b}}_1,{\mathbf{b}}_2,{\mathbf{b}}_3\in(\scrO/N\scrO)^n$ such that $$\label{eq:multi1}
S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})=S_{d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})S_{d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_2,{\mathbf{b}}_2,N_2}({\mathbf{v}})\psi\left(\frac{-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{b}}_3}{N_3}\right),$$ where $d=d_1d_2$ such that $d_i\mid r_i$ for $i=1,2$, and $N=N_1N_2N_3$, where $N_1\mid r_1^\infty$, $N_2\mid r_2^\infty$, $\gcd(N_3,r)=1$.
Recall that ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\iff d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}=rk, \mathrm{ where }\,\,\, \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=\gcd(k,d)=1$. We start by rewriting ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}=r_2{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1+r_1{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2$, where $|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i|<|r_i|, \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i,r_i)=1$. Firstly, since ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\equiv 0\bmod{r/d} $, this forces ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i\equiv{0}\bmod{r_i/d_i}$ for $i=1,2$. i.e. ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i/(r_i/d_i)\in\scrO$. Next, since $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r= d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/r_1+d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/r_2=d_2{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_1/(r_1/d_1)+d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_2/(r_2/d_2)$, $\gcd(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r, d)=1$ if and only if $\gcd(d_i{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i/r_i,d_i)=1$, for $i=1,2$, which implies that $${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\iff{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}_i/r_i\in L(d_i{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}),\,\,\,\textrm{for}\,\,\, i=1,2.$$ now follows from exactly following the argument in [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 4.5].
This multiplicativity relation will be used to obtain finer bounds for the exponential sums, which will be the focus of Section \[sec:expsum\]. We now consider bounds for the exponential integral.
Bounds for the exponential integral {#s:honk}
-----------------------------------
We proceed to study $I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})$ for a given $r\in \cO$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})
&=
\int_{K_\infty^n}
w\left(t^L({\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_0)\right)
\psi \left( z_1P^2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2P^2F_{2}({\mathbf{x}})+P{\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}/r_N\right)d {\mathbf{x}}\\
&=\frac{1}{{\widehat}{L}^n}\psi\left(\frac{P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}_0}{r_N}\right)
J_{{{\underline{G}}}}\left((z_1 P^2,z_2P^2);
\frac{Pt^{-L} {\mathbf{v}}}{r_N}\right),\label{eq:small}\end{aligned}$$ in the notation of , where ${{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{y}})=
(G_1({\mathbf{y}}),G_2({\mathbf{y}}))$, $G_i({\mathbf{y}})=F_i({\mathbf{x}}_0+t^{-L}{\mathbf{y}})$ for $i=1,2$.
According to Lemma \[lem:J-easy\], $
J_{{\underline{G}}}((P^3z_1,P^2z_2);P{\mathbf{v}}/r_N)=0$ if $$\frac{|P||{\mathbf{v}}|}{|r_N|}> \max\{1,| P|^2 |z_1 | H_{F_1}, |P|^2 |z_2|H_{F_2}\}.$$ Hence we may truncate the sum over ${\mathbf{v}}$ in Lemma \[lem:NP1\] to arrive at the following result.
\[lem:N2\] $$N(P)=|P|^n\sum_{0\leq Y\leq Q}\,\,\,\,\,\sum_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ {\em monic,} }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ {\em primitive}}\\ {\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |r|={\widehat}{Y},d\mid r}}|r_N|^{-n}
\int\limits_{\substack{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}^{-1}q^{-Q/2}}}\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{v}}\in\scrO^n,|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}}}S_{d{\mathbf{c}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},$$ where $$\label{eq:Vdef}
{\widehat}V= H_{{{\underline{F}}}} |r_N||P|^{-1}\max\{1, |z_1|| P|^2, |z_2||P|^2\}.$$
We will need a good upper bound for $I_{r}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})$, for $r, {{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}, {\mathbf{v}}$ appearing in the expression for $N(P)$ in this lemma. This need is met by the following lemma. A key result in proving it is a decomposition of the matrix $M=M_1^{-1}M_2$ obtained in Lemma \[lem:eigenvalue\].
In the following lemma, we borrow the notation from Lemma \[lem:eigenvalue\], i.e, the eigenvalues $\rho_j$, the matrix $U$ and the constant $C_1$ are as in the statement of Lemma \[lem:eigenvalue\].
\[lem:I-hard\] Let $Z\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and let ${{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}$ be such that $|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}$. Let $|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}$, where ${\widehat}{V}$ as in . Then $$|I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})|\leq {\widehat}{L}^{-n}\operatorname{meas}(\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}),$$ where $$\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}=\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^n: |{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_0|<{\widehat}{-L}, ~ |P^2z_1\nabla F_1({\mathbf{x}})+P^2z_2\nabla F_2({\mathbf{x}})+ P{\mathbf{v}}/r_N|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2}\right\},$$ where $$\label{eq:Juzdef}
J(Z)=1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z}.$$
Moreover, $$\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\operatorname{meas}(\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\ll C_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{-n/2+1}\log(|P|^2{\widehat}{Z}){\widehat}{Z+1}\sum_{j=n_1+1}^{n}\left(\frac{1+|\rho_j|}{\min\{1,|\rho_j|\}}\right)\min\left\{{\widehat}{Z+1}, |P|^{-2}\right\}.$$ where $C_{{\underline{F}}}=(H_{U^{-1}}H_{M_1^{-1}}H_{{\underline{F}}})^{n}H_{M'}^{n_1(n_1-1)}C_1^{-2n^2-2(n-n_1)} $.
Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be as in . Let $\gamma_i= z_iP^{2}$ and ${\mathbf{w}}=Pt^{-L}{\mathbf{v}}/r_N$, for convenience. Let ${\widehat}{Z_i}=|z_i|$, and therefore $Z=\max\{Z_1,Z_2\}$. Since $F_1({\mathbf{x}}_0)=F_2({\mathbf{x}}_0)=0$, $|{\mathbf{x}}_0|< 1$ and $L\geq 0$, $$\label{eq:HGbound}
H_{{\underline{G}}}< {\widehat}{L}^{-1}H_{{\underline{F}}}.$$ In particular, when $|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}$, we have $$|{\mathbf{w}}|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}\max\{1,|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}=H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z).$$ Lemma \[lem:small\] in conjunction with implies that $$\begin{aligned}
|I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})| &\leq \frac{1}{{\widehat}{L}^n}
\left|J_{{\underline{G}}}((\gamma_1,\gamma_2);{\mathbf{w}})\right| \\
&
\leq \frac{1}{{\widehat}{L}^n}\operatorname{meas}\left\{{\mathbf{y}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^n: |\gamma_1\nabla G_1({\mathbf{y}})+\gamma_2\nabla G_2({\mathbf{y}})+ {\mathbf{w}}|\leq
H_{{\underline{G}}}\max\{1,
|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}^{1/2}\right\}\\
&\leq \operatorname{meas}\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^n: |{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_0|<{\widehat}{-L}, ~ |\gamma_1\nabla F_1({\mathbf{x}})+\gamma_2\nabla F_2({\mathbf{x}})+ t^L{\mathbf{w}}|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}\max\{1,
|\gamma_1|^{1/2},|\gamma_2|^{1/2}\}\right\}\\
&=\operatorname{meas}(\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}).\end{aligned}$$ This settles the first part of the lemma. We can further bound $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{meas}(\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})&\leq \operatorname{meas}\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^n: |{\mathbf{x}}|<1, ~ |M_1(\gamma_1I_n+\gamma_2M){\mathbf{x}}+ t^L{\mathbf{w}}|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}\max\{1,
|\gamma_1|^{1/2},|\gamma_2|^{1/2}\}\right\}\\
&\leq \operatorname{meas}(\mathcal{R})\end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal{R}=
\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^n: |{\mathbf{x}}|<1, ~ |(\gamma_1I_n+\gamma_2M){\mathbf{x}}+ t^{L}{\mathbf{w}}|\leq H_{M_1^{-1}}H_{{\underline{F}}}\max\{1,
|\gamma_1|^{1/2},|\gamma_2|^{1/2}\}\right\}.$$ If ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}'\in\mathcal{R}$, then $|(\gamma_1I_n+\gamma_2M){\mathbf{x}}'|\leq H_{M_1^{-1}}H_{{\underline{F}}}\max\{1,
|\gamma_1|^{1/2},|\gamma_2|^{1/2}\}$. If $|\gamma_1|, |\gamma_2|\leq 1$, then the trivial bound $1$ will suffice here. Hence from now on, we assume the contrary, i.e. $1<\max\{|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|$}.
At this point, we change the variables to place ${\mathbf{y}}=U^{-1}{\mathbf{x}}$, where $U$ is as in Lemma \[lem:eigenvalue\]. Thus, it is enough to estimate the measure of the set $$\label{eq:One}\left\{|{\mathbf{y}}|<H_{U^{-1}}:\left|\left(\gamma_1 I+\gamma_2{\left( \begin{matrix} M'_{n_1\times n_1} & M''_{n_1\times (n-n_1)} \\ \vecnull_{(n-n_1)\times n_1} & D(\rho_{n_1+1},...,\rho_{n}) \end{matrix} \right) }\right){\mathbf{y}}\right|\leq H_0\right\},$$ where $H_0=H_{U^{-1}}H_{M_1^{-1}}H_{{\underline{F}}}\max\{1,
|\gamma_1|^{1/2},|\gamma_2|^{1/2}\}$.
First, we turn our attention to $y_{n_1+1},...,y_{n}$. If $|\gamma_1+\gamma_2\rho_{i_0}|< C_1^2\max\{|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}$ for some $n_1+1\leq i_0\leq n-1$, then since $C_1\leq |\rho_{i_0}|\leq C_1^{-1} $, this forces that $|\gamma_1|=|\rho_{i_0}\gamma_2|$ which gives $|\gamma_2|\geq C_1|\gamma_1| $. Moreover, for any $i\neq i_0$ we have, $$\begin{aligned}
|\gamma_1+\gamma_2\rho_i|=|\gamma_1+\gamma_2\rho_{i_0}+\gamma_2(\rho_i-\rho_{i_0})|\geq |\gamma_2(\rho_i-\rho_{i_0})|\geq C_1|\gamma_2|\geq C_1^2\max\{1,|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}.\end{aligned}$$ If $i_0=n$ and $\rho_n\neq 0$, then the argument outlined above goes through verbatim. On the other hand, if $\rho_n=0$, then this forces $|\gamma_1|< C_1^2\max\{|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}$ which implies that $|\gamma_2|>C_1^{-2}|\gamma_1|$ and hence $|\gamma_2|>1$, and thus for any $i\neq n$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
|\gamma_1+\gamma_2\rho_i|=|\gamma_2\rho_i|\geq C_1|\gamma_2|.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these bounds, the measure of $y_{n_1+1},...,y_n$ appearing in is bounded by $$\label{eq:1}
(H_{U^{-1}}H_{M_1^{-1}}H_{{\underline{F}}})^{(n-n_1)}C_1^{-2(n-n_1)}\max\{1,|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}^{-(n-n_1-2)/2}(1+\min_{n_1+1\leq j\leq n}|\gamma_1+\rho_j\gamma_2|)^{-1}.$$ To bound the size of the first $n_1$ co-ordinates ${\mathbf{y}}_1=(y_1,..,y_{n_1})$ appearing in , note that for a fixed choice of $y_{n_1+1},...,y_n$, the two different values of ${\mathbf{y}}_1$ must differ by an element in the set $$\{|{\mathbf{y}}_1|<H_{U^{-1}}:|(\gamma_1I+\gamma_2M'){\mathbf{y}}_1|\leq H_0\}.$$ Therefore, it is enough to bound the measure of this set. Suppose, $|\gamma_1|\geq |\gamma_2|$, then the eigenvalues of $\gamma_1I+\gamma_2M'$ are $$|\gamma_1+\gamma_2\rho_i|=|\gamma_1||\rho_i||\gamma_2/\gamma_1+\rho_i^{-1}|\geq|\gamma_1|C_1^{2}.$$ We can prove a similar statement when $|\gamma_2|>|\gamma_1|$. This gives us that $|\det(\gamma_1I+\gamma_2M')|\geq C_1^{2n_1}\max\{1,|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}^{n_1}$. Thus, $(\gamma_1I_n+\gamma_2M')^{-1}$ has entries bounded by $H_{M'}^{n-1}C_1^{-2n_1}\max\{1,|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}^{-1}$. Thus, the condition on ${\mathbf{y}}_1$ transforms to bounding $$\label{eq:2}\begin{split}\operatorname{meas}\{|{\mathbf{y}}_1|\leq &H_{U^{-1}}H_{M_1^{-1}}H_{M'}^{n_1-1}C_1^{-2n_1}\max\{1,|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}^{-1/2}\}\\ &\leq (H_{U^{-1}}H_{M_1^{-1}}H_{{\underline{F}}})^{n_1}H_{M'}^{n_1(n_1-1)}C_1^{-2n_1^2}\max\{1,|\gamma_1|,|\gamma_2|\}^{-n_1/2},
\end{split}$$ and give us that $$\label{eq:omuzB}
\operatorname{meas}(\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})\leq C_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{-(n-2)/2}(1+|P|^2\min_{n_1+1\leq j\leq n}|z_1+\rho_jz_2|)^{-1}.$$ This readily gives us the bound $$\label{eq:omuzB1}
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Z}}\operatorname{meas}(\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\leq C_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{-(n-2)/2}{\widehat}{Z+1}^2.$$ To obtain the other bound, note that to bound $\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\operatorname{meas}(\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}$, it is clearly enough to bound the integral $\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Z}}\operatorname{meas}(\Omega_{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}$. For every $n_1+1\leq j\leq n$, let $$I_j=\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Z}: |z_1+\rho_j z_2|<|P|^{-2}\}.$$ Measure of $I_j$ is clearly $\leq |P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}$. We may now bound the required integral by: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|= {\widehat}{Z}}(1+|P|^2\min_{n_1+1\leq j\leq n}|z_1+\rho_jz_2|)^{-1} d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}&\leq (n-n_1)|P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}\\&+|P|^{-4}\sum_{j=n_1+1}^n\int_{\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq |P|^2{\widehat}{Z}\}\setminus I_j'}(1+ |z_1+\rho_jz_2|)^{-1}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$I_j'=\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq |P|^2{\widehat}{Z}: |z_1+\rho_j z_2|<1\}.$$ If $\rho_n=0$, $\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq |P|^2{\widehat}{Z}\setminus I_n'\}=\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Z}, |z_1|\geq 1\}$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq |P|^2{\widehat}{Z}\}\setminus I_n'}|z_1|^{-1}dz_1dz_2=q|P|^2{\widehat}{Z}\int_{1\leq |z_1|\leq |P|^2{\widehat}{Z}}|z_1|^{-1}dz_1=|P|^{2}{\widehat}{Z+1}\log(|P|^{2}{\widehat}{Z})\end{aligned}$$ which is clearly admissible. When $\rho_j\neq 0$, we may change the variables to put $s_1=z_1,s_2=z_1+\rho_jz_2$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|\leq |P|^2{\widehat}{Z}\}\setminus I_j'}|z_1+\rho_jz_2|^{-1}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\leq |\rho_j|^{-1}\int_{\substack{|s_1|,|s_2|\leq |P|^2{\widehat}{Z}|(1+|\rho_j|)\\ 1\leq |s_2|}}|s_2|^{-1}ds_1ds_2\leq q \frac{1+|\rho_j|}{|\rho_j|}\log(|P|^{2}{\widehat}{Z}){\widehat}{Z}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining the above bound with , proves the final part of the lemma.
Preparation of the error term {#sec:Prep}
-----------------------------
We now come back to our main counting function $N(P)$. Lemma \[lem:N2\] implies $$N(P)=|P|^n\sum_{0\leq Y\leq Q}\,\,\,\,\,\sum_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ { monic,} }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ { primitive}}\\ {\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |r|={\widehat}{Y},d\mid r}}|r_N|^{-n}
\int\limits_{\substack{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}^{-1}q^{-Q/2}}}\sum_{|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}}S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},$$ where $S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})$, $I_{r}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},{\mathbf{v}})$ and ${\widehat}{V}$ are as in the statements of Lemmas \[lem:NP1\] and \[lem:N2\] respectively. The main contribution would arise from the ${\mathbf{v}}=\vecnull$ terms when $|r|\leq {\widehat}{Q}^\Delta$, where $0<\Delta<1/2$ be a constant to be decided later, which we fix throughout this argument. i.e. Our main term, the major arcs regime, will correspond to $$\label{eq:M(P)def}
N_0(P):=|P|^n\sum_{0\leq Y\leq \Delta Q}\,\,\,\,\,\sum_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ { monic,} }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ { primitive}}\\ |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2},\, |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |r|={\widehat}{Y},d\mid r}}|r_N|^{-n}
\int\limits_{\substack{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}^{-1}q^{-Q/2}}}S_{d{\mathbf{c}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}(\vecnull)I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};\vecnull)d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}.$$ The rest of the terms will contribute to the error, which we denote by $E(P)$, the minor arcs contribution. Here the dependence of both the terms on $\Delta$ is implicit.
We first observe that using the trivial bound $|S({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r+{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})|\ll |P|^n$ we may satisfactorily bound the contribution from the regions $$|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|< |P|^{-5},$$ to directly. For any $Y\leq Q$, where $Q$ is as in , the measure $$\textrm{meas}(|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|< |P|^{-5})\ll |P|^{-10+{\varepsilon}}.$$ Using this fact, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, the total contribution from this region to is at most $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{Y=0}^Q\sum_{\substack{|r|={\widehat}{Y}\\ r \textrm{ monic }}}\sum_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}\\ \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1}}\int\limits_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|< |P|^{-5}}|S({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r+{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})|\leq \sum_{Y=0}^Q \sum_{\substack{|r|={\widehat}{Y}\\ r \textrm{ monic }}}\sum_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}\\ \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},r)=1}}|P|^{n-10+{\varepsilon}}\ll |P|^{n-6+{\varepsilon}},\end{aligned}$$ using the fact that ${\widehat}{Q}^3\ll |P|^{4}$. In the light of this bound, we may ignore the contribution from the region corresponding to the integrals over $ |{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|< |P|^{-5}$ in our error term $E(P)$. Incorporating this observation, we will further split the error term in two major parts: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:D-Refine1}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2}S({\underline{\alpha}})d{\underline{\alpha}}=N_0(P)+E_1(P)+E_2(P)+O_{\varepsilon}(|P|^{n-6+{\varepsilon}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:E1def}
E_1(P):=|P|^n\sum_{0\leq Y\leq Q}\,\,\,\,\sum_{\substack{r,d\textrm{ { monic,} }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ { primitive}}\\ {\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |r|={\widehat}{Y},d\mid r}}|r_N|^{-n}
\int\limits_{\substack{|P|^{-5}\leq |{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}^{-1}q^{-Q/2}}}\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{v}}\in\scrO^n\setminus\vecnull,\\|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}}}S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},$$ and $$\label{eq:E3def}
E_2(P):=|P|^{n}\sum_{Q\Delta< Y\leq Q}\sum_{\substack{d\textrm{ monic, }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive}\\ {\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}}}|r_N|^{-n}
\int\limits_{\substack{|P|^{-5}\leq |{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{Y}^{-1}q^{-Q/2}}}\sum\limits_{\substack{|r|={\widehat}{Y}\\ r \textrm{ monic, }d\mid r}}S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}(\vecnull)I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}.$$
The main term {#sec:main term}
-------------
We begin by establishing the required asymptotic formula for our main term $N_0(P)$. Throughout, we will treat $q$ as fixed and the implied constants may depend on it. When ${\mathbf{v}}=\vecnull$, the exponential integral $I_r({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},\vecnull)$ is independent of $r$, which we denote by $I({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})$ for simplicity, i.e. set $$I({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})=\int_{K_\infty^n}\omega({\mathbf{x}})\psi\left(z_1P^2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2P^2F({\mathbf{x}})\right)d{\mathbf{x}}.$$ Thus, $$N_0(P)=|P|^n \sum_{\substack{ r \textrm{ monic }\\ |r|\leq Q^\Delta}}|r_N|^{-n}S_r\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<|r|^{-1}q^{-Q/2}}I({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}.$$ where $$\label{eq:S(r)def}
S_r=\sum\limits_{\substack{d\textrm{ monic, } {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive }\\ |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq |r|^{1/2}\\ |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}\\ d\mid r}}S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}(\vecnull)={\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}|<|r|}\sum_{\substack{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|r_N|\\{\mathbf{x}}\equiv {\mathbf{b}}\bmod{N}}}\psi\left(\frac{a_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+a_2F_2({\mathbf{x}})}{r}\right).$$ Here, the second equality is obtained from using Corollary \[cor:2\]. We begin by proving the convergence of the singular series assuming the validity of the bound in Lemma \[lem:ExpsumsComb\], which will be proved in the following section:
\[lem:singul\] For any $Y\geq 1$, and for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{r\in\scrO\\ r\textrm{ {\em monic} }\\ |r|={\widehat}{Y}}}|r_N|^{-n}|S_r|\ll {\widehat}{Y}^{(7-n)/2+{\varepsilon}}.\end{aligned}$$
We assume the bound , which gives us: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:singul}
\sum_{|r|={\widehat}{Y}}|S_r|\ll \sum_{|r|={\widehat}{Y}}\sum\limits_{\substack{d\textrm{ monic, } {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive }\\ |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq |r|^{1/2}\\ |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}\\ d\mid r}}|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}(\vecnull)|\ll \sum_{|r|={\widehat}{Y}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+3/2}\sum\limits_{\substack{d\textrm{ monic, } {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive }\\ |d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq |r|^{1/2}\\ |dc_2|<|r|^{1/2}\\ d\mid r}}|d|^{1/2}\ll {\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+7/2+{\varepsilon}},\end{aligned}$$ establishing the bound.
We next deal with the integral over ${{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}$. We split it over $ \{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{C}|P|^{-2}\}$ and $\{{\widehat}{C}|P|^{-2}\leq |{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|< |r|^{-1}q^{-Q/2}\}$, where $ C>0$ is a fixed positive integer to be decided later. To bound the contribution of the second term, we use Lemma \[lem:I-hard\]. Thus, for any $Z\geq |P|^{-2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}|I({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})|d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\ll {\widehat}{L}^{-n}|P|^{-2}\log(|P|^2{\widehat}{Z}){\widehat}{Z}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{1-n/2}\ll_{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{L}^{-n}|P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{1-n/2+{\varepsilon}}.\end{aligned}$$ After summing over $Z$ and replacing $Z_1=|P|^2{\widehat}{Z}$ for $n\geq 7$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\widehat}{C}|P|^{-2}\leq |{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|}|I({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}})|d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\leq |P|^{-4}\sum_{{\widehat}{C}\leq Z_1}(1+Z_1)^{-3/2+{\varepsilon}}\ll |P|^{-4}{\widehat}{C}^{-1/2+{\varepsilon}}.\end{aligned}$$ This bound, in conjunction with Lemma \[lem:singul\] assert that for $n\geq 8$ we have $$\begin{split}
N_0(P)&=|P|^{n}\mathfrak{S}({\widehat}{Q}^\Delta)\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{C}|P|^{-2}}\int\omega({\mathbf{x}})\psi(P^2z_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+P^2z_2F_2({\mathbf{x}}))d{\mathbf{x}}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}+O(|P|^{n-4}{\widehat}{L}^{-n}{\widehat}{C}^{-1/2+{\varepsilon}})\\
&=|P|^{n-4}\mathfrak{S}({\widehat}{Q}^\Delta)\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{C}}\int\omega({\mathbf{x}})\psi(z_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2F_2({\mathbf{x}}))d{\mathbf{x}}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}+O(|P|^{n-4}{\widehat}{L}^{-n}{\widehat}{C}^{-1/2+{\varepsilon}}).
\end{split}$$ Here, given $Y\in {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$, $$\mathfrak{S}({\widehat}{Y})=\sum_{\substack{r\in\scrO, r \textrm{ monic }\\ |r|\leq {\widehat}{Y}}}|r_N|^{-n} S_r,$$ is a truncated singular series. We now switch the order of integrals over ${\mathbf{x}}$ and over ${{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}$ and employ Lemma [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.2] to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\int\omega({\mathbf{x}})\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{C}}\psi(z_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2F_2({\mathbf{x}})) d z_1d z_2d{\mathbf{x}}={\widehat}{C}^2\operatorname{meas}\{|{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_0|<{\widehat}{L}^{-1}: |F_1({\mathbf{x}})|<{\widehat}{C}^{-1}, |F_2({\mathbf{x}})|<{\widehat}{C}^{-1}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us investigate the measure of the above set. Upon a change of variable, this is bounded by $$\label{eq:mE}
{\widehat}{L}^{-n}\operatorname{meas}\{|{\mathbf{x}}|<1: |F_1(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)|<{\widehat}{C}^{-1}, |F_2(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)|<{\widehat}{C}^{-1}\}.$$ For $i=1,2$, from we get $$\begin{aligned}
|F_i(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)|<H_{{{\underline{F}}}}{\widehat}{L}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ We may now choose $L$ to be an even integer $2\leq L$ such that $H_{{{\underline{F}}}}\leq {\widehat}{L/2}$ for $i=1,2$, and choose $C=L/2$. Thus, for such a choice of $L$ and $C$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|<{\widehat}{C}}\int\omega({\mathbf{x}})\psi(z_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2F_2({\mathbf{x}}))d{\mathbf{x}}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}={\widehat}{C}^2{\widehat}{L}^{-n}={\widehat}{L}^{-n+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, as a consequence of Lemma \[lem:singul\], we have also established the convergence of the singular series, namely $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathfrak{S}({\widehat}{Q}^\Delta)-\mathfrak{S}|\ll {\widehat}{Q}^{-\Delta/2+{\varepsilon}}\ll |P|^{-2\Delta/3+{\varepsilon}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{S}=\sum_{r\in\scrO, r \textrm{ monic }}|r_N|^{-n}S_r,\end{aligned}$$ be the usual singular series. If $X({\mathbb{A}}_K)\neq\emptyset$, [@Lee11 Cor. 7.7] establishes that $\mathfrak{S}>0$. The argument in [@Lee11 Cor. 7.7] is obtained for ${\mathbf{b}}=\vecnull, N=1$, however, adapting it to deal with a fixed and general ${\mathbf{b}},N$ is a routine exercise, which we skip here.
To summarise, we have established the following asymptotic formula:
\[lem:Majorfinal\] For $n\geq 8$, for any even integer $L$ satisfying $H_{{\underline{F}}}\leq {\widehat}{L/2}$, and any $0<\Delta<1/2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
N_0(P)=\mathfrak{S}|P|^{n-4}{\widehat}{L}^{-n+1}+O(|P|^{n-4}{\widehat}{L}^{-n-1/4+{\varepsilon}})+O({\widehat}{L}^{-n+1}|P|^{n-4-2\Delta/3+{\varepsilon}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{S}>0$ if $X({\mathbb{A}}_K)\neq\emptyset$.
Complete exponential sums bounds {#sec:expsum}
================================
In this section, we will focus on getting satisfactory bounds for the exponential sums $S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})$. The notation and the results in Sec. \[sec:background\] will be used throughout this section. Throughout, let ${\mathbf{v}}\in \scrO^n $, let $d\in\scrO$ be monic and ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in\scrO^2$ be primitive. Recall that given any $r\in \scrO$, we consider the exponential sums $$S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})=\sum_{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/r\in L(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{x}}\in\scrO^n\\|{\mathbf{x}}|<|r_N|\\{\mathbf{x}}\equiv {\mathbf{b}}\bmod{N}}}\psi\left(\frac{a_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+a_2F_2({\mathbf{x}})}{r}\right)\psi\left(\frac{-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{r_N}\right).$$
The multiplicativity relation in Lemma \[lem:Multipli\] will allow us to consider exponential sums modulo powers of primes ${\varpi}^k$. Note that as per our definition, our set of bad primes, defined in section \[sec:goodbad\], includes all primes dividing $N$. We will begin by obtaining bounds for the exponential sums modulo ${\varpi}^k$, where ${\varpi}$ is a type I prime, which does not divide $d$. These translate to traditional quadratic exponential sums corresponding to the quadratic form $F_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=-c_2F_1+c_1F_2$, which have been considered in Lemma \[lem:Expsum’\]. The treatment of type II primes will be similar to that of bad ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$’s.
Exponential sum bounds I
------------------------
This part will be devoted to obtaining bounds for $S_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,\vecnull, 1}({\mathbf{v}})$, i.e., when $d=1$ and ${\varpi}$ is not a bad prime. When $d=1$, Lemma \[lem:Diomain\] implies that the exponential sums $S_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})$ are equal to a familiar quadratic exponential sums: $$\label{eq:S,,}
S_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})={\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|r|}\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{x}}\in\scrO^n\\|{\mathbf{x}}|<|r|}}\psi\left(\frac{a(-c_2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+c_1F_2({\mathbf{x}}))-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{r}\right).$$ Throughout this section, let $$\label{eq:fdef}f({\mathbf{x}}):=F_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}({\mathbf{x}})=-c_2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+c_1F_2({\mathbf{x}}).$$ As before $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=-c_2M_1+c_1M_2$ is the defining matrix for $f$. If we want to give up on the cancellations arising from the extra average over $a$, then using Lemma \[lem:pointwise\] in the [*generic*]{} case, it is expected to be able to obtain square-root cancellations in the inner sum over ${\mathbf{x}}$ in , which would hand us the following generic bound: $$\label{eq:generic}
|S_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,\vecnull,1} ({\mathbf{v}})|\ll |r|^{n/2+1}.$$ We will use this bound only as a reference for comparing with various bounds showing up in this section.
### ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ good case
Let us assume that ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is good. [@HeathBrown_Pierce17 Lemma 2.1] implies that when ${\varpi}$ is not a bad prime, $\operatorname{rank}_{{\varpi}}(f({\mathbf{x}}))\geq n-1$. Since ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is good, $\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\neq 0 $. Therefore, the set of primes of type I consists of all good primes which do not divide $\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, and the set of primes of type II consists of good primes which divide $\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}) $. Thus the cardinality of the set of type II primes is at most $O(\log|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|)$. We simplify our notation and define $$\label{eq:Sr}
S_{r}({\mathbf{v}})={\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|r|}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|r|}\psi\left(\frac{af({\mathbf{x}})-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{r}\right),$$ where $f$ as in . Since $f$ is a quadratic form, we can explicitly evaluate $S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})$ when ${\varpi}$ is a type I prime using Lemma \[lem:Expsum’\]:
\[lem:Expsum\] Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be a good pair and let ${\varpi}$ be a prime of type I. Let $|{\varpi}|=q^L$, and $q=p^{\ell_0}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq |{\varpi}|^{(n+1)k/2}\gcd(f^*({\mathbf{v}}),{\varpi}^k)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}){\mathbf{v}}^tM_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^{-1}{\mathbf{v}}$ is the dual form. More explicitly, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})=\begin{cases}
|{\varpi}|^{nk/2}(|{\varpi}|^k\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid f^*({\mathbf{v}})}-|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k-1}\mid f^*({\mathbf{v}})}), & \text{if }2\mid k,\\
\left(\frac{\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}{{\varpi}}\right)|{\varpi}|^{kn/2}i_p^{L\ell_0n}(|{\varpi}|^k\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid f^*({\mathbf{v}})}-|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k-1}\mid f^*({\mathbf{v}})}), &\textrm{ if } 2\mid n,2\nmid k,\\
\left(\frac{-f^*({\mathbf{v}})}{{\varpi}}\right)|{\varpi}|^{k(n+1)/2}i_p^{L\ell_0(n+1)}, &\textrm{ if } 2\nmid n,2\nmid k,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ with $i_p$ as in .
\[rem:1\] Let us consider various implications of the bounds in Lemma \[lem:Expsum\]. The bounds depend on the parities of $n$ and $k$. When $r$ is generic, i.e., when $\gcd(r,f^*({\mathbf{v}}))=1$, we may always save a factor of size $|r|^{1/2}$ as compared with . We will save another factor of size $O(|r|^{1/2})$ from an average over the square-free values of $r$. As a result, we are able to adequately bound $E(P)$ as long as $n\geq 9$. When $n=8$, and $r$ is square-free and generic, Lemma \[lem:Expsum\] hands us a $O(|r|^{n/2})$ bound instead of , effectively saving a factor of size $O(|r|)$ without even utilising the average over $r$. In theory, this should lead us to settle this case. However, when $r\mid f^*({\mathbf{v}})$, we are handed back the bound in . Moreover, $f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ depends both on ${\mathbf{v}}$ as well as on ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, and this is the primary reason why we are unable to deal this contribution in a satisfactory manner.
When ${\varpi}$ is a prime of type II, our bounds will not be as good as those in Lemma \[lem:Expsum\]. Let $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=TDS$, where $T,S$ are invertible matrices as in Sec. \[sec:goodbad\] with entries in $\scrO$ and $D=\diag(\mu_1,...,\mu_n)$ is a diagonal matrix satisfying $\mu_i\mid \mu_{i+1}$. Let $\{{\mathbf{y}}_j=S^{-1}{\mathbf{e}}_j\}$ be a basis for $\scrO^n$, and recall that the quadratic form $$Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}(x_1,...,x_{n-1})=f(x_1{\mathbf{y}}_1+...+x_{n-1}{\mathbf{y}}_{n-1})$$ defined in is non-singular modulo ${\varpi}$. Clearly, ${\varpi}\mid M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}{\mathbf{y}}_n=\mu_nT{\mathbf{e}}_n$. We will therefore end up giving up on an extra factor of size $\gcd({\varpi}^k,\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}))^{1/2}=\gcd({\varpi}^k,\mu_n)^{1/2}$, as compared with the bound in . However, we will salvage this loss somewhat by obtaining a congruence condition on the vector ${\mathbf{v}}$:
\[lem:type II\] Let ${\varpi}$ be a prime of type II, and let $k_1=\min\{k,\nu_{\varpi}(\mu_n)\}$. Then, $$|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq |{\varpi}|^{k(n/2+1)}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k_1}\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n}\gcd({\varpi}^{k_1},Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}'))^{1/2},$$ where $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*$ denotes the dual of the quadratic form $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, and $((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n $ denotes the $n$-th entry of the vector $(S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}}$, and ${\mathbf{v}}'$ denotes the $n-1$ dimensional vector obtained by deleting the $n$-th entry of $(S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}}$. As a consequence, $$|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq |{\varpi}|^{k(n/2+1)}\gcd({\varpi}^{k_1},Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}'),((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n)^{1/2},$$
Recall that $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}=TDS$ where $T,S$ are in $\GL_n(\scrO)$ with $\det(T),\det(S)\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$. Since ${\varpi}$ is a prime of type II, ${\varpi}\mid \mu_n$, and ${\varpi}\nmid \mu_j$ for any $1\leq j\leq n-1$. Let $Q({\mathbf{x}})=f(S^{-1}{\mathbf{x}})$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:type2}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})&={\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi\left(\frac{af({\mathbf{x}})-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{{\varpi}^k}\right)=\det(S)^{-1}{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi\left(\frac{aQ({\mathbf{x}})-((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})\cdot {\mathbf{x}}}{{\varpi}^k}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We now change the variables to write $x_n=x_{n,1}+{\varpi}^{k-k_1}x_{n,2}$, and ${\mathbf{x}}={\mathbf{x}}_1+{\mathbf{x}}_2$ where ${\mathbf{x}}_2=(0,...,0,{\varpi}^{k-k_1}x_{n,2})^t$. Note that $Q({\mathbf{x}})={\mathbf{x}}^t(S^{-1})^t (T DS)S^{-1}{\mathbf{x}}$. Moreover, $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}S^{-1}{\mathbf{x}}_2\equiv \vecnull\bmod{{\varpi}^k}$, and therefore, using the symmetry of $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, we must have ${\mathbf{x}}_2^t(S^{-1})^tM_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\equiv \vecnull^t\bmod{{\varpi}^k}$, as well. Therefore, the value of $Q({\mathbf{x}})\bmod{{\varpi}^k}$ is independent of $x_{n,2}$. We thus get: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})&=\det(S)^{-1}{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\sum_{{\mathbf{x}}_1}\psi\left(\frac{aQ({\mathbf{x}}_1)-((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})\cdot {\mathbf{x}}_1}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\sum_{|x_{n,2}|<|{\varpi}|^{k_1}}\psi\left(\frac{((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_nx_{n,2}}{{\varpi}^{k_1}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The inner sum vanishes unless ${\varpi}^{k_1}\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$. On the other hand, Lemma \[lem:pointwise\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|^2\leq |{\varpi}|^{k(2+n)}\#\{{\mathbf{x}}\bmod{{\varpi}^k}:{\varpi}^k\mid M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}{\mathbf{x}}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the Smith normal form again, $$\#\{{\mathbf{x}}\bmod{{\varpi}^k}:{\varpi}^k\mid M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}{\mathbf{x}}\}=\#\{{\mathbf{x}}\bmod{{\varpi}^k}:{\varpi}^k\mid D{\mathbf{x}}\}=|{\varpi}|^{k_1},$$ using the fact that $S$ and $T$ are invertible. This provides us with our first bound: $$\label{eq:Bound1}
|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq {\varpi}^{k_1/2}|{\varpi}|^{k(n/2+1)}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k_1}\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n}.$$ Unfortunately, this bound is not enough for us. Therefore we go back to , and evaluate the sum in a different way. This time we write ${\mathbf{x}}={\mathbf{x}}'+x_n{\mathbf{e}}_n$, where ${\mathbf{e}}_n=(0,...,0,1)$ as before, to get: $$\begin{aligned}
|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|&=\left|{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi\left(\frac{aQ({\mathbf{x}})-((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})\cdot {\mathbf{x}}}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\right|\\&\leq \sum_{|x_n|<|{\varpi}|^k}\left|{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^k}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}'|<|{\varpi}|^k}\psi\left(\frac{aQ({\mathbf{x}}'+x_n{\mathbf{e}}_n)-{\mathbf{v}}'\cdot {\mathbf{x}}'}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\right|.\end{aligned}$$ We now invoke our general bound in Lemma \[lem:Expsum’\] by applying it to the inner exponential sums with the quadratic polynomial $g({\mathbf{x}}')=Q({\mathbf{x}}'+x_n{\mathbf{e}}_n)$. Note that following the above notation, $Q({\mathbf{x}}')=Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}({\mathbf{x}}')$ is the leading quadratic part of $g({\mathbf{x}}')$. We are thus left with: $$\begin{aligned}
|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq |{\varpi}|^{k(n/2+1)}\gcd(Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}'),{\varpi}^k)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The lemma now follows upon taking the minimum of this bound and the one in .
### ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ bad case ($f$ singular)
The strategy for dealing with the bad values of ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ will emulate that of type II primes. Note that ${\varpi}\mid \mu_{n-1}$ if and only if ${\varpi}$ is a bad prime. After using the change of variables as in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
S_{r}({\mathbf{v}})&=\det(S)^{-1}{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|r|}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|r|}\psi\left(\frac{aQ({\mathbf{x}})-((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})\cdot {\mathbf{x}}}{r}\right)\\&=\det(S)^{-1}|r|\delta_{r\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n}{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|r|}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}_1|<|r|}\psi\left(\frac{aQ_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}({\mathbf{x}}_1)-{\mathbf{v}}'\cdot {\mathbf{x}}_1}{r}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$ is the $n$-th entry of the vector $(S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}}$, ${\mathbf{v}}'$ denotes the $n-1$ dimensional vector obtained after deleting the $n$-the entry in $(S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}}$, and ${\mathbf{x}}_1=(x_1,...,x_{n-1}) $. The last exponential sum can again be evaluated using Lemma \[lem:Expsum’\] to obtain:
\[lem:expsumsingular\] Let $f$ be singular, and let ${\varpi}$ is not a bad prime. Let $|{\varpi}|=q^L$, and $q=p^{\ell_0}$. Then we have: $$\begin{split}
S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})=|{\varpi}|^k&\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n}\\&\times\begin{cases}
|{\varpi}|^{(n-1)k/2}(|{\varpi}|^k\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')}-|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k-1}\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')}), & \text{if }2\mid k,\\
\left(\frac{\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}')}{{\varpi}}\right)|{\varpi}|^{k(n-1)/2}i_p^{L\ell_0(n-1)}(|{\varpi}|^k\delta_{{\varpi}^k\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')}-|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k-1}\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')}), &\textrm{ if } 2\nmid n,2\nmid k,\\
\left(\frac{-Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')}{{\varpi}}\right)|{\varpi}|^{kn/2}i_p^{L\ell_0n}, &\textrm{ if } 2\mid n,2\nmid k,
\end{cases}
\end{split}$$ where $M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}'$ is the matrix defining $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, ${\mathbf{v}}'$ as in Lemma \[lem:type II\], and $i_p$ as in .
A general bound
---------------
So far, the above bounds suffice as long as ${\varpi}\nmid dD_{{\underline{F}}}$. We first shift the focus to ${\varpi}\mid d$. Using the multiplicativity of the exponential sums in Lemma \[lem:Multipli\], it is enough to look at the sums of type $S_{{\varpi}^{m}{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi}^{k}, {\mathbf{b}},{\varpi}^{\ell}}({\mathbf{v}})$, where $m\leq k$. As before, let us first assume that ${\varpi}\nmid N$. First, we begin by investigating the structure of points ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/{\varpi}^k\in L({\varpi}^{m}{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. From our definition , when $m\geq 1$, ${\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/{\varpi}^k\in L({\varpi}^{m}{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ if and only if the conditions $\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},{\varpi})=1, {\varpi}^{k-m}\mid{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ and ${\varpi}\nmid ({\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\cdot{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}/{\varpi}^{k-m})$ simultaneously hold. Lemma \[lem:Dio\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}\bmod{{\varpi}^k}:{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/{\varpi}^k\in L({\varpi}^{m}{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\}\subseteq\{a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}\bmod{{\varpi}^k}:|a|<|{\varpi}|^{k-m},\gcd(a,{\varpi})=1,\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{d}}},{\varpi})=1\}.\end{aligned}$$ ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}$ also needs to satisfy an extra condition that ${\varpi}\nmid{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}$, which forces that ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}$ itself can not be of the form $a'{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp+{\varpi}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}_1$, where $0\leq |a'|<|{\varpi}|$. Therefore, this concludes that when $m<k$, we have the following equality of the sets modulo ${\varpi}^k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}:{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/{\varpi}^k\in L({\varpi}^{m}{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\}&=\{a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}:|a|<|{\varpi}|^{k-m},\gcd(a,{\varpi})=1,|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^m\}\setminus\\
&\{a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp+{\varpi}^{k-m+1}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}:\gcd(a,{\varpi})=1,|a|<|{\varpi}|^{k-m+1},|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^{m-1}\},\label{eq:kneqm}\end{aligned}$$ while when $k=m$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}:{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/{\varpi}^k\in L({\varpi}^{k}{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\}&=\{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}:\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{d}}},{\varpi})=1,|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^k\}\setminus\\
&\{a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp+{\varpi}^{k-1}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}:\gcd(a,{\varpi})=1,|a|<|{\varpi}|,|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^{k-1}\}.\label{eq:k=m}\end{aligned}$$ Using the above structure, it is easy to obtain the bound: $$\label{eq:Lbound}
\#\{{\underline{\mathrm{a}}}/{\varpi}^k\in L({\varpi}^m{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\}\leq |{\varpi}|^{k-m+2m}=|{\varpi}|^{k+m}.$$ When ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is a bad pair, we will need to obtain some saving from the primes which divide the square-free part of $d$. It will be enough to obtain the following bound:
\[lem:TypeIgen\] Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be a bad pair and let ${\varpi}$ not be a bad prime further satisfying $\gcd({\varpi}, \scrF^*({\mathbf{v}}))=\gcd({\varpi},Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}'))=1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
|S_{{\varpi},{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi},\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq |{\varpi}|^{n/2+1}.\end{aligned}$$
implies $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi},\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})=\sum_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|\\ \gcd({\underline{\mathrm{d}}},{\varpi})=1}}\sum_{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|{\varpi}|}\psi\left(\frac{d_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+d_2F_2({\mathbf{x}})-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}}{{\varpi}}\right)-S_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi},\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}}).\end{aligned}$$ The bound here follows for a standard Deligne bound (see [@Katz Lem. 14] for example) for the complete exponential sums, and our bounds in Lemma \[lem:expsumsingular\].
Note that the method of the above lemma could be generalised to obtain further savings from $S_{{\varpi}^m{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi}^k,\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})$, when $k,m\neq 1$, however this is not needed in this work.
When ${\varpi}$ is a bad prime, we know that $|{\varpi}|$ is absolutely bounded. The argument of [@HeathBrown_Pierce17 Lemma 5.5] holds here as well, as it only depends on the fact that $f({\mathbf{x}})$ has dimension at least $ k-1$ over $K_{\varpi}$. [@HeathBrown_Pierce17 Lemma 5.5] thus provides us:
For each bad prime ${\varpi}$, there is a constant $c_{\varpi}$ such that $$\nu_{\varpi}(\mu_{n-1})\leq c_{\varpi}.$$
We now turn our attention to a more general bound which can be seen as a combination of methods in Lemma \[lem:type II\] and [@HeathBrown_Pierce17 Lemma 5.4]. In the light of , the bound obtained in the following Lemma, upto a factor of $|{\varpi}|^{k_1/2} $, is a direct analogue of in this case. The loss of the factor $|{\varpi}|^{k_1/2}$ essentially arises from $\gcd({\varpi}^{k-m},F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}))$, where $F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})=\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$. Akin to Lemma \[lem:type II\], we compensate the loss of this factor by obtaining a congruence condition on ${\mathbf{v}}$.
\[lem:Expweak\] Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be any primitive pair. Then for any good prime ${\varpi}$, and for any $1\leq m\leq k$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:enough}
|S_{{\varpi}^m{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi}^k,\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq |{\varpi}|^{k(n/2+1)+m+k_1/2}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k_1}\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n}.\end{aligned}$$ When ${\varpi}$ is a bad prime, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:enough1}
|S_{{\varpi}^m{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi}^k,{\mathbf{b}},{\varpi}^\ell}({\mathbf{v}})|\leq C_{{\varpi},\ell} |{\varpi}|^{k(n/2+1)+m+k_1/2}\delta_{{\varpi}^{k_2}\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{{\varpi},\ell}$ is a constant which only depends on $|{\varpi}|$ and $\ell$. Here $k_1=\min\{k-m,\nu_{\varpi}(\mu_n)\}$, and $k_2=\min\{k-m,\nu_{\varpi}(\mu_n),k-\ell\} $.
Since the set of bad primes is bounded and $N$ is fixed, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\ell\leq k/3$. This dependence may be absorbed in the constant. Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\varpi}^m{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi}^k,{\mathbf{b}},{\varpi}^\ell}({\mathbf{v}})&=\sum\limits_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^m\\ {\varpi}\nmid{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}}}{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^{k-m}}\sum\limits_{\substack{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|{\varpi}|^k\\ {\mathbf{x}}\equiv{\mathbf{b}}\bmod{{\varpi}^\ell} }}\psi\left(\frac{(a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}})\cdot(F_1({\mathbf{x}}),F_2({\mathbf{x}}))-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{{\varpi}^k}\right)\\
&=\sum\limits_{\substack{|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^m\\ {\varpi}\nmid{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\cdot{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}}}{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^{k-m}}\sum\limits_{\substack{|{\mathbf{x}}|<|{\varpi}|^k\\ {\mathbf{x}}\equiv{\mathbf{b}}\bmod{{\varpi}^\ell} }}\psi\left(\frac{af({\mathbf{x}})+{\varpi}^{k-m}(d_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+d_2F_2({\mathbf{x}}))-{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{{\varpi}^k}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We follow the recipe of Lemma \[lem:type II\] to first change the variables and write ${\mathbf{y}}=S{\mathbf{x}}$, and then write ${\mathbf{y}}={\mathbf{y}}_1+{\varpi}^{k-k_2}{\mathbf{y}}_2$, where ${\mathbf{y}}_2=(0,...,0,y_2)$. It is easy to see that $f(S^{-1}{\mathbf{y}})=f(S^{-1}{\mathbf{y}}_1)$. Moreover, the congruence condition is converted to ${\mathbf{y}}_1\equiv S{\mathbf{b}}\bmod{{\varpi}^\ell}$. As a result, akin to the argument in Lemma \[lem:type II\], the sum over ${\mathbf{y}}_2$ hands us the condition ${\varpi}^{k_2}\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$.
On the other hand, we substitute ${\mathbf{x}}={\mathbf{b}}+{\varpi}^\ell{\mathbf{y}}$ and apply the bound in Lemma \[lem:pointwise\] to get $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
|S_{{\varpi}^m{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi}^k,{\mathbf{b}},{\varpi}^\ell}({\mathbf{v}})|&\leq C_{{\varpi},\ell}' |{\varpi}|^{n(k-\ell)/2}\sum\limits_{|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^m,\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{d}}},{\varpi})=1}\,\,\,{\sideset{}{^*}\sum}_{|a|<|{\varpi}|^{k-m}}N(a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^\perp+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}},{\varpi}^{k})^{1/2}\\
&\leq C_{{\varpi},\ell}' |{\varpi}|^{n(k-\ell)/2+k-m}\sum\limits_{|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^m,\gcd({\underline{\mathrm{d}}},{\varpi})=1}\gcd(F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}),{\varpi}^k)^{1/2}\label{eq:no}\end{aligned}$$ where $$N({\underline{\mathrm{a}}},{\varpi}^k)=\#\{{\mathbf{x}}\bmod{{\varpi}^{k}}:{\varpi}^{k}\mid(a_1M_1+a_2M_2){\mathbf{x}}\},$$ and $F(x,y)$ is the determinant form defined in .
If ${\varpi}$ is not a bad prime then $\nu_{{\varpi}}(F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}))=\nu_{{\varpi}}(\mu_n)$. Therefore, if $\nu_{{\varpi}}(F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}))<k-m$, then $k_1=\nu_{{\varpi}}(F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}))$. Moreover, for any choice of ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}$ and $\gcd(a,{\varpi})=1$, $\nu_{{\varpi}}(F(a{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}))=k_1<k-m$ as well. further follows from . When ${\varpi}$ is a bad prime, then $\nu_{{\varpi}}(\mu_n)\leq \nu_{{\varpi}}(F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}))\leq \nu_{{\varpi}}(\mu_n)+(n-1)c_{\varpi}$. If we further have that $m_1=\nu_{{\varpi}}(F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}))<k-m$, then follows from a minor modification of the argument above after observing that $|{\varpi}|^{m_1}\leq |{\varpi}|^{k_1+(n-1)c_{\varpi}}$.
It is therefore enough to assume that ${\varpi}^{k-m}\mid F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$, which we do for the rest of the proof. This in turn implies that $k-m\leq k_1$ if ${\varpi}$ is not bad and $k-m\leq k_1+(n-1)c_{\varpi}$ otherwise. The rest of the argument will follow from minor modifications of the proof of [@HeathBrown_Pierce17 Lemma 5.4], which we reproduce below.
We start by rewriting as $$\begin{aligned}
&|S_{{\varpi}^m{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\varpi}^k,{\mathbf{b}},{\varpi}^\ell}({\mathbf{v}})|\\&\leq C_{{\varpi},\ell} |{\varpi}|^{nk/2+k-m}\sum_{g=0}^{m}|{\varpi}|^{(g+(k-m))/2}\#\{|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^m,{\varpi}\nmid {\underline{\mathrm{d}}},\gcd({\varpi}^{k},F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}))={\varpi}^{g+k-m}\}.\\
&\leq C_{{\varpi},\ell}' |{\varpi}|^{nk/2+k-m+k_1/2}(|{\varpi}|^{2m}+\sum_{g=1}^{m}|{\varpi}|^{g/2}\#\{|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^m,{\varpi}\nmid {\underline{\mathrm{d}}},\gcd({\varpi}^{k},F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}))={\varpi}^{g+k-m}\})\\
&\leq C_{{\varpi},\ell}' |{\varpi}|^{nk/2+k-m+k_1/2+2m}(1+\sum_{g=1}^{m}|{\varpi}|^{-3g/2}\#\{|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^g,{\varpi}\nmid {\underline{\mathrm{d}}},\gcd({\varpi}^{k},F({{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}))={\varpi}^{g+k-m}\})\end{aligned}$$ The number of $|{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}|<|{\varpi}|^g$ such that the second co-ordinate of ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}+{\varpi}^{k-m}{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}$ is co-prime to ${\varpi}$ is $$\leq |{\varpi}|^{g}\#\{|u|<|{\varpi}|^{k-m+g}: {\varpi}^{k-m+g}\mid F(u,1) \}.$$ The main result in [@GGI] applied to the polynomial $F(u,1)$ and its derivative, implies that for any root $u_0\in\scrO$, satisfying ${\varpi}\mid F(u_0,1)$, we must have $\nu_{\varpi}(F'(u_0,1))\leq\nu_{{\varpi}}(D_{{\underline{F}}})$, where $D_{{\underline{F}}}$ is as in . We may now further use Hensel’s Lemma to obtain $$\#\{|u|<|{\varpi}|^{k-m+g}: {\varpi}^{k-m+g}\mid F(u,1) \}\leq n|D_{{\underline{F}}}|.$$ This bound is clearly enough. We can similarly bound the number of terms where the first co-ordinate is co-prime to ${\varpi}$ to finish the proof.
As an immediate corollary of the above Lemma, we get the following weak bound, which holds for any $r$ and any primitive ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$:
\[lem:ExpsumsComb\]Let $d,N\in\scrO$, ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in\scrO^2$ be any primitive pair, and let ${\mathbf{b}}\in\scrO^n$. Given any $r$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bdd1}
|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})|&\ll_{D_{{\underline{F}}}}|d||r|^{n/2+1}\gcd(r/d,((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n,\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}))^{1/2}\\
& \ll_{D_{{\underline{F}}}}|d|^{1/2}|r|^{n/2+3/2}.\label{eq:baddd}\end{aligned}$$
Observe that our bounds throughout this section are independent of the choice of ${\mathbf{b}}$ and depend only on $|D_{{\underline{F}}}|$. This will make their application rather convenient.
Square-free moduli contribution {#sec:sqfree}
===============================
Our rest of the effort will be spent in proving that $|E_i(P))|\ll |P|^{n-4-{\varepsilon}}$, for $i=1,2$. We will begin by considering the term $E_1(P)$ as defined in . Let $|r|={\widehat}{Y}$ and let $|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}$. Let $J(Z)=1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z}$. Since ${\mathbf{v}}\neq \vecnull$, this forces, $$\label{eq:YBound}
{\widehat}{Y}\gg \frac{|P|}{J(Z)}.$$
From now on, we fix $0\leq Y\leq Q$, and $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ satisfying $|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}, |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}$ and $Z\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $-5\log_q |P|\leq Z<-Y-Q/2$. Note that there are only $O(|P|^{\varepsilon})$ choices for $Y$ and $Z$. Let $E_i(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},Y,Z)$ denote the contribution to the term $E_i$ from this specific choice of $d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ after summing over all monic $|r|={\widehat}{Y} $, and integrating over $|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}$. For example: $$\label{eq:Edcdef}
E_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}, Y,Z):=|P|^n\sum\limits_{\substack{|r|={\widehat}{Y}\\d\mid r}}|r_N|^{-n}
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{v}}\in\scrO^n\setminus\vecnull,\\|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}}}S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}({\mathbf{v}})I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},$$
Let $\scrP$ denote a set of primes to be specified later, containing at least all primes dividing $dD_{{\underline{F}}}$. Next, we write $r=br_1$, where $b$ denotes the square free part of $r$ satisfying a further constraint: $\gcd(b,\scrP)=1$. Recalling the factorisation of the exponential sum in Lemma \[lem:Multipli\], there exist ${\mathbf{b}}_1\in (\scrO/N\scrO)^n, b_0\in (\scrO/N\scrO)^*$ satisfying $$\label{eq:E(P)-1}
E_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},Y,Z)
\ll \frac{|P|^n}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}
\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
{\mathbf{v}}\neq \vecnull\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}
\sum_{\substack{
r_1\in \cO, d\mid r_1\\ |r_1|\leq {\widehat}{Y}}}
|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|
|\Sigma(Z,r_1,{\widehat}{Y}/|r_1|)| ,$$ where $$\label{eq:access}
\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})
=
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\sum_{\substack{
b\in \cO^\sharp
\\
(b,\scrP)=1\\
|b|={\widehat}{B}
\\ b\equiv b_0\bmod{N}} }S_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},b,\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})
I_{by_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}.$$ Let $f({\mathbf{x}})=-c_2F_1+c_1F_2$ as in the previous section. Using notation , we may rewrite this as $$\label{eq:access1}
\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})
=
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\sum_{\substack{
b\in \cO^\sharp
\\
(b,\scrP)=1\\
|b|={\widehat}{B}
\\ b\equiv b_0\bmod{N}} }S_{b}({\mathbf{v}})
I_{by_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}.$$ In this section, we will derive a good bound for $\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})$, and eventually apply it with $y=r_1,{\widehat}{B}={\widehat}{Y}/|r_1|$. Since our bounds for exponential sums differ with the parity of $n$, so will our treatment. We begin by noting a weaker bound which is a direct consequence of Lemmas \[lem:I-hard\] and \[lem:Expsum\]:
\[lem:sqfreeeasy\] Let ${\varepsilon}>0$, let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be monic primitive and good, and $\scrP$ be the set of primes dividing $d\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ and $D_{{\underline{F}}}$ if $n$ is even, and the set of primes dividing $d\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})D_{{\underline{F}}}$ if $n$ is odd. Then $$\begin{aligned}
|\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})|\ll J(Z)^{-n/2+1}(\log|P|){\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}\}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+1}\begin{cases}1&\textrm{ if }2\mid n\\
{\widehat}{B}^{1/2}&\textrm{ if }2\nmid n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be bad, then let $\scrP$ denote the set of primes dividing $dD_{{\underline{F}}}Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')$, then $$\begin{aligned}
|\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})|\ll J(Z)^{-n/2+1}(\log|P|){\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}\}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+3/2}\begin{cases}1&\textrm{ if }2\nmid n\\
{\widehat}{B}^{1/2}&\textrm{ if }2\mid n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
In obtaining the above lemma, we are giving up on some extra cancellations we may be able to obtain from the sum over $b$. In order to exploit this, we need to look at this contribution more closely. We begin by noting that $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})&=\sum_{\substack{
b\in \cO^\sharp
\\
(b,\scrP)=1\\
|b|={\widehat}{B}
\\ b\equiv b_0\bmod{N}} }S_{b}({\mathbf{v}})
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}I_{by_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ We begin by focusing on the average value of the exponential integral: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}I_{by_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}&=\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\int \omega({\mathbf{x}})\psi(z_1 P^2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2P^2F_2({\mathbf{x}}))\psi\left(\frac{P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{by_N}\right)d{\mathbf{x}}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\\
&=\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\int w(t^{L}({\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_0))\psi(z_1 P^2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2P^2F_2({\mathbf{x}}))\psi\left(\frac{P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{by_N}\right)d{\mathbf{x}}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\\
&={\widehat}{L}^{-n}\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^n}\psi(z_1P^2F_1(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0))+z_2F_2(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0))\psi\left(\frac{P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)}{by_N}\right)d{\mathbf{x}}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\\
&={\widehat}{L}^{-n}\psi\left(\frac{P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}_0}{by_N}\right)\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{{\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}}}J_{{\underline{G}}}(z_1P^2,z_2P^2,t^{-L}P{\mathbf{v}}/(by_N))d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $G_i=F_i(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)$. Note $H_{{\underline{G}}}< {\widehat}{L}^{-1}H_{{\underline{F}}}$ as noted in . Using Lemma \[lem:small\], for any ${\mathbf{w}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{{\underline{\mathrm{Z}}}}}J_{{\underline{G}}}(z_1P^2,z_2P^2,{\mathbf{w}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}=
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}} \int_{\Omega} \psi\left(z_1P^2 G_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2P^2G_2({\mathbf{x}})
+{\mathbf{w}}.{\mathbf{x}}\right) d{\mathbf{x}}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:Omegadef}
\Omega=\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^n: |z_1P^2G_1({\mathbf{x}})|,|z_2P^2G_2({\mathbf{x}})|\leq \max\{1,H_{{\underline{G}}}\} J(Z)^{1/2}, |P^2{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\cdot\nabla {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{x}})+ {\mathbf{w}}|\leq H_{{\underline{G}}}J(Z)^{1/2}\right\}.$$ Here, ${{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\cdot \nabla {{\underline{G}}}({\mathbf{x}}):=z_1\nabla G_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2\nabla G_2({\mathbf{x}}) $. We now replace ${\mathbf{w}}=t^{-L}P{\mathbf{v}}/(by_N)$ and $G_i({\mathbf{x}})=F_i(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)$. Thus, after noting that $|t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0|\leq 1$ for all ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|P^2t^{-L}(z_1\nabla F_1(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)+z_2\nabla F_2(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0))+{\mathbf{w}}|\leq H_{{\underline{G}}}J(Z)^{1/2}\\
\Rightarrow&|P^2t^{-L}(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)\cdot(z_1\nabla F_1(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)+z_2\nabla F_2(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0))+{\mathbf{w}}\cdot (t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)|\leq H_{{\underline{G}}}J(Z)^{1/2}\\
\Rightarrow& |P^2t^{-L}(z_1G_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2G_2({\mathbf{x}}))+t^{-L}P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)/(by_N)|\leq H_{{\underline{G}}}J(Z)^{1/2}\\
\Rightarrow & |P^2(z_1G_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2G_2({\mathbf{x}}))+P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)/(by_N)|\leq H_{{\underline{G}}}{\widehat}{L} J(Z)^{1/2}\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ However, we also have $|P^2(z_1G_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2G_2({\mathbf{x}}))|\leq \max\{1,H_{{\underline{G}}}\} J(Z)^{1/2}\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2}$. Thus, we must have $$\label{eq:no1}
|P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot(t^{-L}{\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{x}}_0)/(by_N)|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2},\,\,\,\forall {\mathbf{x}}\in \Omega.$$ Our findings therefore give: $$\label{eq:access2}
\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})=\sum_{\substack{
b\in \cO^\sharp
\\
(b,\scrP)=1\\
|b|={\widehat}B
\\ b\equiv b_0\bmod{N}} }S_{b}({\mathbf{v}})
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\int_{\Omega_1}\omega\left({\mathbf{x}}\right)
\psi \left(z_1 P^2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2P^2F_2({\mathbf{x}})\right)\psi\left(\frac{P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{by_n}\right)d{\mathbf{x}}d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},$$ where $$\Omega_1=\{{\mathbf{x}}\in K_\infty^n:|P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}/(by_N)|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2} \}\cap \Omega',$$ where $$\Omega'=\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^n: |{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_0|<{\widehat}{-L}, ~ |P^2z_1\nabla F_1({\mathbf{x}})+P^2z_2\nabla F_2({\mathbf{x}})+ P{\mathbf{v}}/(by_N)|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2}\right\}$$ Note that for a fixed value of $y$, the set $\{{\mathbf{x}}\in K_\infty^n:|P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}/(by_N)|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2} \}$ only depends on the absolute value $|b|$. Let $J$ be the smallest integer such that $$\label{eq:Jdef}
H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2}\leq q^J\leq qH_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)^{1/2}.$$ If $J\leq B$, then, since $b$ is monic, there exist $c_1,\dots,c_K\in {\mathbb{F}}_q$ such that $$b=
\underbrace{t^B+c_1t^{B-1}+\dots+c_{J-1}t^{B-J+1}}_{=t^Ba}
+\underbrace{c_Jt^{B-J}+\dots+c_B}_{=t^{B-J}b'},$$ where $a\in (A/x^J A)^*$ and $b'\in A$, where $x=t^{-1}$. If $B<J$, the treatment above still formally works upon choosing $c_{B+1}=...=c_{J-1} =0$ and $b'=0 $. Since $|P{\mathbf{v}}/(by_N)|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{P{\mathbf{v}}}{t^By_N}\left(\frac{1}{a+x^Jb'}-\frac{1}{a}\right)\right|\leq H_{{\underline{F}}}J(Z){\widehat}{J}^{-1}\leq J(Z)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $\Omega'$ only depends on the value of $b/t^B\bmod{x^J}$, i.e. on $a$. Moreover, an analogous calculation shows that since $|P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}|\leq q^{J}|by_N|$, the value of $\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}/y_N}{b }\right)$ also only depends on the value of $b/t^B\bmod{x^J}$. We pick up this condition by introducing Dirichlet characters modulo $x^J$. Moreover, we pick up the condition $b\equiv b_0\bmod{N}$ by introducing characters modulo $N$. Letting $D_1=(\cO/N\cO)^*$, and $D_2={\mathbb{F}}_q[x]/x^J{\mathbb{F}}_q[x]$, we establish the identity $$\label{eq:cross}
\begin{split}
\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})
=
&\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}\int_{\Omega_1}\omega\left({\mathbf{x}}\right)
\psi \left(z_1 P^2F_1({\mathbf{x}})+z_2P^2F_2({\mathbf{x}})\right)
\\&\times\frac{1}{\#D_1\#D_2}\sum_{\eta_1\bmod{N}}
\sum_{\chi \bmod{x^J}}\sum_{a\in D_2}
\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}/y_N}{t^Ba}\right)
{\overline}{\eta_1(b_0)
\chi(a)}
\Sigma_0(\eta_1,\chi,{\widehat}{B})d{\mathbf{x}}\, d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}},
\end{split}$$ where $$\Sigma_0(\eta_1,\chi,{\widehat}{B})
=\sum_{\substack{
b\in \cO^\sharp
\\
(b,\scrP)=1\\
|b|={\widehat}B\\
} }\eta_1(b)\chi(t^{-B}b)S_{b}({\mathbf{v}}).$$ The strategy will follow closely with that of the proof of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 8.2]. There are two main estimates we would need. Firstly, we would like to bound the inner sum over $a$. Note that trivially we can obtain the bound: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:no3}
\frac{1}{\#D_2}\sum_{\chi \bmod{x^J}}\left|\sum_{a\in
D_2}{\overline}{\chi(a)}\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}/y_N}{t^Ba}\right)\right|\ll {\widehat}{J}\ll qJ(Z)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that already hands us a saving of an extra factor of $J(Z)^{1/2}$ as compared with [@Browning_Vishe15 (8.4)]. This saving is obtained from our refined bounds in Lemma \[lem:small\], which handed us . As in [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 8.3], this can be further improved by utilising the sum over $a$. This will be our next focus. The argument here is almost identical to that of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 8.3].
For any ${\mathbf{x}}$ satisfying $|P{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}|\leq {\widehat}{J+B}|y_N|$, \[lem:red\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\#D_2}\sum_{\chi \bmod{x^J}}\left|\sum_{a\in
D_2}{\overline}{\chi(a)}\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}/y_N}{t^Ba}\right)\right|
&\leq {\widehat}{\lceil J/2\rceil}\leq qJ(Z)^{1/4}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\chi \bmod{x^J}$ be a Dirichlet character. Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ and choose $J_0\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $ J_0=\lceil J/2\rceil$. Clearly, $J/2\leq J_0\leq J$. Recall that $x=t^{-1}$ and suppose that $a\equiv a'\bmod{x^{J_0}}$, for $a,a'\in D_2$. Then for ${\mathbf{x}}$ as in the hypothesis of this lemma, $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \frac{P {\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{t^Bay_N}-\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}}{t^Ba'y_N}\right|\leq
{\widehat J}\left|\frac{a-a'}{aa'}\right|\leq \frac{{\widehat}J}{{\widehat}J_0}\leq {\widehat}{J-J_0}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us write $a=a_0+x^{J_0}a_1$, where $a_0\in (A/x^{J_0}A)^*$ and $a_1\in A/x^{J-J_0}A $. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a\in D_2}\chi(a)\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}/y_N}{t^Ba}\right)
=~&
\sum_{a_0\in (A/x^{J_0}A)^*}\sum_{a_1\in A/x^{J-J_0}A}\chi(a_0+x^{J_0}a_1)
\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}}{t^B(a_0+x^{J_0}a_1)y_N}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For fixed $a_0\in (A/x^{J_0} A)^*$ and ${\mathbf{x}}$, we proceed to examine the sum $$\begin{aligned}
S({\mathbf{x}})= \sum_{a_1\in A/x^{J-J_0}A}\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}}{t^B(a_0+x^{J_0}a_1)y_N}\right)\chi(1+x^{J_0}a_1{\overline}{a_0}),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\overline}{a_0}$ denotes the multiplicative inverse of $a_0\bmod{x^{J-J_0}}$. As seen in the proof of [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 8.3], the function $\phi_\chi(a)=\chi(1+x^{J_0}a)$ must be a twist of a standard additive character $$\phi_\chi(a)=\psi\left(\frac{a_\chi a}{x^{J-J_0}}\right).$$
Similarly, since $|{\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{x}}|\leq {\widehat}{J+B}|y_N|/|P|$, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}}{t^B(a_0+x^{J_0}a_1)y_N}\right)=\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}}{t^Ba_0(1+x^{J_0}\overline{a_0}a_1)y_N}\right)=\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}(1-x^{J_0}\overline{a_0}a_1)}{t^Ba_0y_N}\right)=\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}}{t^Ba_0y_N}+\frac{a_1{\overline}{a_0}^2a''}{x^{J-J_0}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $a''$ is independent of the choices of $\chi$, $a_0$ and $a_1$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
S({\mathbf{x}})=
\psi\left(\frac{P
{\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}}{t^Ba_0y_N}\right)
\sum_{a_1\in A/x^{J-J_0}A}\psi\left(\frac{a_1{\overline}{a_0}(a_\chi+a''{\overline}{a_0})}{x^{J-J_0}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed $a_0$, we deduce that $S({\mathbf{x}})=0$ unless $a_\chi\equiv a'''\bmod{x^{J-J_0}}
$, where $a'''=-a''{\overline}{a_0}\bmod{x^{J-J_0}}$, in which case $|S({\mathbf{x}})|\leq {\widehat}J/{\widehat}J_0$. However, for a fixed $a'''\in A/x^{J-J_0}A$ we have $
\#\{\chi:a_\chi\equiv a'''\bmod{x^{J-J_0}}\}\leq {\widehat}{J_0}.
$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\#D_2}\sum_{\chi \bmod{x^J}}\left|\sum_{a\in
D_2}{\overline}{\chi(a)}\psi\left(\frac{P {\mathbf{v}}.{\mathbf{x}}/y_N}{t^Ba}\right)\right|
\leq~& \frac{1}{{\widehat}J}
\sum_{\chi \bmod{x^J}}
\sum_{a_0\in (A/x^{J_0}A)^*}|S_{\mathbf{x}}|
\leq~ {\widehat}J_0.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of the lemma.
We now turn our attention to the term $\Sigma_0(\eta_1,\chi,{\widehat}{Y}/|y|)$. Let $\eta_2:\scrO\rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}^*$ be the Hecke character given by $\eta_2(r)=\chi(r/t^{\deg{r}}) $. We thus focus on the following twisted averages: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sun}
\sum_{\substack{
b\in \cO^\sharp
\\
(b,\scrP)=1\\
|b|={\widehat}B\\
} }\eta_1(b)\eta_2(b)S_{b}({\mathbf{v}}).\end{aligned}$$ We next replace the exponential sums $S_{b}({\mathbf{v}})$ by their explicit values obtained in Lemma \[lem:Expsum\]. This will transform the sum to a character sum. Let $$\alpha=\begin{cases}
(i_p^{\ell_0})^{n}& \textrm{ if } 2\mid n,\\
(i_p^{\ell_0})^{(n+1)}&\textrm{ if }2\nmid n.
\end{cases}$$ where $q=p^{\ell_0}$ and $i_p$ as in . Moreover, let $$\beta=\begin{cases}-1&\textrm{ if }2\mid n\\
1&\textrm{ if }\textrm{ if }2\nmid n.
\end{cases}$$ Let us finally define a Dirichlet character $\eta_3$ $$\label{eq:eta3def}
\eta_3(b)=\begin{cases}\left(\frac{\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}{b}\right)&\textrm{ if }2\mid n\\\left(\frac{-f^*({\mathbf{v}})}{b}\right)&\textrm{ if }2\nmid n.
\end{cases}$$ Using Lemma \[lem:Expsum\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{
b\in \cO^\sharp
\\
(b,\scrP)=1\\
|b|={\widehat}B\\
} }\eta_1(b)\eta_2(b)S_{b}({\mathbf{v}})=\alpha^{B}\sum_{\substack{
b\in \cO^\sharp
\\
(b,\scrP)=1\\
|b|={\widehat}Z\\
} }\beta^{\Omega(b)}\eta_1(b)\eta_2(b)\eta_3(b)\times\begin{cases}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2}&\textrm{ if }2\mid n\\
{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+1/2}&\textrm{ if }2\nmid n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ At this point, we wish to invoke Lemma \[lem:Charsum\] to bound the character sum satisfactorily. In order to achieve the extra square-root cancellations in the $b$ sum, we need to make sure that $\eta_1(b)\eta_2(b)\eta_3(b)$ is not a character of type $|b|^{ix}$ for any $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$. $\eta_3$ can be viewed as a Dirichlet character of order $2$, modulo $\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ if $n$ is even and modulo $-f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ if $n$ is odd. This is non-trivial if $\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ is not a perfect square when $n$ is even and when $-f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ is not a perfect square when $n$ is odd. However, this is not enough. We also need to guarantee that the character $\eta_1\eta_3$ is non-trivial. Since $\eta_3$ is a quadratic character, it is enough to make sure that for any $b'\in \cO$ satisfying $b'\mid N$, $b'\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ is not a perfect square if $n$ is even, and that $b'f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ is not a perfect square if $n$ is odd. This is due to the fact that these conditions would guarantee that $f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ (or $\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$) will contain an odd power of a prime not dividing $N$. We now apply Lemma \[lem:Charsum\] to obtain the desired square-root cancellations in the character sum :
\[lem:good1\] For any good pair ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, as long as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:case2}&\forall b'\mid N,\begin{cases}
b'\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\textrm{ is not a perfect square} & \textrm{ if }2\mid n,\\
b'f^*({\mathbf{v}}) \textrm{ is not a perfect square} & \textrm{ if }2\nmid n,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ we have that given any ${\varepsilon}>0$, any $B\in{\mathbb{N}}$ we have: $$\label{eq:sigma0bound}
\Sigma_0(\eta_1,\chi;{\widehat}{B})\ll_{n,\|{{\underline{F}}}\|}|P|^{{\varepsilon}}\begin{cases}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+1/2}&\textrm{ if }2\mid n,\\
{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+1}&\textrm{ if }2\nmid n.\end{cases}$$
We will summarize our findings into the following lemma:
\[lem:SigB\]Let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ be a good primitive pair in $\scrO^2$, let ${\varepsilon}>0$, and $\scrP$ be a set of primes dividing $d$, $f^*({\mathbf{v}}),\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ and $D_{{\underline{F}}}$ when $2\mid n$ and a set of primes dividing $d$, $\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ and $D_{{\underline{F}}}$ when $2\nmid n$. If is true then we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})|\ll_{q,{{\underline{F}}}} J(Z)^{-n/2+5/4}(\log|P|){\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}\}{\widehat}{B}^{(n+1)/2}\begin{cases}1&\textrm{ if }2\mid n\\
{\widehat}{B}^{1/2}&\textrm{ if }2\nmid n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Combining this bound with the weaker one in Lemma \[lem:sqfreeeasy\], we get that for any $0\leq \gamma\leq 1/2$, we must have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Sigma(Z,y,{\widehat}{B})|\ll_{q,{{\underline{F}}}} J(Z)^{-n/2+5/4-\gamma/2}(\log|P|){\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}\}{\widehat}{B}^{(n+1)/2+\gamma}\begin{cases}1&\textrm{ if }2\mid n\\
{\widehat}{B}^{1/2}&\textrm{ if }2\nmid n.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Minor arcs bound and proof of Theorem \[thm:count\] {#sec:minor}
===================================================
We continue our analysis from the last section. In the light of our results in Section \[sec:Prep\], Theorem \[thm:count\] will be established upon proving that the minor arcs contribution $|E_i(P))|\ll |P|^{n-4-{\varepsilon}}$, for $i=1,2$. This will be our main focus here. Our treatment in the $n$ odd and even cases will be slightly different, due to the nature of our exponential sum bounds. $n=9$ will be the hardest case for us, $n\geq 10$ being relatively easier, aided by the fact that Lemma \[lem:sqfreeeasy\] will be enough for these. In many cases, the bounds for the $n=9$ case will subsume those for the even $n$’s. Therefore, here we shall mostly concentrate on the $2\nmid n$ case. In each case, we will deal with the contributions from the good and bad pairs ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$’s separately.
Throughout this section, we will assume that $q$ is fixed, and our constants may implicitly depend on it. We recall that $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})$ denotes the dual variety of the complete intersection of $F_1$ and $F_2$.
Good ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ contribution: $n$ odd case
------------------------------------------------------------
Recall the definition of $E_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},Y,Z)$ from . When $n$ is odd and when ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is good, we will split the sum over ${\mathbf{v}}$ in $E_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},Y,Z)$ into two subsums: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
{\mathbf{v}}\neq \vecnull\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)
}} =\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)
}}+\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\neq\vecnull\in \cO^n\\
\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})=0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)
}}.\end{aligned}$$ We call the corresponding contributions $E_{1,1}$ and $E_{1,2}$ respectively. The reason behind doing so is that we can obtain square-root cancellations in Lemma \[lem:good1\] as long as $b'f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ is not a perfect square for any $b'\mid N$. For a fixed value of ${\mathbf{v}}$ satisfying $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0$, we are able to employ Lemma \[lem:Bro\] to bound the number of ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$’s satisfying $b'f^*({\mathbf{v}})=y^2$, for some $y\in\scrO$ and $b'\in \scrO$. The condition that $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0$ is crucial here as it would imply that $b'f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ is a square-free polynomial in ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$. On the other hand, when $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})=0$, we gain by sparseness of such ${\mathbf{v}}$’s using a Serre type bound.
We now turn to our main optimisation process. First and foremost, we write $r=br_1$, where $b$ denotes the square-free part of $r$ which is co-prime to $d\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})D_{{\underline{F}}}$ if ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is good and is co-prime to $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}})dD_{{\underline{F}}}$ if ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is bad. Due to our separate bounds for good, type II and bad primes, we will write $$r_1=r_2r_3r_4,$$ where $r_j$’s are all pairwise co-prime. $r_2r_3$ is free of any fifth power and furthermore, $\gcd(r_2,d\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})D_{{\underline{F}}})=1$ and $r_3$ is a $5$-free number satisfying $r_3\mid \det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})^\infty $ according to our notation , but $\gcd(r_3,dD_{{\underline{F}}})=1$, i.e., $r_3$ consists of type II primes which are co-prime to $dD_{{\underline{F}}}$. Lastly, $r_4$ consist of the rest, i.e., it is composed of the primes dividing $dD_{{\underline{F}}}$ and all $5$-full numbers. We will now split our sum into the following dyadic sums $$\label{eq:udsum}
{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}:=(|d|,|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|,|r_2|,|r_3|,|r_4|)={\mathbf{d}}:=({\widehat}{D},{\widehat}{C},{\widehat}{R_2},{\widehat}{R_3},{\widehat}{R_4}),$$ where $|b|={\widehat}{B}$, such that, $B+R_2+R_3+R_4=Y$ and $2(D+C)\leq Y\leq D+C+Q/2$, with an extra condition that ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is good. We also define $R_1=R_2+R_3+R_4$.
As noted in the previous section, since $0\leq Y\leq Q$, and $Z\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $-5\log_q |P|\leq Z<-Y-Q/2$, there are only $O(|P|^{\varepsilon})$ different choices for vectors ${\mathbf{d}}$. Therefore, it will be enough to focus on the contribution from ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}$ to $E_1$ and $E_2$ for any arbitrary, permissible choice of ${\mathbf{d}}$.
Let $E_{1,1}({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)$ denote the contribution to $E_{1,1}$ by the sum over ${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}$. Throughout, we will adopt the notation $f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq\msquare$ to denote that $b'f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq y^2$ for any $y\in \scrO$ and any $b'\mid N$. We may analogously define $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$. When $f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq\msquare$, we apply Lemma \[lem:SigB\] with $\gamma=1/5$, and when $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$, Lemma \[lem:sqfreeeasy\] to , to obtain that there exist ${\mathbf{b}}_1\in\scrO^n $ and $N_1\mid N$ such that $$\begin{split}
E_{1,1}({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)
\ll~& \frac{|P|^n}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}
\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}
\sum\limits_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}\\{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ good }}}
|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|J(Z)^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+1}\times\\
&\left(J(Z)^{1/4-1/10}{\widehat}{B}^{1/5}\delta_{f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq\msquare}+{\widehat}{B}^{1/2}\delta_{f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare}\right)
\min\{{\widehat}{Z_1+Z_2}, |P|^{-2}\log|P|\max\{{\widehat}{Z_1},{\widehat}{Z_2}\}\},
\end{split}$$ Let ${E_{1,1}}^1$ denote the contribution from $f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq\msquare$ and ${E_{1,1}}^2$ from $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$. Thus, $$\label{eq:E11Bound}
\begin{split}
E_{1,1}^1({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)
\ll~& \frac{|P|^n}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}J(Z)^{-n/2+5/4-1/10} {\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}\}\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}
\sum_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}\\f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq\msquare\\ {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ good }}}
|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+6/5},
\end{split}$$ where ${\widehat}{V}={\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)$.
Our choice of the decomposition of $r_1$ arises from different bounds in Section \[sec:expsum\]. Lemma \[lem:Expsum\] provides a satisfactory bound for the exponential sums modulo $r_2$. Lemma \[lem:type II\] bounds the sums modulo $r_3$. Lastly, for a fixed $d$, the number of permissible $r_4$ is at most $O({\widehat}{R_4}^{1/5})$. We make our bounds in Lemma \[lem:ExpsumsComb\] work for the sums modulo $r_4$. More explicitly, we write $$|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|=|S_{r_2}({\mathbf{v}})S_{r_3}({\mathbf{v}})S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_4,{\mathbf{b}}_2,N}({\mathbf{v}})|,$$ and obtain $$\label{eq:Splitbounds}
\begin{split}
|S_{r_2}({\mathbf{v}})|&\ll {\widehat}{R_2}^{(n+1)/2}\gcd(r_2,f^*({\mathbf{v}}))^{1/2},\\
|S_{r_3}({\mathbf{v}})|&\ll {\widehat}{R_3}^{n/2+1}\gcd(r_3,((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n, Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}'))^{1/2}.\\
|S_{d{\mathbf{c}},r_4,{\mathbf{b}}_2,N}({\mathbf{v}})|&\ll {\widehat}{D}{\widehat}{R_4}^{n/2+1}\gcd(r_4/d,\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}),((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n))^{1/2}.
\end{split}$$ We now arrange the various sums in the following order and evaluate them using our previous bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d}\sum_{r_4}\sum_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}}\sum_{r_3}\sum_{\mathbf{v}}\sum_{r_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $r_2$ only consists of square-full numbers and the condition $f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq \msquare$ guarantees that $f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0$. Therefore, for a fixed value of ${\mathbf{v}}$, we must have $$\label{eq:r2sum}
\sum_{|r_2|={\widehat}{R_2}}|S_{r_2}({\mathbf{v}})|\ll {\widehat}{R_2}^{n/2+1+{\varepsilon}}.$$ Combining our bounds, we obtain the following result: $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}
\sum_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}\\f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq\msquare\\ {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ good }}}|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|
\ll |P|^{\varepsilon}\widehat{R_1}^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{D} \\ &\sum_{d}\sum_{r_4}\sum_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}}\sum_{r_3}\sum_{{\mathbf{v}}}\gcd(r_4/d,\det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}),((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n)^{1/2}\gcd(r_3,((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n,Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}'))^{1/2}\notag\\
&\ll |P|^{\varepsilon}\widehat{R_1}^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{D}\sum_{|d|={\widehat}{D}}\sum_{|r_4|={\widehat}{R_4}}\sum_{x_1\mid r_4/d}\sum_{\substack{|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|={\widehat}{C}\\{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ good }\\x_1\mid \det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}}\sum_{x_2\mid r_3}\sum_{\substack{0\neq |{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}\\\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\ f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq \msquare\\ x_1x_2\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n\\ x_2\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')}}|x_1x_2|^{1/2}.
\label{eq:sumfinal1}\end{aligned}$$ Before we start our final computation, we will need an estimate for $$\#\{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}:x\mid \det(M_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}})\}\textrm{ and }\#\{|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}:x\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n,y\mid Q^*({\mathbf{v}}')\}.$$ Here ${\mathbf{v}}'$ denotes the vector obtained from the first $n-1$ entries of $(S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}}$. This will be our next goal.
\[lem:VCsum\] Given any $n\geq 2$, any $x,y\in\scrO$ such that $y\mid x$, any primitive ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in\scrO^2$, any $V\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 0}$, we have $$\label{eq:Vsumbound}
\#\{|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq{\widehat}{V}:x\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n,y\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')\}\ll ({\widehat}{V})^{n-2}\min\left\{{\widehat}{V}\left(1+\frac{{\widehat}{V}}{|x|}\right),\left(1+\frac{{\widehat}{V}}{\prod_{{\varpi}\mid y}|{\varpi}|}\right)\left(1+\frac{{\widehat}{V}}{\prod_{{\varpi}\mid x}|{\varpi}|}\right)\right\}.$$ Similarly, given any $n\geq 2$, $x\in\scrO$, any ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, any ${\varepsilon}>0$ and any $C\in {\mathbb{N}}_{\geq 0}$ we have $$\label{eq:csumbound}
\#\{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in\scrO^2 \textrm{ {\em primitive} }: |{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|< {\widehat}{C},x\mid \det(M_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}})\}\ll_{\Delta_{{\underline{F}}},{\varepsilon}} |x|^{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{C}\left(1+\frac{{\widehat}{C}}{|x|^{1/2}}\right).$$
We start by proving . Let $(S^{-1})^t=(s_{i,j})_{1\leq i,j\leq n}$. For each $i\geq 1$, let $$x_i=\gcd(x,s_{n,1},...,s_{n,i-1})/\gcd(x,s_{n,1},...,s_{n,i}).$$ Here, by convention, $s_{n,0}=1$. Since $\det(S)\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$, each row and column of $S^{-1}$ should be primitive. Thus, $x_n=\gcd(x,s_{n,1},...,s_{n,n-1})$. If $x\mid s_{n,1}v_1+...+s_{n,n}v_n$, then note that we must have $x_n\mid v_n$. For a fixed choice of such $v_n$, if $(v_1,...,v_{n-1},v_n)$ and $(v_1',...,v_{n-1}',v_n) $ both satisfy $x\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$, then we must have $x\mid \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}s_{n,i}(v_i-v_i')$. This forces that $x_{n-1}\mid v_{n-1}-v_{n-1}'$. Continuing inductively, for a fixed choice of $v_j,...,v_n$, if two vectors $(v_1,...,v_n)$ and $(v_1',...,v_{j-1}',v_j,...,v_n)$ are both solutions of $x\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$, then this must imply $x_{j-1}\mid v_{j-1}-v'_{j-1}$. Thus, the quantity in is $\ll \prod_{i=1}^n (1+{\widehat}{V}/|x_i|).$ This is clearly enough to obtain $$\label{eq:Vsumbound1}
\#\{|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq{\widehat}{V}:x\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n\}\ll ({\widehat}{V})^{n-1}\left(1+\frac{{\widehat}{V}}{|x|}\right),$$ since $|x|=|x_1...x_n|$.
The second bound in is obtained by realising this as a counting problem modulo primes. Let $\scrV_1$ be the variety defined by $s_{n,1}v_1+...+s_{n,n}v_n=0$, of affine dimension $n-1$ and let $\scrV_2$ denote the complete intersection of $s_{n,1}v_1+...+s_{n,n}v_n=Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')=0$, an variety of affine dimension $n-2$. We may clearly bound the left hand side in by $$\#\{|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq{\widehat}{V}:({\mathbf{v}}\bmod{{\varpi}})\in \scrV_1, \forall ~ {\varpi}\mid x, ({\mathbf{v}}\bmod{{\varpi}})\in \scrV_2, \forall ~ {\varpi}\mid y\}.$$ The second bound on the right hand side of is then an easy consequence of [@Browning-Heath-Brown09 Lemma 4], which holds in the function field setting analogously, since it only uses bounds for number of points on varieties over finite fields.
We now focus on obtaining . For any decomposition $x=x_1x_2$, where $\gcd(x_1,x_2)=1$, let $$C_{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}}=\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|< {\widehat}{C}:\gcd(x_1,c_1)=\gcd(x_2,c_2)=1\}.$$ From now on we fix a decomposition $x=x_1x_2$ as above, we will establish the bound $$\#\{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\in C_{{\underline{\mathrm{x}}}},x\mid \det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\}\ll (\log|x|)^{n-1}{\widehat}{C}\left(1+\frac{{\widehat}{C}}{\max\{|x_1|,|x_2|\}}\right),$$ This bound will clearly suffice for us. Without loss of generality, let us assume that $|x_2|\leq |x_1|$. For a fixed value of $c_1$, we will bound $$\#\{|c_2|<{\widehat}{C}:x_1\mid g({\overline}{c_1}c_2)\},$$ where $g(T)=\det(-TM_1+M_2)$, a polynomial of degree at most $n$. Here, ${\overline}{c_1}$ denotes a multiplicative inverse of $c_1$ modulo $x_1$. If ${\varpi}\mid x_1$ is not a bad prime, then we know that ${\varpi}$ does not divide the discriminant of the polynomial $g(T)$, and therefore $g(T)$ does not have multiple roots modulo ${\varpi}$. Thus the number of roots of $g(T)$ modulo ${\varpi}$ is at most $n$ and each root is necessarily simple. Hensel’s lemma then implies that there are at most $n$ roots of $g(T)$ modulo ${\varpi}^k$ for any $k$ and that each root is simple. On the other hand, if ${\varpi}$ is a bad prime, then ${\varpi}$ is bounded. Moreover, we know that $$g(T)=\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (T-\gamma_i),$$ where $\gamma_i$ are distinct elements of ${\overline}{K_{\varpi}}$. Let $\gamma_1,...,\gamma_i\in \scrO_{\varpi}$ and $\gamma_{i+1},...,\gamma_{n-1}\notin \scrO_{\varpi}$. Since $\scrO_{\varpi}$ is compact, clearly $\sup_{T\in\scrO_{\varpi}}|\prod_{j=i+1}^{n-1}(T-\gamma_j)|_{\varpi}\gg 1$, (since we can’t have a sequence of elements of $\scrO_{\varpi}$ converging to $\gamma_j$ for any $i<j$). Thus, $|g(T)|_{\varpi}\gg \prod_{j=1}^i|T-\gamma_j|_{\varpi}$. Moreover, $\gamma_1,...,\gamma_i$ are all distinct elements of $\scrO_{\varpi}$ and therefore are sufficiently separated from one another. Thus, ${\varpi}^k\mid g(T)$ must necessarily imply that $T\equiv \gamma_j\bmod{{\varpi}^{k-k_0}}$ for some $k_0\ll_{\varpi}1$ and $1\leq j\leq i$. We have thus proved that for any ${\varpi}^k|| x_1$, the equation ${\varpi}^k\mid g({\overline}{c_1}c_2)$ must imply that ${\overline}{c_1}c_2\bmod{{\varpi}^{k-k({\varpi})}}$ has at most $n$ distinct choices. Here, $k({\varpi})=0$ if ${\varpi}$ is not bad, and $k({\varpi})\ll_{{\varpi}} 1$ for when ${\varpi}$ is bad. Thus, ${\overline}{c_1}c_2{\:\text{mod}\:}{x_1}$ has at most $O(n^{\log(|x|)/\log\log(|x|)})=O_{\varepsilon}(|x|^{\varepsilon})$ different choices modulo $x_1$. This leads to .
### Final optimisation for good ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$’s {#subsec:ucgood}
We are now set to establish the contribution of all good ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$’s to $ E_1$. Let us give an overview of how the optimisation process will work. Note that, for a fixed $d$, the number of $r_4=O({\widehat}{R_4}^{1/5})$ and for a fixed ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, there are only $O(|P|^{\varepsilon})$ choices for $r_3$. We may trivially bound by $$\label{eq:trivialB}
|P|^{\varepsilon}\widehat{2C+2D}{\widehat}{R_1}^{n/2+3/2}{\widehat}{R_4}^{1/5}{\widehat}{D}^{-1/2}.$$ This bound is only enough to obtain $n\geq 11$ unfortunately.
Let us get back to . A critical case for us is when $Y\asymp Q,D+C\asymp Q/2$. In this case, $V\asymp Q/4$. In the worst case, $|x_1x_2|^{1/2}\asymp{\widehat}{Q}^{1/2}$. When $C$ and $|x_1|$ are large, we may simultaneously save from the sum over ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ by utilising the condition $x_1\mid \det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})$ in conjunction with the linear constraint $x_1x_2\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$ by applying and respectively. When $C$ is relatively large, but $x_1$ is small, we need to resort to the second bound in . Note that $x_2$ is free of any fifth power, so the factor $\prod_{{\varpi}\mid x_2}{\varpi}$ is of size at least $|x_2|^{1/4}$, making the second bound in powerful here. When $C$ is very small, the saving by the factor ${\widehat}{D}^{1/2}\asymp {\widehat}{Q/4}$ appearing on the right hand side of and the saving of size ${\widehat}{V}$ from the linear constraint $x_1x_2\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$ together are enough. Lastly, when $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$ and $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0$, we may employ our counting estimates in Lemmas \[lem:B2\] and \[lem:Bro\], the former being more useful when $C$ is small.
Let us start with bounding ${E_{1,1}}$. We first apply the estimate to the inner sum over ${\mathbf{v}}$ in , along with the observation that $x_2$ appearing there is free of any fifth power and therefore $|\prod_{{\varpi}\mid x_2}{\varpi}|\leq |x_2|^{1/4}$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\#\{ |{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}: x_1x_2\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n, x_2\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')\}\ll \min\{{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}+{\widehat}{V}^n/|x_1x_2|,{\widehat}{V}^{n-2}+{\widehat}{V}^n/|x_2|^{1/2}\}\\&\leq {\widehat}{V}^{n-2}+{\widehat}{V}^n/|x_1x_2|^{1/2}+\min\{{\widehat}{V}^{n-1},{\widehat}{V}^n/|x_2|^{1/2}\}
={\widehat}{V}^{n-2}+{\widehat}{V}^n/|x_1x_2|^{1/2}+{\widehat}{V}^n/|x_2|^{1/2}\min\{1,|x_2|^{1/2}/{\widehat}{V}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that in principle, these bounds only work when $V\geq 0$. However, since we are summing over ${\mathbf{v}}\neq 0$, we may assume their validity for all $V\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Next, we apply to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chelp}
\#\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|={\widehat}{C}:x_1\mid \det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})\}\ll |x_1|^{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{C}(1+{\widehat}{C}/|x_1|^{1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Applying these bounds to , and as before noting that for a fixed ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ there are only $O(|P|^{\varepsilon})$ choices for $r_3$, and for a fixed $d$, only $O({\widehat}{R_4}^{1/5})$ choices for $R_4$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}
\sum_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}\\f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq\msquare\\ {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ good }}}|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|
\\
\notag&\ll \widehat{R_1}^{n/2+1+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{D} \sum_{d}\sum_{r_4}\sum_{x_1\mid (r_4/d)}\sum_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}}\delta_{x_1\mid \det(M_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}})}\sum_{r_3}\sum_{\substack{x_2\mid r_3}}|x_1x_2|^{1/2}\times\\&\left({\widehat}{V}^n/|x_1x_2|^{1/2}+{\widehat}{V}^{n-2}+{\widehat}{V}^n|x_2|^{-1/2}\min\{1,|x_2|^{1/2}/{\widehat}{V}\}\right)\label{eq:Final3}\\
&\ll {\widehat}{R_1}^{n/2+1+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{R_4}^{1/5}{\widehat}{2D+2C}{\widehat}{V}^n+{\widehat}{R_1}^{n/2+1+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{R_4}^{1/5}{\widehat}{2D+2C}({\widehat}{R_1}/{\widehat}{D})^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-2}\label{eq:Final1}\\
&+ {\widehat}{R_1}^{n/2+1+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{R_4}^{1/5}{\widehat}{2D+C}({\widehat}{R_1}/{\widehat}{D})^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}.\label{eq:Final2}\end{aligned}$$ The bounds in are obtained from the first two terms in . It is not important to save from the sum over ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ in these bounds. Therefore, we will sum over ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ trivially here. While dealing with the third term in , we substitute our bound . The second term in hands us back the first bound in and the remaining term in hands us .
We are finally ready to analyse the term $E_{1,1}^1$. Inserting the bounds in and to we get $$\label{eq:E11Bound2}
\begin{split}
E_{1,1}^1&\ll |P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{6/5-n/2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+5/4-1/10}{\widehat}{Z}\min({\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2})\\ &{\widehat}{2D+C}\left({\widehat}{C}{\widehat}{V}^n+{\widehat}{C}({\widehat}{R_1}/{\widehat}{D})^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-2}+{\widehat}{V}^{n}+({\widehat}{R_1}/{\widehat}{D})^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}\right).
\end{split}$$ We will bound the different terms on the right hand side of separately. Let us start with the term ${\widehat}{C}{\widehat}{V}^n$. This term corresponds to obtaining perfect square root cancellations. Clearly, this term is at its maximum when $C+D=Y/2$. The total contribution is then $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll |P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{11/5-n/2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+5/4-1/10}{\widehat}{Z}\min({\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}){\widehat}{V}^n\\
&\ll |P|^{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{Y}^{11/5+n/2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2+5/4-1/10}{\widehat}{Z}\min({\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}). \end{aligned}$$ This expression is maximum when ${\widehat}{Z}={\widehat}{-Y}|P|^{-2/3}=|P|^{-2}({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})\geq |P|^{-2}$. Thus, $P^2{\widehat}{Z}=|P|^{4/3}/{\widehat}{Y}={\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y}$. We thus have that this term is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll |P|^{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{Y}^{11/5+n/2}({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})^{n/2+5/4-1/10}|P|^{-4}{\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y}\ll |P|^{\varepsilon}{\widehat}{Y}^{1/20}|P|^{-4}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+9/4-1/10}\\
&\ll |P|^{\varepsilon}|P|^{-4}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+9/4-1/20}=|P|^{n-4}|P|^{-n/3+3-1/15+{\varepsilon}}.\end{aligned}$$ This is enough as long as $n\geq 9$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/30$
We now move to the ${\widehat}{C}({\widehat}{R_1}/{\widehat}{D})^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-2}$ term. This term is maximum when $Y=R_1$, $C=Y/2$ and $D=0$. Thus, the total contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll |P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{27/10-n/2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+5/4-1/10}{\widehat}{Z}\min({\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}){\widehat}{V}^{n-2}\\
&\ll |P|^{2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{7/10+n/2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2-17/20}{\widehat}{Z}\min({\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}). \end{aligned}$$ The maximum is again achieved when ${\widehat}{Z}=({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})|P|^{-2}\geq |P|^{-2} $. Thus, this contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
\ll |P|^{-2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+7/10}({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})^{n/2+3/20}\ll |P|^{-2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+7/10}\ll |P|^{n-4}|P|^{-n/3+44/15+{\varepsilon}}.\end{aligned}$$ which is enough when $n\geq 9$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/30$.
Now we move on to the last term in . The maximum value is taken when $R_1=Y,D=Y/2,C=0$. Thus, this contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll |P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{49/20-n/2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+5/4-1/10}{\widehat}{Z}\min({\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}){\widehat}{V}^{n-1}\\&\ll |P|^{1+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+29/20}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2+3/20}{\widehat}{Z}\min({\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}).\end{aligned}$$ The maximum is again achieved when ${\widehat}{Y}={\widehat}{Q},{\widehat}{Z}={\widehat}{-Y-Q/2}=|P|^{-2}({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})$. Thus, this contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
\ll |P|^{-3+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+29/20}\ll |P|^{n-4}|P|^{-n/3+44/15+{\varepsilon}}\ll |P|^{n-4-1/15+{\varepsilon}},\end{aligned}$$ for all $n\geq 9$. We thus effectively bound all contributions for ${E_{1,1}}^1$, as long as, $n\geq 9$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/30$.
We now consider the term ${E_{1,1}}^2$ which corresponds to the validity of the conditions $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$ and $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0$. As noted in Sec. \[sec:background\], $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})$ is the discriminant of the polynomial $f^*({\mathbf{v}})$, seen as a polynomial in ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$. Thus, this would imply that $f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ has distinct roots in ${\mathbb{P}}^1_{{\overline}{K}}$, and therefore, this polynomial is necessarily square-free. We may now apply Lemma \[lem:Bro\] to count the number of ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$’s for which $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$. This bound will be effective when $C$ is large. Alternatively, for a fixed good ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, $ f^*({\mathbf{v}})$ is a smooth quadratic form and therefore we may be able to bound the number of possible choices of ${\mathbf{v}}$’s for which $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$, using Lemma \[lem:B1\]. We summarize these bounds into: $$\begin{aligned}
\#\{|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq{\widehat}{C},|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}: {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive, }f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare\}\ll {\widehat}{V+C}^{\varepsilon}\min\{{\widehat}{V}^n{\widehat}{C}, {\widehat}{C}^2{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that hands us: $$\begin{split}
E_{1,1}^2({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)
\ll &\frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}
J(Z)^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+3/2}
{\widehat}{Z} \min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}\}\sum_{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}}\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)
\\ f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare}} |S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|.
\end{split}$$ In this case, the extra saving obtained from the condition $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$ will be enough. Using , we will use a weaker bound $|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_3r_4,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|\ll {\widehat}{D}^{1/2}{\widehat}{R_3R_4}^{n/2+3/2}$ to bound the sums modulo $r_3r_4$. This simplifies our process and we order our sums the following way: $$\label{eq:way}
\sum_d \sum_{{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},{\mathbf{v}}}\sum_{r_2,r_3,r_4}.$$ For a fixed value of $d,{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}$, there are at most $O(|P|^{\varepsilon})$ different choices for $r_3$ and $r_4$. Moreover, our bound dealing with the exponential sums modulo $r_2$ still holds. Thus, $$\begin{split}
E_{1,1}^2\ll &\frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}
(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+3/2}
{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}\}{\widehat}{C}{\widehat}{D}^{3/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}\min\{{\widehat}{C},{\widehat}{V}\}\\
&\ll \frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}
(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+3/2}
{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}\}{\widehat}{(C+D)}^{3/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1/2}\\
&\ll |P|^{1/2+{\varepsilon}}
(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2+1/2}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+1}
{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}\}{\widehat}{(C+D)}^{3/2}.
\end{split}$$ Again, the maximum is achieved when $Z=-Y-Q/2$, and when $C+D=Y/2$. Thus, this contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll |P|^{-3/2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+7/4}({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})^{n/2+1/2}{\widehat}{-Y-Q/2}.\end{aligned}$$ After comparing the powers of ${\widehat}{Y}$, the above expression is maximum, when $Y=Q$ and therefore the contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
\ll |P|^{-3/2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+1/4}\ll |P|^{-3/2+2n/3+1/3+{\varepsilon}}\ll |P|^{n-4+{\varepsilon}-(2n-17)/6} \ll |P|^{n-4+{\varepsilon}-1/6},\end{aligned}$$ as long as $n\geq 9$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/12$.
Next, let us deal with the term ${E_{1,2}}$. The main saving will be obtained here from a Serre type bound [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.9], which gives us: $$\#\{|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}:\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})=0\}\ll {\widehat}{V}^{n-3/2}.$$ Our strategy will emulate closely that of bounding ${E_{1,1}}^2$. We again use the decomposition $r=br_2r_3r_4$ as before and use the bound in to bound the sums modulo $r_3r_4$, and use to bound the averages modulo $r_2$. We also arrange the sums in a simplified way as in , to get: $$\label{eq:M}
\begin{split}
{E_{1,2}}({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)
\ll &\frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}
(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+3/2}{\widehat}{C}^2{\widehat}{D}^{3/2}{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}{\widehat}{V}^{n-3/2}\\
&\ll \frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}
(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+5/2}{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}{\widehat}{V}^{n-3/2}\\
&\ll |P|^{3/2+{\varepsilon}}
(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2-1/2}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}.
\end{split}$$ We may again assume $Z={\widehat}{-Y-Q/2}$ to get, $$\begin{aligned}
{E_{1,2}}&
\ll |P|^{-5/2+{\varepsilon}}
({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})^{n/2+1/2}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+1}
\ll |P|^{-5/2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+1}\ll |P|^{n-4} |P|^{-n/3+17/6+{\varepsilon}}\ll |P|^{n-4} |P|^{-1/6+{\varepsilon}},\end{aligned}$$ as long as $n\geq 9$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/12$.
Good ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ contribution: $n$ even case.
--------------------------------------------------------------
We will obtain a bound for the contribution to $E_1$ from the good values of ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$, when $2\mid n$. Since we are only aiming for $n\geq 10$ here, the analysis here is somewhat simpler and we may recycle many of our estimates from the previous case. To establish $n\geq 10$, we do not need our refined estimate in Lemma \[lem:SigB\], we will be content in using Lemma \[lem:sqfreeeasy\] instead. When $n$ is even and ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is good, we will split the sum over ${\mathbf{v}}$ in $E_1$ into two subsums: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
{\mathbf{v}}\neq \vecnull\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)
}} =\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)
}}+\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\neq\vecnull\in \cO^n\\f^*({\mathbf{v}})=0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)
}}.\end{aligned}$$ We again call the corresponding contributions $E_{1,1}$ and $E_{1,2}$ respectively.
As always, we write $r=br_1$, where $b$ denotes the square-free part of $r$ which is co-prime to $f^*({\mathbf{v}})dD_{{\underline{F}}}$ if ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is good and co-prime to $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}})dD_{{\underline{F}}}$ if ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ is bad. Analogous to , we apply Lemma \[lem:sqfreeeasy\] to to obtain ${\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1$ such that $$\label{eq:E(P)-2}
{E_{1,1}}(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},Y,Z)
\ll \frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+1}
\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}
\sum_{\substack{
r_1\in \cO, d\mid r_1\\ |r_1|\leq {\widehat}{Y}\\ r_1 \textrm{ monic }}}
|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|J(Z)^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z}, |P|^{-2}\}.$$ We use the same process as in the beginning of Sec. \[sec:minor\] and write $r=br_1=br_2r_3r_4$, where $r_2,r_3,r_4$ are chosen exactly as the analysis of ${E_{1,1}}$ in the $2\nmid n $ case, and introduce [*dyadic*]{} averages following the notation in to get: $$\label{eq:E(P)-3}
\begin{split}
{E_{1,1}}({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)&:=\sum_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}\\ {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ good }}}{E_{1,1}}(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},Y,Z)\\
&\ll \frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+1}
\sum_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}\\ {{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ good }}}\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
f^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}
|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|J(Z)^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}.
\end{split}$$ Note that our bounds in to bound the exponential sums modulo $r_2,r_3$ and $r_4$ still hold when $2\mid n$. Therefore, this contribution is clearly less than our bounds for ${E_{1,1}}^1$ when $n\geq 9$ was odd (as compared with the corresponding bound ). Therefore, our analysis in Sec. \[subsec:ucgood\] still holds and is enough to establish a suitable bound here. Note that the only auxiliary counting estimate which used the fact that $n$ was odd was in Lemma \[lem:Bro\], which was used to bound the number of solutions of $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=\msquare$, which is not necessary here, and it was only used to bound ${E_{1,1}}^2$ in Section \[subsec:ucgood\].
In a similar vein, when $f^*({\mathbf{v}})=0$, [@Browning_Vishe15 Lemma 2.9] gives us: $$\#\{|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}:f^*({\mathbf{v}})=0\}\ll {\widehat}{V}^{n-3/2}.$$ Thus, the contribution ${E_{1,2}}({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)$ can be bound using the same process as from the corresponding bound when $2\nmid n$. Namely, the analysis in hands us a suitable bound for this contribution.
Bad ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ contribution
---------------------------------------------
We now focus on the contribution of the bad values of ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ to $E_1$. We will deal with both odd and even values of $n$ here. Throughout, let ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ denote an arbitrary, but fixed bad pair. We know that $|{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\ll 1$. In this case, there are no type II primes, as these are already included in our list of bad primes. However, an extra complication here arises due to the fact that when ${\varpi}$ is a good prime satisfying ${\varpi}\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')$, Lemma \[lem:expsumsingular\] hands us the bound $|S_{{\varpi}^k}({\mathbf{v}})|\ll |{\varpi}|^{k(n+3/2)}$, which carries an extra factor of size $O(|{\varpi}|^{1/2})$ as compared with the worst bound in Lemma \[lem:Expsum\]. For a fixed ${\mathbf{v}}$, this bound only affects ${\varpi}\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')$, which is a small set if ${{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}$ are treated to be fixed. However, this would hinder us from obtaining any saving from the congruence condition ${\varpi}^k\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$. Therefore, we will instead save more from the sum over $d$. This will be facilitated by the bound in Lemma \[lem:TypeIgen\]. To this end, we split the sum $E_1(d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},Y,Z)$ into two subsums: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
{\mathbf{v}}\neq \vecnull\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}} =\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0, \scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}+\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\neq\vecnull\in \cO^n\\
Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}})=0\textrm{ or }\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})=0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}{V}
}}.\end{aligned}$$ We call the contribution from the first sum on the right hand side as $E_3$ and from the second sum as $E_4$. When $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0 $ and $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0$, we write $d=d_1d_2d_3$, where $d_1,d_2,d_3$ are pairwise co-prime. Here $d_1d_2$ denote the square-free part of $d$ further satisfying $\gcd(d_1d_2,D_{{\underline{F}}})=1$, $\gcd(d_1,r/d_1)=1$ and $d_2^2\mid r$. As a consequence, we may use Lemma \[lem:TypeIgen\] to deal with the exponential sum $S_{d_1,d_1,\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})$. If $d_2$ is large, we save from the fact that $d_2^2\mid r$, which reduces the number of permitted $r$’s (as opposed to just using the condition $d\mid r$). $d_3$ consists of square-full numbers and bad primes. Therefore, the total number of permitted $d_3$ is at most $O({\widehat}{D_3}^{1/2+{\varepsilon}})$.
To this end, as always we first write $r=br_1$, where $b$ denotes the square-free part of $r$ which is co-prime to $dD_{{\underline{F}}}Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')$. Next, we write $r_1=d_1r_2r_3$, where $\gcd(r_2,dD_{{\underline{F}}})=1$, $ r_3\mid (d_2d_3D_{{\underline{F}}})^\infty$. In other words, $r_2$ consists of the part of $r_1$ which is free of the bad primes and of the primes dividing $d$, $r_3$ only consist of the powers of primes diving $d_2d_3D_{{\underline{F}}}$. Thus, for any given $d$, there are only $O({\widehat}{R_3}^{\varepsilon})$ choices for $r_3$, and $O({\widehat}{R_2}^{1/2})$ choices for $r_2$. We split our sum into analogous dyadic sums: $${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}=(|d_1|,|d_2|,|d_3|,|r_2|,|r_3|)={\mathbf{d}}:=({\widehat}{D_1},{\widehat}{D_2},{\widehat}{D_3},{\widehat}{R_2},{\widehat}{R_3}),$$ where as before, let $|b|=B$, $B+D_1+R_2+R_3=Y, D=D_1+D_2+D_3, 2D\leq Y\leq Q/2+D$. Since $d_2^2\mid r_3$, we must have $B+R_2\leq Y-D-D_2\leq Q/2-D_2$. We begin by applying Lemma \[lem:sqfreeeasy\] to to get: $$\label{eq:moon}
\begin{split}
E_{3}({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)
\ll~& \frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n}}
\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\
\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})Q_1^*({\mathbf{v}})\neq 0\\
|{\mathbf{v}}|\ll {\widehat}Y |P|^{-1}J(Z)
}}
\sum\limits_{\substack{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}}}
|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|J(Z)^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{B}^{n/2+(3+\delta_{2\mid n})/2}\times
{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}.
\end{split}$$ Here, the term $\delta_{2\mid n}$ is $1$ when $n$ is even and $0$ otherwise. Using the multiplicativity relation in Lemma \[lem:Multipli\], we may write $$S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})=S_{d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},d_1,\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})S_{r_2}({\mathbf{v}})S_{d_2d_3{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_3,{\mathbf{b}}_2,N_2}({\mathbf{v}}).$$ Lemmas \[lem:TypeIgen\] and \[lem:ExpsumsComb\] imply $$|S_{d_1{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},d_1,\vecnull,1}({\mathbf{v}})|\ll {\widehat}{D_1}^{n/2+3/2}\gcd(d_1,Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}}))^{1/2}.$$ Lemma \[lem:expsumsingular\], in conjunction with an argument similar to implies that for a fixed ${\mathbf{v}}$ satisfying $Q^*_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}({\mathbf{v}}')\neq 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{r_2}|S_{r_2}({\mathbf{v}})|\ll {\widehat}{R_2}^{n/2+1}\sum_{r_2}\gcd(r_2,Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}'))^{1/2}\ll {\widehat}{R_2}^{n/2+3/2+{\varepsilon}}.\end{aligned}$$ Lastly, Lemma \[lem:ExpsumsComb\] gives us $$|S_{d_2d_3{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_3,{\mathbf{b}}_2,N_2}({\mathbf{v}})|\ll {\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3}{\widehat}{R_3}^{n/2+1}(\gcd(r_3/d_2d_3,((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n)^{1/2}.$$ As before, for a fixed $d$, there are only $O({\widehat}{R_3}^{{\varepsilon}})$ choices for $r_3$. We evaluate the sums in the following order $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d_1,d_2,d_3}\sum_{r_3}\sum_{{\mathbf{v}}}\sum_{r_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining our bounds, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}}|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N}({\mathbf{v}})|&\ll {\widehat}{D}\sum_{d_1,d_2,d_3}\sum_{r_3}
\sum_{x_1\mid r_3/(d_2d_3)}\sum_{x_2\mid d_1}
\sum_{\substack{ {\mathbf{v}}\in \cO^n\\|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq {\widehat}{V}\\x_1\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n\\
x_2\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})
}} |x_1x_2|^{1/2}{\widehat}{D_1}^{n/2+1/2}{\widehat}{R_3}^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{R_2}^{n/2+3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ We may use to bound the number of permissible ${\mathbf{v}}$’s satisfying $x_1\mid ((S^{-1})^t{\mathbf{v}})_n$ and [@Browning-Heath-Brown09 Lemma 4] to bound the number of ${\mathbf{v}}$’s satisfying $x_2\mid Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}}')\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})$, to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\underline{\mathrm{d}}}={\mathbf{d}}}|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N}({\mathbf{v}})|&\ll {\widehat}{D}{\widehat}{R_1}^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{D_1}^{-1/2}{\widehat}{R_2}^{1/2}\sum_d\sum_{r_3}
\sum_{x_1\mid r_3/(d_2d_3)}\sum_{x_2\mid d_1}
|x_1x_2|^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}(1+{\widehat}{V}\min\{|x_1|^{-1},|x|_2^{-1}\})\\
&\ll {\widehat}{D}{\widehat}{R_1}^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{D_1}^{-1/2}{\widehat}{R_2}^{1/2}\sum_d\sum_{r_3}
\sum_{x_1\mid r_3/(d_2d_3)}\sum_{x_2\mid d_1}
|x_1x_2|^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}(1+{\widehat}{V}/|x_1x_2|^{1/2})\\
&\ll {\widehat}{D}{\widehat}{D_1}^{1/2}{\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3}^{1/2}{\widehat}{R_1}^{n/2+1+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{R_2}^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}
({\widehat}{R_3}^{1/2}{\widehat}{D_1}^{1/2}/({\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3})^{1/2}+{\widehat}{V}).\end{aligned}$$ Feeding this bound back to , we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
E_{3}({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)
\ll~& {\widehat}{B}^{\frac{\delta_{2\mid n}}{2}}\frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2-1}}{\widehat}{D}{\widehat}{D_1}^{1/2}{\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3}^{1/2}({\widehat}{B}{\widehat}{R_2})^{1/2}J(Z)^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}\times\\
~&({\widehat}{R_3}^{1/2}{\widehat}{D_1}^{1/2}/({\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3})^{1/2}+{\widehat}{V}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, when $2\nmid n$, $E_3$ can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:R}
\ll ({\widehat}{B}{\widehat}{R_2})^{1/2}\frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n/2-1}}{\widehat}{D}{\widehat}{D_1}^{1/2}{\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3}^{1/2}
{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}(({\widehat}{R_3}/({\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3})^{1/2}+{\widehat}{V} )(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+1}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}.\end{aligned}$$ After replacing ${\widehat}{V}={\widehat}{Y}|P|^{-1}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})$, clearly, the contribution is maximum when $Z=-Y-Q/2$, which we assume from now on. Let us first investigate the contribution coming from the term $({\widehat}{R_3}/({\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3}))^{1/2}$ on the right hand side of . This contribution is $$\label{eq:oone}
\begin{split}
&\ll \frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n/2-3/2}}{\widehat}{D}^{3/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+1}|P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}\ll |P|^{-1+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+1/2+3/4}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2}{\widehat}{Z}\\
&\ll |P|^{-1-2/3+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+1/4}({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})^{n/2}\ll |P|^{-5/3+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+1/4}=|P|^{2n/3-4/3+{\varepsilon}}=|P|^{n-4-(n-8)/3+{\varepsilon}}.
\end{split}$$ This is admissible for $n\geq 9$ and odd, as long as ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/16$.
Now let us turn to the remaining contribution to $E_3$. Here, we will use that $B+R_2\leq Y-D_1-2D_2-D_3$. Thus, this contribution is $$\label{eq:Two}
\begin{split}
&\ll ({\widehat}{B+R_2})^{1/2}\frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n/2-1}}{\widehat}{D}{\widehat}{D_1}^{1/2}{\widehat}{D_2}{\widehat}{D_3}^{1/2}{\widehat}{V}^{n}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+1}|P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}\\
&\ll |P|^{-2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+3/2}{\widehat}{D}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{Z}\ll |P|^{-2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{Z}.
\end{split}$$ We may again assume that $Z=-Y-Q/2$ to obtain that this is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll |P|^{-8/3+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+1}({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})^{n/2+1}
\ll |P|^{-8/3+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+1}=|P|^{2n/3-4/3+{\varepsilon}},\end{aligned}$$ which is clearly enough from our previous calculation.
When $2\mid n$, the bound in gets multiplied with an extra factor of size $O({\widehat}{B}^{1/2})$. Here, we will use a weaker bound ${\widehat}{B}\leq {\widehat}{Y}/{\widehat}{D}$ and combine it with our above bounds. Note that in the extreme case when $D=Y/2$, ${\widehat}{B}^{1/2}$ factor amounts to the introduction of an extra factor of size $O({\widehat}{Y}^{1/4}) $ in the final computation. In particular, when $2\mid n$, the bound corresponding to is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\ll \frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}Y^{n/2-2}}{\widehat}{D}{\widehat}{V}^{n-1}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-n/2+1}|P|^{-2}{\widehat}{Z}\ll |P|^{-5/3+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+1/2}({\widehat}{Q}/{\widehat}{Y})^{n/2}\ll |P|^{n-4+{\varepsilon}-(n-9)/3},\end{aligned}$$ which is admissible as long as $n\geq 10$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/6$.
Similarly, when $2\mid n$, the contribution corresponding to to $E_3$ is bounded by: $$\begin{aligned}
\ll |P|^{-2+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+2}{\widehat}{D}^{1/2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{n/2+1}{\widehat}{Z}\ll |P|^{-8/3+{\varepsilon}}{\widehat}{Q}^{n/2+5/4}\ll |P|^{n-4+{\varepsilon}-(n-9)/3},\end{aligned}$$ again enough when $n\geq 10$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/6$.
We now turn to the term $E_4$. When either $\scrF^*({\mathbf{v}})=0$ or $Q_{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}^*({\mathbf{v}})=0$, we gain from the sparseness of such ${\mathbf{v}}$’s. We write $r_1=r_2r_3$, where $\gcd(r_2,dD_{{\underline{F}}})=1$ and that $ r_3\mid (d D_F)^\infty$. We split our sum into the dyadic sums: $${\underline{\mathrm{d}}}=(|d|,|r_2|,|r_3|)={\mathbf{d}}:=({\widehat}{D},{\widehat}{R_2},{\widehat}{R_3}).$$ Here, $D\leq Y/2$, $Y=B+R_2+R_3$. In this case, we will use the following softer bound coming from Lemma \[lem:Expweak\]: $$|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r_1,{\mathbf{b}}_1,N_1}({\mathbf{v}})|\ll |d|^{1/2}|r_1|^{n/2+3/2}.$$ Thus, following the recipe before, $$\begin{aligned}
E_4({\mathbf{d}},Y,Z)\ll {\widehat}{B}^{\frac{\delta_{2\mid n}}{2}}\frac{|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}}{{\widehat}{Y}^n}{\widehat}{V}^{n-3/2}{\widehat}{D}^{3/2}{\widehat}{Y}^{n/2+3/2}J(Z)^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Again, when $2\mid n$, an extra factor of ${\widehat}{B}^{1/2}$ arises due to our worse bounds in Lemma \[lem:sqfreeeasy\]. When $2\nmid n$, this contribution is clearly sufficient from our bounds for $E_{1,2}$, cf. , as long as ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/12 $. Similarly, when $2\mid n$, the extra factor of size ${\widehat}{B}^{1/2}$ ultimately, adds a factor of size ${\widehat}{Q}^{1/4}$ to our worst case scenario, i.e. when $D=Y/2=Q/2 $. Therefore, following similar steps as in our bounds for $E_3$, this can be shown to be satisfactory as long as $n\geq 10$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq 1/12$.
Bounding $E_2$
--------------
Finally, we turn to the term $E_2$. Note that the bounds for $E_2$ are superseded by those for $E_1$ as long as ${\widehat}{V}=\frac{{\widehat}{Y}}{|P|} J(Z)\geq 1$. Thus, we only need consider bounding $E_2$ when both conditions ${\widehat}{Q}^\Delta\leq {\widehat}{Y}\leq |P|$ and ${\widehat}{Z}\leq (|P|{\widehat}{Y})^{-1}$ are satisfied. Here, we may use the bound in to get: $$\label{eq:Singular1}
|r_N|^{-n}\sum_{|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y}^{1/2}}\sum_{\substack{|r|={\widehat}{Y}\\ d\mid r}}|S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}(\vecnull)|\ll {\widehat}{Y}^{(7-n)/2}.$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
E_2(Y,P,Z)&:=|P|^{n+{\varepsilon}}\sum\limits_{\substack{|r|={\widehat}{Y}\\r \textrm{ monic }}}\,\,\,\sum_{\substack{d\mid r\textrm{ monic, }{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}\textrm{ primitive}\\ {\widehat}{Y-Q/2}\leq|d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}}|\leq {\widehat}{Y/2}\\ |dc_2|<{\widehat}{Y/2}}}|r_N|^{-n}
\int_{|{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}|={\widehat}{Z}}S_{d{{\underline{\mathrm{c}}}},r,{\mathbf{b}},N}(\vecnull)I_{r_N}({{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}};{\mathbf{v}})d{{\underline{\mathrm{z}}}}\\
&\ll |P|^{n+{\varepsilon}} {\widehat}{Y}^{-(n-7)/2}J(Z)^{-n/2+1}{\widehat}{Z}\min\{{\widehat}{Z},|P|^{-2}\}\\
&\ll |P|^{n-2+{\varepsilon}} {\widehat}{Y}^{-(n-7)/2}(1+|P|^2{\widehat}{Z})^{-1}{\widehat}{Z}\ll |P|^{n-4+{\varepsilon}} {\widehat}{Y}^{-(n-7)/2}\\
&\ll |P|^{n-4+{\varepsilon}-\Delta/2}.\end{aligned}$$ as long as $n\geq 8$ and ${\varepsilon}\leq \Delta/4$.
[10]{} Vicente Navarro Aznar. On the [C]{}hern classes and the [E]{}uler characteristic for nonsingular complete intersections. , 78(1):143–148, 1980.
B. J. Birch. Forms in many variables. , 265:245–263, 1961/1962.
Niklas Broberg. Rational points on finite covers of [$\Bbb P^1$]{} and [$\Bbb P^2$]{}. , 101(1):195–207, 2003.
Niklas Broberg. A note on a paper by [R]{}. [H]{}eath-[B]{}rown: “[T]{}he density of rational points on curves and surfaces”. , 571:159–178, 2004.
T. D. Browning and D. R. Heath-Brown. Rational points on quartic hypersurfaces. , 629:37–88, 2009.
T. D. Browning and D. R. Heath-Brown. Forms in many variables and differing degrees. To appear in *J. Eur. Math. Soc.*, arXiv:1403.5937, 2014.
T. D. Browning and R. Munshi. Rational points on singular intersections of quadrics. , 149(9):1457–1494, 2013.
T. D. Browning and P. Vishe. Rational points on cubic hypersurfaces over [$\Bbb{F}_q(t)$]{}. , 25(3):671–732, 2015.
Tim Browning and Pankaj Vishe. Rational curves on smooth hypersurfaces of low degree. , 11(7):1657–1675, 2017.
Sawin W. Browning T. D. A geometric version of the circle method. Preprint, 2017. arXiv:1711.10451.
Sawin W. Browning T. D. Free rational curves on low degree hypersurfaces and the circle method. Preprint, 2018. arXiv:1810.06882.
Jean-Louis Colliot-Thélène, Jean-Jacques Sansuc, and Peter Swinnerton-Dyer. Intersections of two quadrics and [C]{}hâtelet surfaces. [I]{}. , 373:37–107, 1987.
Jean-Louis Colliot-Thélène, Jean-Jacques Sansuc, and Peter Swinnerton-Dyer. Intersections of two quadrics and [C]{}hâtelet surfaces. [II]{}. , 374:72–168, 1987.
Ronald J. Evans. Pure gauss sums over finite fields. , 28(2):239–248 (1982), 1981.
Domingo Gomez, Jaime Gutierrez, Álvar Ibeas, and David Sevilla. Common factors of resultants modulo [$p$]{}. , 79(2):299–302, 2009.
D. R. Heath-Brown. A new form of the circle method, and its application to quadratic forms. , 481:149–206, 1996.
D. R. Heath-Brown. The density of rational points on curves and surfaces. , 155(2):553–595, 2002.
D. R. Heath-Brown. Zeros of pairs of quadratic forms. , 739:41–80, 2018.
D. R. Heath-Brown and L. B. Pierce. Simultaneous integer values of pairs of quadratic forms. , 727:85–143, 2017.
Roger Heath-Brown. Counting rational points on cubic surfaces. , (251):13–30, 1998. Nombre et répartition de points de hauteur bornée (Paris, 1996).
Nicholas M. Katz. Estimates for “singular” exponential sums. , (16):875–899, 1999.
S. A. Lee. Birch’s theorem in function fields. Preprint, 2011. arXiv:1109.4953.
S. A. Lee. . PhD thesis, University of Bristol, 2013.
A. Manzateanu. Rational curves on cubic hypersurfaces over finite fields. Preprint, 2018. arXiv:1804.05643.
R. Munshi. Pairs of quadrics in 11 variables. , 151(7):1189–1214, 2015.
S. L. R. Myerson. Systems of forms in many variables. arXiv:1709.08917.
S. L. R. Myerson. Quadratic forms and systems of forms in many variables. , accepted.
S. L. R. Myerson. Systems of cubic forms in many variables. , Accepted.
Lillian B. Pierce, Damaris Schindler, and Melanie Matchett Wood. Representations of integers by systems of three quadratic forms. , 113(3):289–344, 2016.
Miles Reid. . PhD thesis, Cambridge, 1972.
Michael Rosen. , volume 210 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002.
Zhiyu Tian. Hasse principle for three classes of varieties over global function fields. , 166(17):3349–3424, 2017.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Rita Macedo, Artur Miguel Dias, António Ravara'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Visualização e animação de autómatos em Ocsigen Framework[^1]'
---
[^1]: Trabalho parcialmente suportado pela Fundação Tezos através do projeto FACTOR (<http://www-ctp.di.fct.unl.pt/FACTOR/>) e por fundos nacionais através da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., no âmbito do NOVA LINCS através do projeto UID/CEC/04516/2019
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a multi-wavelength (X-ray, $\gamma$-ray, optical and radio) study of [HD 164816]{}, a late O-type X-ray detected spectroscopic binary. X-ray spectra are analyzed and the X-ray photon arrival times are checked for pulsation. In addition, newly obtained optical spectroscopic monitoring data on [HD 164816]{} are presented. They are complemented by available radio data from several large scale surveys as well as the *FERMI* $\gamma$-ray data from its *Large Area Telescope*. We report the detection of a low energy excess in the X-ray spectrum that can be described by a simple absorbed blackbody model with a temperature of $\sim$ 50 eV as well as a 9.78 s pulsation of the X-ray source. The soft X-ray excess, the X-ray pulsation, and the kinematical age would all be consistent with a compact object like a neutron star as companion to HD 164816. The size of the soft X-ray excess emitting area is consistent with a circular region with a radius of about 7 km, typical for neutron stars, while the emission measure of the remaining harder emission is typical for late O-type single or binary stars. If HD 164816 includes a neutron star born in a supernova, this supernova should have been very recent and should have given the system a kick, which is consistent with the observation that the star HD 164816 has a significantly different radial velocity than the cluster mean. In addition we confirm the binarity of [HD 164816]{} itself by obtaining an orbital period of 3.82 d, projected masses $m_1 {\rm sin}^{3} i$ = 2.355(69) M$_\odot$, $m_2 {\rm sin}^{3} i$ = 2.103(62) M$_\odot$ apparently seen at low inclination angle, determined from high-resolution optical spectra.'
author:
- |
L. Trepl$^{1}$[^1], V.V. Hambaryan$^{1}$ , T. Pribulla$^{2}$[^2], N. Tetzlaff$^{1}$, R. Chini$^{3,4}$, R. Neuhäuser$^{1}$,\
\
$^{1}$Astrophysikalisches Institut und Universitäts-Sternwarte, Universität Jena, Schillergäßchen 2-3, 07745 Jena, Germany\
$^{2}$Astronomical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 059 60 Tatranská Lomnica, Slovakia\
$^{3}$Astronomisches Institut, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsstr. 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany\
$^{4}$Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile\
$^{5}$ZAH, Landessternwarte, Königstuhl 12, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany\
$^{6}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook NY\
$^{7}$Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Universitetski pr. 13, Moscow, 119991, Russia
date: 'Accepted 2012 August 29. Received 2012 August 29; in original form 2011 October 06'
title: 'Is there a compact companion orbiting the late O-type binary star HD 164816?'
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: neutron, stars: individual: [HD 164816]{}, stars: individual: [2XMM J180356.8-241845]{}.
Introduction
============
The expected total number of Neutron stars (NSs) in our Galaxy is predicted to be 10$^{\rm 8}$-10$^{\rm 9}$ (Narayan & Ostriker 1990) of which isolated NS should form the majority. Until today there are $\sim$2000 known radio pulsars and only seven known isolated thermally emitting NS (INS) called the Magnificent Seven (Haberl 2007, Kaplan et al. 2011). Since the discovery of the first INS (RX J1856.5-3754) in 1996 (Walter et al. 1996) the search for more thermally emitting NSs is an ongoing process. Those seven objects have been recognized by their high X-ray to optical flux ratio and their rather soft X-ray emission represented by low X-ray hardness ratios. Thus looking for objects with similar properties is one way to find new candidates, see e.g. Pires et al. (2009). It is clear that many candidates can be missed, for example when they are harbored in binary or multiple star systems, since the X-ray flux is dominated by the host star, or as compact companions to runaway stars (Posselt et al. 2008). Searches for Pulsar companions around OB runaway stars have been performed by Philp et al. 1996, Sayer et al. 1996.\
We search for X-ray pulsations from all X-ray sources near or identified with galactic OB stars, in search of non-interacting (and hence effectively isolated) NSs that remain bound in a stellar system following the supernova. About 10% of such systems remain bound after the first supernova (Kuranov et al. 2009).\
HD 164816 is located in the direction of the young open cluster NGC 6530. Prisinzano et al. (2005) recently investigated in depth the distance of this cluster: Literature values range from 560 pc (Loktin & Beshenov 2001) to 2000 pc (Walker 1957, van den Ancker et al. 1997). The mean of the distance estimates (in table 1 of Prisinzano et al. (2005) and the value found by Prisinzano et al. (2005) themselves, 1250 pc) is $1543 \pm 345$ pc, which we now use in this paper; all but one (560 to 711 pc, Loktin & Beshenov 2001) values found in the literature are consistent with this value within $1~\sigma$. Within $1~\sigma$, our value is also consistent with the distance of $\sim 1250$ pc obtained by Prisinzano et al. 2005.
HD 164816 itself is located at $\alpha$ = 18h 03m 56.866s and $\delta = -24^{\circ} 18^{\prime} 45.22^{\prime \prime}$ and has V=7.09 mag (Reed 2003). Recently, Megier et al. (2009) determined the distance towards HD 164816 by interstellar Ca II absorption to be $864 \pm 136$ pc. Hence, the distances of the NGC 6530 cluster and the star HD 164816 are deviant by 1 to $2~\sigma$, which may indicate that HD 164816 is somewhat foreground to the cluster, to be discussed below.\
The region around it is also known as the Lagoon Nebula (NGC 6523 = M 8) which is one of the brightest HII regions in the Galaxy where star formation has started a few 10$^{7}$ yrs ago (van den Ancker 1997). However, the membership of [HD 164816]{} is uncertain.\
NGC 6530 has about 2000 known members which display an age gradient (Damiani, Prisinzano, Micela & Sciortina 2006). From March 2001 to July 2003 [HD 164816]{} has been in the field of view of seven X-ray observations, one with *XMM Newton* and six with the Chandra X-ray observatory (*CXC*).\
In the following we will present the X-ray spectral and temporal properties from *XMM PN* and *Chandra ACIS-I* data indicating a compact companion candidate (§2). We present the orbital parameters of the spectroscopic binary O-type star in §3. Then we present the available radio survey data as well as the analysis of $\gamma$-ray data obtained by *FERMI’s* Large Area Telescope (*LAT*) in §4. A discussion of the physical nature of the possible companion will be given in §5 and concluding remarks will be made in §6.
X-ray data Analysis
===================
We report here on the spectral and temporal analysis of the X-ray source [2XMM J180356.8-241845]{} that is coinciding with the optical position of [HD 164816]{} and has been found by our search for pulses in X-ray sources near galactic O-type stars.\
We extracted events from the archived pipeline produced *XMM PN* data (see table \[X\_obs\]) in a circular region with a radius of 30 arcsec around the centroid of [2XMM J180356.8-241845]{} located approximately 3.1 arcmin from the pointing of the observation by using the XMM Science Analysis System (SAS) version 10. As background we extracted events in a nearby source free region of similar size. We used only single-pixel event types for the spectral analysis as well as for the performed source detection in the first energy band of *XMM-Newton* (0.2 - 0.5 keV) as there are known calibration issues. Event types higher than single-type are known to result in an elevated soft X-ray background which is most prominent in the reported first energy band[^3].\
Extracting the background region is a somewhat complicated task as the field is very crowded and contaminated by several fringes. Although the thick filter was in place in the *XMM* Observation, those might result from incomplete blocking of UV/optical light coming from the 5th magnitude star 9 Sgr (see Fig.\[hd\_pn\_ima\]) or possibly originating from stray light of the nearby Low Mass X-ray binary (LMXB) GX 9+1 (Langmeier, Sztajno, Trümper & Hasinger 1985) around 1 deg outside the field of view (fov). Checking the background light curve of this observation we could not identify any times of elevated background and thus can use the whole observation time as a good time interval. Nevertheless we also investigated the spatial distribution of the arriving photons in the background extraction region and could not find any significant concentration, rather a homogeneous distribution (see inset in Fig.\[hd\_pn\_ima\] left panel).\
The *Chandra* observations do not show any fringes or an otherwise enhanced background as the threshold for optical contamination is $V \sim$ 3.1 for the used ACIS-I detector[^4] ([HD 164816]{} has $V$=7.09). Hence, the chosen background regions are not contaminated by any source or fringe.
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
Observation ID Pointing Start Time exposure time (ks) Detector offset from [HD 164816]{} (arcmin)
---------------- ------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ------------ ------------------------------------
*XMM-Newton*
0008820101 HD164794 (9 Sgr) 2001-03-08 11:21:27 23.572 MOS1/2, PN 3.07
*Chandra*
3754 M8 2003-07-25 17:27:12 129.600 ACIS-I 4.27
4397 M8 2003-07-24 10:07:26 14.820 ACIS-I 4.27
4444 M8 2003-07-28 00:00:07 30.190 ACIS-I 4.27
Spectral Analysis with *XMM Newton*
-----------------------------------
As a first step we have re-analyzed the X-ray spectrum of [2XMM J180356.8-241845]{}. Its spectral properties have already been reported in Rauw et al. 2002 where they performed an X-ray population study on an *XMM Newton* observation and among other things conclude that the X-ray emission of [HD 164816]{} is typical for an O9.5 III-IV star. However, they did not take the low energy part of the spectrum from 0.2 - 0.5 keV into consideration.\
Trying to reproduce their results we first re-analyzed the *XMM PN* dataset of ObsID 0008820101 carried out with the thick filter in use and centered at 9 Sgr.\
As a following step Response and Anxillary files have been computed by using the XMMSAS tasks RMFGEN and ARFGEN. The data then have been grouped by a minimum of 20 counts per energy bin in order to minimize the scattering of data points. After background subtraction there are 961 net source counts available. Including as well the first *XMM Newton* energy band (0.2 - 0.5 keV) in the spectral fit by using a warm absorbed MEKAL plasma (Mewe et al. 1985, Kastra 1992) results in an unsatisfying fit of $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ equal 1.57 with 34 d.o.f which is not in agreement with what Rauw et al. 2002 have found (i.e. $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$=1.08 in 0.5 - 5 keV). By looking at the spectrum we clearly notice an excess in the range 0.2 - 0.5 keV that cannot be modeled by the used absorbed MEKAL plasma model. In addition we recognize some feature around 0.3 keV but we ignored data at the energy range 0.27 to 0.32 keV as there is a drastic dip in the effective area of the *EPIC PN* detector in that energy range.\
We have carried out a source detection in the energy range 0.2-0.5 keV in order to exclude an artificial nature of the detected low energy excess. This energy part is believed to be mostly from the possible compact companion and has not been regarded by Rauw et al. (2002). We detected [2XMM J180356.8-241845]{} in this energy range with a detection maximum likelihood of $L\sim$235 with $L=-\ln p$ where $p$ is equal to the probability that the detected signal was generated by a random fluctuation. Since we only took single-pixel events into consideration we can rule out that the excess is due to elevated background. As the given likelihood value for the source detection can be considered significant we conclude that the excess is of real nature (see right panel in Fig.\[hd\_pn\_ima\]). A source detection in the energy range 2.0 to 10 keV leads to a null detection, hence the source is soft.Improving the fit by blindly adding a blackbody component could not be achieved thus we decided to use a more sophisticated approach. Therefore we tried to subtract the MEKAL component from the spectrum.\
In order to eliminate the thermal plasma component we used XSPEC (version 12.6) to simulate an absorbed MEKAL plasma in the energy range 0.5-2.0 keV as there is negligible information in the range 2.0-10.0 keV. As an input the best fit parameters for temperature and absorption reported in Rauw et al. 2002 were used. Afterwards this simulated spectrum is used to create a fake data set with the same exposure time, background, response and anxillary files as used for the observation of [HD 164816]{}. The faked data are grouped according to the *EPIC PN* data (i.e. a minimum of 20 counts/bin). This grouped MEKAL spectrum is then used as background for the observation in order to subtract the contribution of the thin plasma model.\
Visually checking the produced spectrum confirms the MEKAL component to be consistent with zero. The remaining excess is fitted with an absorbed blackbody model which leads to a best fit temperature of around 53.7 eV that now serves as an initial input for the future complete analysis. As a next step the entire spectrum is fitted with an absorbed thin plasma model plus the blackbody component by iteratively fixing and freeing the parameter pairs for the blackbody and MEKAL plasma model (i.e. pairs of temperature and normalization) which lead us to a best fit blackbody temperature of 52.36$^{+7.78}_{-4.86}$ eV with $\chi_{\nu}^{2}$ = 1.06.\
As the interstellar column density derived by Diplas & Savage 1994, 0.15$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}\cdot$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, is significantly smaller than the value derived by our fit (0.40$^{+0.03}_{-0.05}\cdot$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) we decided to introduce a second systemic absorption component. Such a systemic absorption was already suggested by Rauw et al. 2002 and could possibly be attributed to a stellar wind. By introducing such a component we can put tighter constraints on the errors of the individual parameters and get an interstellar absorption of 0.08$^{+0.07}_{-0.03}\cdot$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ which is consistent with the one found by Diplas & Savage 1994. The resulting blackbody temperature is 48.79$^{+4.01}_{-8.65}$ eV (see Fig.\[hd\_xmm\_spec\]).
{width="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm"}
Values for the systemic absorption and MEKAL temperature are 0.32$^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$$\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and 0.24$\pm 0.02$ keV respectively. The absorbed flux in the energy range 0.2-2.0 keV of 1.08$\times$10$^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ is found to be higher than the presented value for the energy range 0.5-5.0 keV by Rauw et al. 2002. For completeness we have computed as well the unabsorbed flux in the 0.2-2.0 keV range (2.89$\times$10$^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$). In addition we have used the blackbody model normalization to give an estimate on the radius of the emitting area. Using a distance of 864$\pm$136 pc results in a radius of the (circular) emitting area of 7.14$\pm$1.12 km which is in the range of a NS (see Hohle et al. 2012). Adopting the same distance range we used the MEKAL normalization to give an estimate on the emission measure (EM) of [HD 164816]{}, which turns out to be 3.93$\pm$0.10$\times$10$^{54}$ cm$^{-3}$. Those values are typical for O9V single stars (see e.g. Bhatt et al. 2010 and Nazé et al. 2011). An overview of the most important parameters can be found in table \[spec\_par\].
Spectral Analysis with *Chandra*
--------------------------------
[HD 164816]{} has been in the field of view of six *Chandra* observations of which we unfortunately had to exclude two as the high energy transmission grating (HETG) was in place and [HD 164816]{} thus not covered by the active part of the detector. The remaining four observations (ObsIDs 977, 3754, 4397, 4444; see table \[X\_obs\]) taken by the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer in Imaging mode (ACIS-I) have been reprocessed individually, as follows. First we extracted events in a circular region around [HD 164816]{} with a radius of 10 arcsec for each observation and as there are neither any fringes nor any other signs for an elevated background present we arbitrarily chose one background field per observation with a radius of 20 arcsec in a source free region in close proximity to [HD 164816]{}. We chose a somewhat bigger extraction region for the background as the background level of *Chandra* observations is in general very low.\
Response and Anxilary files have been created afterwards for source and background regions each by using the CIAO (version 4.2) tools MKRMF and MKARF. As we noticed that the source counts are low in the single observations we inspected the effective area of each observation and found the differences for ObsIDs 3754, 4397 and 4444 to be indistinguishable and hence combined these three event files. However for ObsID 977 we find the effective area to be significantly smaller and thus did not include this observation. Coadding the remaining three observations lead to a total effective exposure time of $\sim$172 ks with 1203 counts available for [HD 164816]{} and thus having slightly higher statistics compared to the *XMM* observation.\
For the following spectral analysis we applied the same methods and constraints as to the *XMM PN* observation but we used the C-statistic instead of $\chi^{2}$ in that case. As a best fit blackbody temperature we get 49.85$^{+1.29}_{-8.75}$ eV with $C$ = 168.77 for 109 d.o.f. in the energy range of 0.3-2.0 keV (see Fig.\[hd\_xmm\_spec\] right panel), as the ACIS-I detector is only calibrated from 0.3 to 11.0 keV. Comparing the MEKAL plasma temperature and both absorption components obtained from the *Chandra* data with the values from *XMM PN* data we note that they are in agreement. This is also true for the values of the MEKAL plasma temperature in the Rauw et al. 2002 analysis. The computed absorbed and unabsorbed flux are 1.19$\times$10$^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ and 2.19$\times$10$^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ respectively. Computing the radius of the emitting area 864$\pm$136 pc we end up with R$_{emit}$ = 7.07$\pm$1.11 km which is consistent with the value derived from the XMM fit. By using the MEKAL normalization factor we find the EM in the range 3.76$\pm$0.09$\times$10$^{54}$ cm$^{-3}$, which is similar to the XMM data.\
We summarize our X-ray results in Table \[spec\_par\].
[lccccccc]{} Model $^{a}$ & $\chi^{2}$ / $C-$stat & D.O.F. & interstellar $n_{H}$ / systemic $n_{H}$ & $kT_{MEKAL}$ & $kT_{BB}$ & $R_{emit}$ & $f_{X}$ (0.2-2.0 keV)\
& & & ($10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) & (eV) & (eV) & (km) & ($10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$)\
& & & *XMM-Newton* & (0.2 - 2.0 keV) &\
\
abs\*MEKAL & $\chi^{2}=53.30$ & 34 & $0.35^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $237.81^{+19.61}_{-11.48}$ & — & — & $7.90$\
\
abs(BB+ abs\*MEKAL) & $\chi^{2}=32.84$ & 31 & $0.08^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$ / $0.32^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ & $237.81^{+23.44}_{-19.68}$ &$48.79^{+4.01}_{-8.65}$ & 7.14$\pm$1.12 & $2.89$\
\
Model $^{a}$ & $\chi^{2}$ / $C-$stat & D.O.F. & interstellar $n_{H}$ / systemic $n_{H}$ & $kT_{MEKAL}$ & $kT_{BB}$ & $R_{emit}$ &$f_{X}$ (0.3-2.0 keV)\
& & & ($10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) & (eV) & (eV) & (km) & ($10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$)\
& & & *Chandra* & (0.3 - 2.0 keV) &\
\
abs\*MEKAL & 184.68 & 112 & $0.39^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ & $227.70^{+10.40}_{-5.06}$ & — & — & $1.01$\
\
abs(BB+ abs\*MEKAL) & 168.77 & 109 & $0.09^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ / $0.28^{+0.09}_{-0.16}$ & $238.90^{+12.52}_{-10.77}$ & $49.85^{+12.92}_{-9.56}$ & 7.07$\pm1.11$ & $2.19$\
\
$^{a}$ [BB = blackbody; MEKAL = hot diffuse gas model based on Mewe et al. 1985, 1986, Kaastra 1992 and Liedahl et al. 1995 ]{}\
\[spec\_par\]
X-ray pulsation search with *XMM Newton*
----------------------------------------
We performed a periodicity search at the position of [2XMM J180356.8-241845]{}. For performing the pulsation search only the *XMM Newton* observation has been reprocessed as the *EPIC PN* detector was used which is the only available instrument for this source with a sufficiently short readout time (73 ms in that configuration). In particular there are 1284 arrival times in this set that have been searched for a periodic signal by means of the bayesian approach developed by Gregory & Loredo 1992 for the detection of a signal with unknown shape. Applying this method leads to a detection of a signal at 9.7804$^{+0.0007}_{-0.0003}$ s (see Fig.\[bay\_per\]) with a probability that the data favor a periodic model over a constant model to be 0.56. This resulting period could afterwards be reproduced by applying the Z$_{m}^{2}$ test with m being the number of harmonics (Buccheri et al. 1983) in the period range 1 to 10s with a stepsize equal to the independent fourier spacing (IFS) i.e. 1/T$_{span}$. This number of harmonics has been optimized by using the H-Test (De Jager, Swanepoel & Raubenheimer 1989) and was found to be maximized for m=1. The resulting Z$_{1}^{2}$ value is equal to 22.67 at a period of 9.7813$^{+0.0005}_{-0.0007}$ s with the number of expected peaks exceeding that Z value to be 5.25$\times$10$^{-6}$. The given errors are 1 $\sigma$ errors. Finally a pulsation search with a method based on the cash statistic (Cash 1979) as described in Zane et al. (2002) has been applied to the arrival times and could determine the period to be 9.78$\pm 0.06$ s (again in the range 1 to 10s and using the IFS). The errors are again at the 1 $\sigma$ level.\
![Here we show the periodogram of the detected $\sim$9.78 s pulsation for the X-ray source identified with [HD 164816]{} found by the bayesian approach with *XMM Newton*.[]{data-label="bay_per"}](baye_hd164816_thick.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Hence, the period found by the bayesian method, being the proper choice for this kind of data as it uses an unbinned approach, is confirmed by the cash and Z$_{1}^{2}$-test. In addition we have created a simulated data set of equal length in exposure time with 1284 randomly distributed photons. Applying the Z$_{1}^{2}$-Test and the cash-test to that set of data lead to no detection at $\sim$9.78 s. Furthermore the most likely periods found by those two tests in the faked data set are not in accordance (P$_{Z_{1}^{2}}\sim$5.15 s and P$_{cash}\sim$1.12 s).\
The CXC ACIS-I data sets although improving the number of source photons have not been used for timing analysis as the ACIS frame time is $\sim$3.24 s and thus too long to significantly detect such a period.\
![In this figure we show the phase-folded light curve for the X-ray source in the energy range 0.2-2.0 keV folded into the resulting best period of 9.78 s resulting from *XMM Newton* data. For clarification we show two full cycles with a binning of 0.1.[]{data-label="compact_ltcrv"}](HD164816_compact_0_2_2_0keV_phasefold_9_78s_0_1_new.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
The phase-folded X-ray light curve for [2XMM J180356.8-241845]{} in the energy range 0.2-2.0 keV has a pulsed fraction of 60.4$\pm$15.4 % (c.f. Fig.\[compact\_ltcrv\]). As a final step we extracted arrival times for the brightest X-ray source in the field of view (i.e. the O4 star 9 Sgr) in the energy range 0.2-2.0 keV which results in 18769 counts. We folded the created light curve with the obtained period which results in a constant non-periodic signal. This is likewise true for the extracted background region, again in the energy range 0.2-2.0 keV. Considering this non-periodic signal of the background and of 9 Sgr, we conclude that the observed period in [HD 164816]{} is not due to some background modulations caused for example by the readout time or multiples of it.\
Both the soft excess and the $\sim$10 s pulsation would be typical for a NS in the system assuming that it will not be interacting with its host star and can hence be treated as effectively isolated (see Haberl 2007 for typical periods of thermally emitting isolated NS), namely $\sim$3 to $\sim$11 s.
Orbital parameters of [HD 164816]{}
===================================
Optical data analysis
---------------------
Optical échelle spectroscopy of [HD 164816]{} has been obtained at two observatories in Chile: the Cerro Armazones Observatory (OCA, about 20 km east of the Paranal Observatory) and at the Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory (CTIO).\
Optical spectroscopy at the OCA was secured using the Bochum Echelle Spectrographic Observer (BESO) fiber-fed from the focus of the 1.5m Hexapod Telescope (see Fuhrmann et al. 2011). Fifteen spectra were obtained between 2009-04-21 and 2010-03-28 covering the wavelength range of 3530 - 8860 Å with a spectral resolution of $R$ = 50000 (Fuhrmann et al. 2011) (see Table \[journal.tab\]). The data were reduced using dedicated scripts written under MIDAS. The reduction includes overscan, bias and flatfield correction; individual échelle orders were extracted, wavelength calibrated and normalized to the continuum. Finally, cosmic spikes have been removed. The cleaning was complicated by the fact that most He and H lines contain narrow (and variable) emission features. Moreover, for each night there is just one exposure. Wavelength calibration has been improved using telluric bands close to 6900 and 7600 Å and the spectrum of $\eta$ CMa as a template. The improved radial-velocity system is stable to about 100 m/s. The zero point of the radial-velocity system was checked by measuring the IAU standard star HIP 910, which is a slow rotator, in 6 nights. The average radial-velocity is 14.16$\pm$0.13 km/s which is in good agreement with 14.4$\pm$0.9 km/s found by Evans (1967).\
Optical spectra at the CTIO were obtained using the high dispersion optical Blanco échelle spectrograph fiber-fed from the 1.5m SMARTS telescope. Fourteen spectra taken between 2010-07-25 and 2010-09-14 cover the range from 4820 - 7120 Å (see Table \[journal.tab\]). The $R\approx$20000 spectra were extracted using software written in IDL [^5]. The orders are traced using the cross-dispersed flat images. The spectrum is extracted using a boxcar extraction, as is the flat spectrum. The spectrum is then divided by the extracted flat spectra. In general we obtained 3 spectra at each epoch. These are scaled, median-filtered to reject cosmic rays, and summed. Wavelength calibration is based on a Th-Ar calibration lamp exposure taken just prior to each stellar observation. The zero-point of the wavelength scale is uncalibrated at the level of 1 pixel (3 km/s). No attempt has been made to convert to a flux intensity scale.
--------------- ------------ --------- ----------------- ------------ ---------
Spectrum HJD Exp. Spectrum HJD Exp.
2400000+ \[sec\] 2400000+ \[sec\]
OCA\_20090414 54936.8391 1800 OCA\_20100328 55284.8365 1500
OCA\_20090421 54943.8225 1800 CTIO\_20100725 55403.7934 200
OCA\_20090508 54960.8685 1800 CTIO\_20100728 55406.7316 300
OCA\_20090707 55020.8242 1800 CTIO\_20100731 55409.6988 300
OCA\_20091010 55115.5480 1800 CTIO\_20100804 55413.6327 300
OCA\_20091018 55123.5011 1800 CTIO\_20100805a 55414.6293 300
OCA\_20091020 55125.5094 1800 CTIO\_20100805b 55414.7672 300
OCA\_20091024 55129.5112 1800 CTIO\_20100812a 55421.6210 600
OCA\_20091025 55130.5172 1800 CTIO\_20100812b 55421.7031 600
OCA\_20091027 55132.5113 1800 CTIO\_20100820 55429.6515 400
OCA\_20100321 55277.9383 1500 CTIO\_20100904 55444.5716 600
OCA\_20100323 55279.9109 1500 CTIO\_20100907 55447.5156 600
OCA\_20100324 55280.8909 1500 CTIO\_20100908 55448.5887 600
OCA\_20100325 55281.8479 1500 CTIO\_20100909 55449.5630 600
OCA\_20100327 55283.8057 1500 CTIO\_20100914 55454.5746 600
--------------- ------------ --------- ----------------- ------------ ---------
: Journal of spectroscopic observations of [HD 164816]{} obtained at the CTIO and OCA observatories \[journal.tab\]
Although the zero point of the radial-velocity system is uncertain, there is very good agreement between the systemic (mass-center) velocity obtained separately from the individual datasets (OCA and CTIO data).\
Optical spectra of [HD 164816]{} do not contain many features (see Fig. \[whole\_spec\]): in addition to the interstellar lines there are only lines of the Balmer series and those of neutral and ionized helium and possibly faint lines of CII, CIII, Si IV, and O II. In the OCA data forbidden lines, e.g., \[OIII\] at 5006.84 Å, are also visible, most likely residual features from the M8 nebular emission remaining after the background subtraction. The Balmer series lines (and also some He I lines) show narrow and variable nebula emission lines always at the same wavelength (e.g. 5876 Å(see Fig. \[sb2\_changes\])).\
![Average spectrum of all OCA observations on HD 164816 with line identifications (I.S. stands for interstellar band/line)[]{data-label="whole_spec"}](whole_spec_new.pdf){width="9.5cm"}
Our new spectra confirm the binarity (Penny 1996, Howarth et al. 1997, Mason et al. 2009) of the system (see Fig. \[sb2\_changes\]). We extracted the Doppler information and determined the spectroscopic orbit[^6]; we used nine spectral regions centered at sufficiently strong He I/II lines ($\lambda\lambda$ 4024/4026, 4387, 4471, 4686, 4713, 4923, 5016, 5875, 6678 Å). The strong forbidden line \[OIII\] 5006.84 Å has been removed prior to the fitting (visible mainly in the OCA data).\
![The He I 5876 Å line profile changes with the orbital revolution of the binary while the interstellar neutral sodium doublet ($\lambda\lambda$ 5893, 5896Å) is not following the orbital revolution. The same holds for the narrow nebula emission at 5876 Å HeI, which is variable in strength but constant in wavelength, i.e. radial velocity. The dates of observations (in 2009) and orbital phases (counted from the periastron passage) are also shown.[]{data-label="sb2_changes"}](profile_changes_hei.pdf){width="9.5cm"}
The global modeling of the data included orbital parameters ($P$, $e$, $\omega$, $\rm{T_0}$, $V_0$, $K_{1,2}$), relative intensities ($I_{1,2}$) and projected rotational velocities of the components ($v_{1,2} \sin i$); see Table \[opt\_par\] for the individual parameters. Prior to the fit all emission seen in He lines has been cleaned “manually” in order to secure a proper determination of the radial-velocity. The fitted spectrum consisted of the sum of two appropriately broadened and Doppler shifted synthetic spectra for each orbital phase. Theoretical rotational profiles (see Gray, 1976) were computed assuming a linear limb darkening law and solid-body rotation. For $T_{eff}$ = 32500 K, $\log g$ = 4.00 \[log(cm s$^{-2}$)\] and the wavelength range of the modeled He lines the linear limb darkening coefficient is $0.20 < u < 0.28$ (see van Hamme, 1993). Because the shape of the rotational profile depends on the limb darkening only slightly, an average value of $u$ = 0.24 was used. The template high-resolution synthetic spectrum taken from the Pollux database [^7] corresponding to $T_{eff}$ = 32500 K, $\log g$ = 4.00 and solar metallicity provided a very good fit to the data. Synthetic spectra corresponding to higher temperatures showed helium lines being partially in emission. On the other hand, a synthetic spectrum corresponding to 30000 K resulted in smaller equivalent widths for the helium lines as observed. It is also possible that the helium abundance is higher than assumed in the synthetic spectra while the temperature is slightly lower. Previous determinations of the spectral type of HD164816 are mostly B0V (see e.g. Morris 1961). Our spectroscopy indicates O9V or O9.5V as the best estimates.\
In the first step we tried to find the approximate orbital period for the system using the full width at half maximum changes of the strong He I line at 5875 Å. The present set of 29 spectra spanning 17 months indicated only one possible orbital period, $P \sim 3.82$ days. First fitting experiments, however, showed it was impossible to satisfactorily fit all the data without the assumption of a fast apsidal motion. Hence we added $d\omega/dt$ to the parameter set with $\omega_0$ valid for the periastron passage $T_0$ (at an arbitrarily selected epoch of the binary).\
Because the long-term All-Sky Automated Survey (ASAS[^8]) light curve (Pojmanski, 1997 & 1998) does not show eclipses, a constant relative intensity of the components throughout orbital phases has been assumed. The best global fit to 29 spectra and 9/4 (OCA/CTIO) spectral regions resulted in (among other parameters) $P$ = 3.81932(39) days and $e$ = 0.232(16). The reduced $\chi^2$ = 1.394 indicates a small inconsistence of the model and the fitted spectra. The larger $\chi^2$ very probably arises from the simple assumption of spherical shapes for the components and also variations in the continuum rectification level.
[lcc]{} Parameter & &\
$P$ & \[days\] & 3.81932(39)\
$e$ & & 0.232(16)\
$\omega_0$ & \[rad\] & -0.97(7)\
$V_{\gamma}$ & \[km s$^{-1}$\] & -77.1(13)\
$K_1$ & \[km s$^{-1}$\] & 109.4(26)\
$K_2$ & \[km s$^{-1}$\] & 120.3(30)\
$T_0$ & \[HJD\] & 2455000.88(3)\
$d\omega/dt$ & \[rad/yr\] & 0.67(7)\
$U$ & \[yr\] & 9.4(11)\
$I_1$ & & 0.536(14)\
$v_1 \sin i$ & \[km s$^{-1}$\] & 85.4(28)\
$I_2$ & & 0.463(14)\
$v_2 \sin i$ & \[km s$^{-1}$\] & 79.9(32)\
$m_1 \sin^{3} i$ & \[M$_\odot$\] & 2.31(17)\
$m_2 \sin^{3} i$ & \[M$_\odot$\] & 2.10(16)\
$a \sin i$ & \[R$_\odot$\] & 16.8(2)\
$\chi^2_{\rm r}$ & & 1.394\
The resulting projected masses of the components $m_1 \sin^3 i$ = 2.31(17) M$_\odot$ and $m_2 \sin^{3} i$ = 2.10(16) M$_\odot$ indicate a low inclination angle for the system, which is supported by the lack of eclipses. The ZAMS mass of an O9.5V star (X = 0.70, Y = 0.28, Z = 0.02; see Claret 2004) is about 16 $M_\odot$; the ZAMS radius is about 5 R$_\odot$ (at the cluster age of 2.3 Myr (Prisinzano et al. 2005) the star would have a corresponding radius of about 5.6 R$_{\odot}$). Then the inclination angle would be 30 - 35. Assuming $i$ = 30and $a \sin i$ = 16.8(2) R$_{\odot}$ we get a semi-major axis of 33.6(4) $R_\odot$. In the case that the components are rotating synchronously (the synchronization time scale is usually two orders of magnitude shorter than circularization time scale; see e.g., Pan et al. 1998) their radii (using $v_{1,2} \sin i$) are then $R_1$ = 13.2 R$_\odot$ and $R_2$ = 12.1 R$_\odot$, indicating that both components already left the main sequence or that they are still rotating asynchronously (with rotation factors $F_{1,2} \sim 2$). Without knowledge of the inclination angle and in the view of possible asynchronous rotation of the components determination of the true radii and masses is also complicated.
Distance
--------
The individual distance towards HD 164816 was determined by Megier et al. (2009) from interstellar Ca II absorption to be $864 \pm 136$ pc, while the NGC 6530 cluster is at $1543 \pm 345$ pc (see Sect. 1). Since these two values are deviant by more than $1~\sigma$, we will discuss the distance of HD 164816 and whether it is or was a member of the NGC 6530 cluster.
Since the radii of the two O9.5 stars in HD 164816 could not be determined directly by us, we cannot compute the distance by the Stefan-Boltzmann law from temperature, radius, and luminosity. However, since the two stars are located close to the dwarf sequence (V), we can compute the distance modulus from the apparent magnitude of HD 164816 (corrected for both extinction and binarity) and the typical absolute magnitude of an O9.5V star.
The published magnitudes of HD 164816 are (all in mag from Simbad and references therein) U = 6.22, B = 7.09, V = 7.09, I$_{\rm C}$ = 6.99, J = 7.006, H = 8.053, and K = 7.072 (BV from Hipparcos, U from Reed et al. 2003, I Cousins from Rauw et al. 2002, JHK from 2MASS, Cutri et al. 2003), all having small errors of roughly $\pm 0.01$ mag for UBVI and $\pm 0.025$ mag for JHK.
Using the intrinsic UBVI$_{\rm C}$JHK colors of an O9.5V star according to Bessell et al. (1998) for temperatures of $31250 \pm 150$ K and $\log g = 5.0$ (for main sequence dwarfs), we can obtain the extinction by comparing the apparent and intrinsic colors; for the interstellar extinction law, we interpolate in each band according to Cardelli et al. 1989, Savage & Mathis 1979, and Rieke & Lebofsky 1985. Then, we obtain A$_{\rm V} = 1.10 \pm 0.05$ mag as interstellar extinction towards HD 164816.
For the total bolometric luminosity of an O9.5V star, we use the latest determination from Hohle et al. (2010) using Hipparcos distances and extinction corrections from Hipparcos BV and 2MASS JHK colors, all corrected for multiplicity, interpolating between O9V and B0V. For the bolometric correction, we use again Bessell et al. (1998) for temperatures of $31250 \pm 150$ K and $\log g = 5.0$ (for main sequence dwarfs), namely B.C.$_{\rm V}=3.025 \pm 0.085$ mag.
Then, we obtain as (main-sequence spectro-photometric) distance towards [HD 164816]{} the value $1030 \pm 230$ pc. This value is consistent with the value by Megier et al. (2009) from interstellar Ca II absorption being $864 \pm 136$ pc, Hence, our assumptions appear justified. For O9IV, O9V, B0IV and B0V stars, the values lie between $890 \pm 40$ pc and $1240 \pm 140$ pc, i.e. are consistent within the errors with the O9.5V case. In the case of the latter distance, the evidence for [HD 164816]{} to lie in front of the cluster, would be much weaker.
We conclude that [HD 164816]{} may lie up to a few hundred pc in front of the NGC 6530 cluster. However, we cannot exclude that the star is located inside or at the front of the cluster. The peculiar radial velocity (corrected for Galactic rotation and solar motion using a local standard of rest of $(u,v,w)_{\odot} = (10.4, 11.6, 6.1)$ km/s (Tetzlaff et al. 2011)) of HD 164816 is $v_{r,pec}=-80{.}7^{+5.0}_{-4.4}\,
\mathrm{km/s}$ whereas for NGC 6530 it is $v_{r,pec}=-7{.}9^{+3.5}_{-9.1}\,
\mathrm{km/s}$ (Kharchenko et al. 2005). Hence, HD 164816 appears to move towards us relative to the NGC 6530 cluster. The difference between the two velocities is $72.8 \pm 7.9$ km/s. While the radial velocity difference indicates that the star is now moving towards us relativ to the cluster, it can still be located inside or at the front edge of the cluster. If the system includes a neutron star born in a supernova, this supernova should have given the system a kick, which may have been the cause for the discrepant radial velocity. Given that the most massive and earliest star in this cluster (9 Sgr) has a spectral type of O4, the progenitor of the neutron star in HD 164816 has to have had an even earlier spectral type and, hence, had a life-time of below 3 Myr. Given that this is comparable to the cluster age (2.6 Myr), the presumable supernova should have happened very recently and the system HD 164816 therefore cannot be located much foreground to the cluster. The proper motion of HD 164816 actually agrees with the typical proper motion of the NGC 6530 cluster.
X-ray longterm variability
--------------------------
As we have discovered a $\sim$3.81 d orbital period we searched the available X-ray data sets mentioned in §2 for any longterm variability; in particular those are three *Chandra* and one *XMM-Newton* set.\
For this purpose we first derived the absorbed fluxes for *XMM-Newton* and *Chandra* observations (see §2.1 and §2.2) and plotted them vs the starting time of each observation taken from table \[X\_obs\]. As there is only very limited statistics in each of the three *Chandra* exposures, we merge them and use the starting time of the middle observation. As a result one can see that the fluxes are consistent within the error bars. We have as well investigated the longterm behavior of the individual *Chandra* count rates, which cannot be compared to the *XMM-Newton* count rate as their instrumental responses are different. We cannot find any variation in those count rates as well. Thus the merging of the datasets is justified. We hence cannot detect the $\sim$3.81 d orbital period in the available X-ray observations.
Radio and $\gamma$-ray observations
===================================
In order to get a complete view of the multiple system [HD 164816]{} we have searched as well for any significant detection in the available radio data catalogs. We could neither detect it in the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) Very Large Array (VLA) Sky Survey (NVSS) nor by the GTEE 35 MHz Radio survey carried out by the low frequency T-array near Gauribidanur, India. Some feature could be detected in the H I All-Sky survey, the CO galactic plane survey and the 4850 MHz Survey carried out by the Parks and Green Bank Radio observatories. Due to the rather large pixel scales of around one degree, 0.1 degree and 0.02 degree respectively we consider the detected feature unlikely to be associated with [HD 164816]{}. In addition [HD 164816]{} with a galactic latitude of $\sim$ -1 is lying quite close to the galactic plane and the detected radio emission is hence more likely to come from diffuse emission of interstellar gas.\
With the *FERMI* $\gamma$-ray telescope now in orbit we took as well data obtained by its *Large Area Telescope (LAT)* at the position of [HD 164816]{} into consideration. As the whole sky is monitored every six hours for a bit more than two years now we analyzed data taken over this whole range (from 2008 Aug 04 to 2010 Aug 09) in order to get the highest possible statistics. Events in the energy range from 600 MeV to 300 GeV have been chosen and have been filtered for galactic and extra galactic diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission. A likelihood analysis has been carried out afterwards which serves as a source detection since the photon statistics at the position of [HD 164816]{} are still very low. For this purpose spectral models for all sources in a ROI of ten degrees radius around [HD 164816]{} have been accounted for contribution and were modeled simultaneously. A super exponential cutoff powerlaw has been assumed for [HD 164816]{} which is typical for $\gamma$-ray emitting neutron stars (c.f. Trepl et al. 2010). Carrying out the likelihood analysis yielded no significant detection of the source.
Discussion
==========
The X-ray source associated with [HD 164816]{} shows X-ray pulsations at $\sim$ 9.78 s and in addition a soft X-ray excess with a blackbody temperature of $\sim$ 49 eV both consistent with a compact companion (NS) in the system. Further optical observations confirm that [HD 164816]{} is a spectroscopic binary consisting of two O9V or O9.5V stars that are in a tight orbit of $\sim$ 3.82 days.\
Accreting neutron stars and generally neutron stars in high-mass and supergiant X-ray binaries have in common that they emit at higher energies than 2 keV, but in the EPIC PN observation we did not detect any signal at above 2 keV, so that we can exclude an accreting pulsar as the source for the X-ray emission.\
All the aforementioned scenarios have in common that the NS is emitting non-thermal radiation that can be fitted by a powerlaw or Bremsstrahlung-model and is thought to occur from the accretion process (either Roche-lobe overflow or wind accretion). Constant mass accretion can in fact be ruled out in the case of [HD 164816]{} as the detected soft X-ray emission excess from [2XMM J180356.8-241845]{} can be described by a pure blackbody model which means we observe thermal emission from the NS surface itself. In addition, evolutionary considerations based on standard formulae (Lipunov 1992), demonstrate that the stage of accretion is improbable taking into account the spin period of the NS and the parameters of the binary. Without better knowledge about the separation of the NS from the O-stars it is impossible to make clearer statements, but at a few Myr the NS is either in the ejector, or in the propeller stage.\
The orbital separation between the compact companion and the binary system must be at least around 100 R$_{\odot}$ as empirical studies show that a tighter system is dynamically unstable unless the separation of the compact object from the binary center of masses is about three to five times larger than the semi-major axis of the binary system for an eccentricity of $\sim$ 0.2 (Moriwaki & Nakagawa 2002) i.e. $\geq$ 51 to 85 R$_{\odot}$ here. Therefore wind accretion is negligible as the orbital separation is large.\
The other possible nature of the compact companion to [HD 164816]{} might be a White Dwarf (WD) as the detected temperature of $\sim$ 50 eV (5.80$\times$10$^{5}$ K) would place the object in the somewhat overlapping region of WDs as Super-Soft X-ray sources (SSS) in Be/X-ray binaries (Kahabka et al. 2006) and thermally emitting NS.\
However as the typical age of a WD should be $\gtrsim$ 1 Gyr the accompanying O-stars with masses of around 18 M$_{\odot}$ and 20 M$_{\odot}$ respectively would have already evolved and exploded.\
The compact companion lying just by chance in the line of sight of [HD 164816]{} cannot be ruled out yet as the available *Chandra* observations are only spread by a few days (see Table \[X\_obs\]). This is too short to significantly detect any separation between the centroid of the soft and hard component of the X-ray spectrum.\
If this detection is a chance projection, then the most probable candidates are radio pulsars. The probability for chance alignment of a neutron star within the point spread function (PSF) of the X-ray source can be estimated as follows: Neutron stars can be detected as either X-ray, $\gamma$-ray or radio pulsars if they lie above the so-called dead-line in the P - $\dot{P}$ diagram; they reach this dead-line at an age of roughly 10 Myr (despite according to general cooling curves a NS may cool down to the temperature of $\sim$50 eV at the age of $\sim$5$\times$10$^{5}$yr); if there are $5 \times 10^{8}$ neutron stars in the Galaxy (at ages up to 12 Gyr), then there are roughly 3$\times$10$^5$ neutron stars detectable as either X-ray or radio pulsars ($\sim 2000$ of them are known). Then, given the PSF of the Chandra source (full width at half maximum $3.70 \pm 1.60$ arcsec) or the PSF of the XMM source (full width at half maximum $4.19 \pm 1.78$ arcsec) and the area of the whole sky, we obtain a probability for a chance alignment, between [HD 164816]{} and a NS of 5 to $7 \times 10^{-4}$. However, the direction of these *XMM* and *Chandra* pointings is not random, but towards an OB cluster, where the probability for a NS is higher: According to Hohle et al. (2010), the area on the sky where almost all SNe are expected (inside OB associations), is $35~\%$ of the total sky. The probability for chance alignment of a NS in the *XMM* and *Chandra* PSF is then 2 to $3 \times 10^{-4}$, still very low. Even if we restrict the estimate to the densest OB clusters close to the Galactic plane, the estimate would be less than one order of magnitude higher, so that the probability of chance alignment would still be below $1~\%$. Given that this estimate is very low, we have a large probability for the potential NS not to be a chance alignment, but to be related to HD 164816. This suggests that a NS is related to [HD 164816]{}.\
O stars are generally not known to have soft X-ray blackbody excesses. It has been shown by Nazé 2009 that those stars are in general emitting spectra that can be fitted best with single or multi component MEKAL models with temperatures starting at $\sim$0.2 keV.\
A scenario that involves colliding winds instead of a compact companion can be considered as well as [HD 164816]{} consists of a close binary. However such a model would require a Raymond-Smith thermal plasma with a temperature of kT $\sim$ 0.6 keV (Oskinova 2005) or a hard non-thermal X-ray component (De Becker et al. 2004). Taking a look at the MEKAL temperature of $\sim$ 0.2 keV in the case of [HD 164816]{} we note that it is almost a factor of three lower. In addition the spectrum is missing any component that can be fitted by a non-thermal model as the spectral counts from 2 keV on are consistent with zero. Hence, the NS does not appear to be accreting.\
As seen from §4 [HD 164816]{} is not significant at radio wavelengths; this might have implications for the colliding wind scenario (De Becker et al. 2004), but that is beyond the scope of this paper.\
Assuming a distance 864$\pm$136 pc we compute the X-ray luminosity to L$_{X}\sim$ 2.58$\times$10$^{31}$erg s$^{-1}$. Together with a bolometric luminosity for a O9.5V star from Hohle et al. (2010) this yields log(L$_{X}$/L$_{Bol}$) = -6.73 which is in agreement with the relation for O stars found by Berghöfer et al. (1997) (c.f. Fig. 4 therein). In the case of colliding winds this ratio should however be higher than the given value (see e.g. De Becker et al. 2004). It seems thus rather unlikely to get the low energy excess from colliding wind interaction. A similar conclusion was reached by Rauw et al. (2002), where they state that regarding the L$_{X}$/L$_{Bol}$ ratio no evidence for an increased value is found.\
Like Rauw et al. (2002) we find a higher than average interstellar absorption (see table \[spec\_par\]) which can be attributed to circumstellar or nebula material. This should result in strong suppression of the spectrum in the energy range 0.2 - 0.5 keV. In contrast to this we find an excess in that range on top of the absorption. Hence an additional source outside the region of circumstellar material responsible for that is highly probable. This is consistent with the earlier conclusion that the separation of the probable NS has to be at least 100 R$_{\odot}$.\
Emission line features in the X-ray spectrum as described in van der Meer et al. (2005) are not detected and as well not expected as such a phenomenon is only common in HMXBs and SGXBs. Those cases can be excluded as they both involve accretion processes which are not seen in our case.\
If there is a pulsating NS within the X-ray PSF and if this NS is not orbiting the O star of [HD 164816]{}, then it could be an isolated NS in the NGS 6530 cluster. A pulsation period of some 10s is not atypical for isolated young to intermediate-age NS - as e.g. the Magnificent Seven with pulsation periods of few to some 10s (see e.g. Haberl 2007).\
Conclusion
==========
We found peculiarities in the X-ray, optical, and kinematical data of HD 164816:
- There is a soft excess in the X-ray spectrum of both XMM and Chandra.
- The radius of the emitting (circular) area related to the soft excess would be $\sim$7 km.
- There is an indication of 9.78 s pulsation in the XMM data (not detectable with Chandra due to low timing resolution of the used ACIS-I detector ($\sim$3.24 s) and small count rate).
- If HD 184816 includes a neutron star born in a supernova, this supernova should have given the system a kick, which is consistent with the fact that the star HD 164816 has a significantly different radial velocity than the cluster mean.
All those four observational indications would be consistent with a compact object like a neutron star in the system orbiting the spectroscopic binary HD 164816 at a larger separation. A NS should have soft X-ray emission. A neutron star of few Myr age isolated from the other stars without accretion can have a period of few to 10 s (like the Magnificent Seven neutron stars). If there is a NS in the system, there should have been a supernova in the system before. Such a supernova could introduce a kick velocity to the neutron star born in the supernova. If the neutron star remained bound to the close spectroscopic binary, they would now all move away fast relative to their birth cluster.
We did not find any evidence for X-ray emission due to colliding winds. An accreting neutron star would show hard X-ray emission, which was not found. Hence, if there is a neutron star in the system it is effectively isolated (and non-accreting) from the O-type star.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
LT, VVH and MMH would like to thank the German *Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG* for financial support in project SFB TR 7 Gravitational Wave Astronomy.\
TP acknowledges support from the EU in the FP6 MC ToK project MTKD-CT-2006-042514 and Slovak Academy of Sciences grant VEGA 2/0094/11.\
NT acknowledges Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung for a scholarship.\
RC would like to thank the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste in the framework of the academy program by the Federal Republic of Germany and the state Nordrhein-Westfalen for support.\
All authors would like to thank the numerous observers from the Bochum team: L.-S. Buda, P. Bugeno, M. Dörr, H. Drass, V.H. Hoffmeister, I. Lingner and R. Watermann.\
Finally, we thank an anonymous referee for many good suggestions.
van den Ancker, M. E., Th$\acute{\rm{e}}$, P. S., Feinstein, A., et al. 1997, A&AS, 123, 63 Bhatt, Himali, Pandey, J.C., Kumar, Brijesh, Sagar, Ram, Singh, K. P., 2010, NewA, 15, 755 Berghöfer, T.W., Schmitt, J.H.M.M., Danner, R., Cassinelli, J.P., 1997, A&A, 322, 167 Bessel, M.S., Castelli, F., Plez, B., 1998, A&A, 333, 231 Bevington, P.R. 1969, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Science (New York: McGraw-Hill) Buccheri R., et al. 1983, A&A, 128, 245 Cardelli, J.A., Clayton, G.C., Mathis, J.S., 1989, ApJ, 345, 245 Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 229, 939 Camenzind, M. 2007, ’Compact Objects in Astrophysics’, Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-25770-7 Chen, L., de Grijs, R., Zhao, J.L., 2007, AJ, 134, 1368 Chini, R., Neckel, T., 1981, A&A, 102, 171 Claret, A. 2004, A&A, 424, 919 Cutri, R.M., Skrutskie, M.F., van Dyk, S., Beichman, C.A., Carpenter, J.M., and Chester, T., Cambresy, L., et. al, 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246, 0 Damiani, F., Prisinzano, L., Micela, G., Sciortino, S. 2006, A&A, 459, 477 De Becker, M., Rauw, G., Pittard, J.M., Antokhin, I.I., Stevens, I.R., Gosset, E., Owocki, S.P., 2004, A&A, 416, 221 Dias, W.S., Alessi, B.S., Moitinho, A., Lépine, J.R.D. 2002, A&A, 389, 871 Diplas, A, Savage, B.D., 1994, ApJS, 93, 211 Ebisawa, K., Rauch, T., Takei, D. 2010, AN, 331, No.2, 152 Evans, D.S., 1967, IAUS, 30, 57 Fuhrmann, K., Chini, R., Hoffmeister, V.H., Lemke, R., Murphy, M., Seifert, W., Stahl, O. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2311 Gaensicke, B.T. 2004, preprint (arXiv:0410412v1) Gray, D. F., 1976, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres (New York: Wiley) Gregory, P. C., Loredo, T.J. 1992, ApJ, 398, 146 de Jager, O.C., Swanepoel, J.W.H., Raubenheimer B.C. 1989, A&A, 221, 180 Haberl, F., 2007, Ap&SS, 308, 181 van Hamme, W. 1993, AJ 106, 2096 Hohle, M. M., Neuhäuser, R., Schutz, B. F., 2010, AN, 331, 349 Hohle, M. M., Haberl, F., Vink, J., de Vries, C.P., Neuhäuser, R., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1525 Howarth, I.D., Siebert, K.W., Hussain, G.A.J., Prinja, R.K., 1997, MNRAS, 284, 265 Kahabka, P., Haberl, F., Payne, J.L., Filipovi$\acute{\rm{c}}$, M.D., 2006, A&A, 458, 285 Kargaltsev, O.Y., Pavlov, G.G., Zavlin, V.E., Romani, R.W., 2005, ApJ, 625, 307 Kaplan, D.L., Kamble, A., van Kerkwijk, M.H.; Ho, W.C.G., 2011, ApJ, 736, 117 Kastra, J.S. 1992, An X-ray spectral code for optically thin plasmas, Internal SRON-Leiden Report Kharchenko, N.V., Piskunov, A.E., Röser, S., Schilbach, E., Scholz, R.-D., 2005, A&A, 438, 1163 Kuranov, A.G., Popov, S.B., Postnov, K.A., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2087 Langmeier, A., Sztajno, M., Trümper, J., Hasinger, G., 1985, SSRv, 40, 36 Liedahl, D.A., Osterheld, A.L., Goldstein, W.H., 1995, ApJ, 438, 115 Lipunov, V.M, 1992 Astrophysics of neutron stars (Springer-Verlag) Loktin, A.V., Beshenov, G.V., 2001, AstL, 27, 386 Mason, B.D., Hartkopf, W.I., Gies, D.R., Henry, T.J., Helsel, J.W., 2009, AJ, 137, 3358 van der Meer, A., Kaper, L., Di Salvo, T., Méndez, M., van der Klis, M., Barr, P., Trams, N.R., 2005, A&A, 432, 999 Megier, A., Strobel, A., Galazutdinov, G.A., Krelowski, J., 2009, A&A 507, 833 Mewe, R., Gronenschild, E.H.B.M., van den Oord, G.H.J. 1985, A&AS, 62, 197 Moriwaki, K., Nakagawa, Y. 2002, AJ, 124, 3364 Morris, P.M., 1961, MNRAS, 122, 325 Narayan, R. & Ostriker, J.P.,1990, ApJ, 352, 222 Nazé, Y., 2009, A&A, 506, 1055 Nazé, Y., Broos, P.S., Oskinova, L., Townsley, L.K., Cohen, D., Corcoran, M.F., Evans, N.R., Gagné, M., Moffat, A.F.J., Pittard, J.M., Rauw, G., ud-Doula, A., Walborn, N.R., 2011, ApJS, 194, 7 Pan, K., Tan, H., Shan, H. 1998, A&A, 335, 179 Penny, L.R, 1996, ApJ, 463, 737 Philp, C.J., Evans, C.R., Leonard, P.J.T., Frail, D.A., 1996, AJ, 111, 1220 Pires, A.M., Motch, C., Turolla, R., Treves, A., Popov, S.B., 2009, A&A, 498, 233 Pojmanski, G., 1997, Acta Astronomica, 47, 467 Pojmanski, G., 1998, Acta Astronomica, 48, 35 Posselt, B., Popov, S.B., Haberl, F., Trümper, J., Turolla, R., Neuhäuser, R., 2008, A&A, 482, 617 Popov, S.B., Pons, J.A., Miralles, J.A., Boldin, P.A., Posselt, B., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2675 Porter, T.A. 2009, preprint (arXiv:0907.0294) Prisinzano, L., Damiani, F., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., 2005, A&A, 430, 941 Ramsay, G., Rosen, S., Hakala, P., Barklay, T. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 416 Rauw, G., Nazé, Y., Gosset, E., Stevens, I. R., Blomme, R., Corcoran, M. F., Pittard, J. M., Runacres, M. C. 2002, A&A, 395, 499 Reed, B.C., 2003, AJ, 125, 2531 Reig, P. Słowikowska, A., Zezas, A., Blay, P. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 55 Rieke, G.H., Lebofsky, M.J., 1985, ApJ, 288, 618 Roeser, S., Bastian, U. 1988, A&AS, 74, 449 Rutledge, R., Bildsten, L., Brown, E.F., Chakrabarty, D., Pavlov, G.G., Zavlin, V.E. 2007, ApJ, 658, 514 Savage, B.D., Mathis, J.S., 1979, ARA&A, 17, 73 Sayer, R.W., Nice, D.J., Kaspi, V.M., 1996, ApJ, 461, 357 Steiner, I., Seifert, W., Stahl, O., Lemke, R., Chini, R., Appenzeller, I., 2006, in “Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy” McLean, I.S., Iye, M., Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 6269, pp. 62692W, 91 Steiner, I., Stahl, O., Seifert, W., Chini, R., Quirrenbach, A. 2008, in “Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II.”, McLean, I.S. and Casali, M.M., Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 7014, pp. 70144H-70144H-6 Tetzlaff, N., Neuhäuser, R., Hohle, M.M., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 190 Trepl, L., Hui, C.Y., Cheng, K.S., Takata, J., Wang, Y., Liu, Z.Y., Wang, N. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1339 Walker, M.F., 1957, ApJ, 125, 636 Walter, F.M., Wolk, S.J., Neuhäuser, R., 1996, Nature, 379, 233 Walter, F.M., Eisenbeiss, T., Lattimer, J.M., Kim, B., Hambaryan, V., Neuhäuser, R., 2010, ApJ, 724, 669 Wislon, R.E., 1953, Carnegie Institute Washington D.C. Publication, pp 0-+ Zane, S., Haberl, F., Cropper, M., Zavlin, V. E., Lumb, D., Sembay, S., Motch, C. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 345
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Please see document XMM-SOC-CAL-TN-0068 on http://xmm2.esac.esa.int/external/xmm\_sw\_cal/calib/documentation/index.shtml for reference
[^4]: Please see the most recent *Chandra* proposers guide, vers 14.0 December 2011 for reference
[^5]: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/SMARTS/ech\_proc.txt
[^6]: In the case of the CTIO spectra only 4923 Å, 5016 Å, 5875 Å, 6678 Å lines were covered
[^7]: http://pollux.graal.univ-montp2.fr/
[^8]: Please refer to http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/asas/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In some recent experiments the distinction between synthetic magnetic monopoles and Dirac monopoles has been blurred. A case in point is the work in a letter by Ray [*et al.*]{} in which a beautiful experiment is reported but claims with regard to Dirac monopoles are misleading.'
author:
- 'Carl M. Bender$^1$, Maarten DeKieviet$^2$, and K. A. Milton$^3$'
title: Synthetic versus Dirac monopoles
---
&pdflatex
A recent letter by Ray [*et al.*]{} [@R1] reports a nice experiment in which from measured projected number densities the authors deduce what they call a “synthetic magnetic field.” However, nothing in the experiment implies the quantization of charge and thus the letter has no bearing on the Dirac monopole. The wording in this letter is misleading; from a casual reading of the letter one might come to the conclusion that the authors have actually found experimental evidence for a Dirac monopole. In fact, the reported experiment bears no serious relation to Dirac magnetic monopoles, whose necessary attributes are described in detail in Ref. [@R2]. There is no essential gauge freedom, no charge quantization, and no invisible Dirac string. A Dirac string is a pure gauge phenomenon and its spatial location can be changed by a gauge transformation. Its location cannot be observed in any experiment. In contrast, in the reported experiment there is a very visible vortex line, which is a topological singularity in the sense that encircling it is associated with a phase of $2\pi$. The interpretation of this phase is simply that it a Berry phase, as discussed in detail nearly 30 years ago [@R3]. The term [*Berry phase*]{} is not mentioned anywhere in the letter.
The physical observables discussed in the letter are the superfluid velocity $\mathbf{v}_s$ and the vorticity $\bm{\Omega}=\bm{\nabla}\times\mathbf{v}_s$. Dropping the primes used in the letter, the explicit forms for these quantities for a vortex line starting at the origin and extending along the $z$ axis are $$\mathbf{v}_s=\frac\hbar{Mr}\cot\frac\theta2 \hat{\bm\phi},\quad
\bm{\Omega}=-\frac\hbar{M}\left[\frac{\hat{\mathbf{r}}}{r^2}-\mathbf{f^*(r)}
\right].
\label{E1}$$ Here the vortex line is described by $$\mathbf{f^*(r)}=4\pi \delta(x)\delta(y)\theta(z)\hat{\mathbf{z}}.
\label{E2}$$ Because $\bm{\nabla}\cdot\mathbf{f^*}=4\pi\delta({\mathbf{r}})$, it is indeed true that $\bm{\nabla}\cdot\bm{\Omega}=0$. The content of the theoretical analysis of the letter now seems to be the statement that $$\bm{\Omega}=-\frac\hbar{M}(\mathbf{B^*-f^*}),\quad\bm{\nabla}\times\mathbf{v}_s
=-\frac\hbar{M}\bm{\nabla}\times \mathbf{A}^*,
\label{E3}$$ where $\mathbf{B}^*=\mathbf{\hat r}/r^2$, or that $$\mathbf{B}^*=\bm{\nabla}\times\mathbf{A}^*+\mathbf{f^*}.
\label{E4}$$ This indeed looks like the well-known equation relating the magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ of a unit point magnetic monopole at the origin to the gauge potential $\mathbf{A}$ and the associated singular string function $\mathbf{f}$ [@R2]. However, this appearance is only formal. We can perform gauge transformations on $\mathbf{A}^*$ but we cannot change $\mathbf{f}^*$ because it refers to the location of the superfluid vortex line.
The transformations made in the supplementary information (19)–(21) of Ref. [@R1] are not permissible without changing the string function: [*The magnetic field of a magnetic monopole is not simply the curl of a vector potential.*]{} Since the “string” $\mathbf{f}^*$ here is a physical vortex line, such a transformation is impossible. Because $$\mathbf{A(r)}=\bm{\nabla}\lambda(\mathbf{r})-\frac1{4\pi}\int(d\mathbf{r'})
\mathbf{f(r-r')\times B(r')},\quad \lambda(\mathbf{r})=\frac1{4\pi}
\int(d\mathbf{r'})\mathbf{f(r-r')\cdot A(r')},
\label{E5}$$ $\mathbf{A}$ is determined (up to a gradient) by specifying $\mathbf{f}$; thus, with $\mathbf{f=f}^*$ in (\[E2\]), the form for the vector potential given by (\[E1\]) does not possess any essential gauge freedom. That is, a transformation $\mathbf{A}\to\mathbf{A}+\bm{\nabla}\lambda$ is permitted, but the string cannot be rotated. In particular, the curl of the singular vector potential $\tilde{\mathbf{A}}$ given in the letter’s supplemental information (19) cannot be equal to $\mathbf{B}^*$, because if it were, even in the distributional sense, then we would obtain the result $$\int_S d\mathbf{S}\cdot \mathbf{B}^*=\oint_{\partial S}d\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{
\tilde{A}(r)}.
\label{E6}$$ This equation cannot be true because if the surface $S$ were a boundary-free spherical surface about the origin, the right side would be $4\pi$ while the left side would vanish. Even if it were true that $\mathbf{B}^*=\bm{\nabla}
\times\tilde{\mathbf{A}}$, the physical vortex line $\mathbf{f}^*$ in (\[E4\]) would still remain. Another reason why it is not true is that there is an additional singularity, apparently unrecognized by the authors of Ref. [@R1], which arises because the vector potential must be a single-valued function. The string singularity is a necessary attribute of a Dirac monopole, and no gauge transformation can “annihilate” it.
Moreover, a Dirac magnetic monopole is physically realizable in quantum mechanics only because of the Dirac quantization condition between electric and magnetic charge $e$ and $g$, $eg=n\hbar c$ (unrationalized units), where $n$ is an integer or an integer plus one-half. (It is precisely this condition that makes the Dirac string invisible.) No analog of either electric or magnetic charge appears in the analysis in the letter.
The work of CMB is supported in part by the US Department of Energy and that of KAM by the Simons Foundation and the CNRS. KAM thanks Steve Fulling for discussions.
[9]{} Ray, M. W., Ruokokoski, E., Kandel, S., Möttönen, M., and Hall, D. S. Observation of Dirac monopoles in a synthetic magnetic field. Nature [**505**]{}, 657–660 (2014). Milton, K. A. Theoretical and experimental status of magnetic monopoles. Rep. Prog. Phys. [**69**]{}, 1637–1711 (2006). M. Stone, Born-Oppenheimer approximation and the origin of Wess-Zumino terms: Some quantum-mechanical examples. Phys. Rev. D [**33**]{}, 1191–1194 (1986).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we investigate the weak-type regularity of the Bergman projection. The two domains we focus on are the polydisc and the Hartogs triangle.
For the polydisc we provide a proof that the weak-type behavior is of “$L\log L$” type. This result is likely known to the experts, but does not appear to be in the literature.
For the Hartogs triangle we show that the operator is of weak-type $(4,4)$; settling the question of the behavior of the projection at this endpoint. At the other endpoint of interest, we show that the Bergman projection is *not* of weak-type $(\frac{4}{3}, \frac{4}{3})$ and provide evidence as to what the correct behavior at this endpoint might be.
[**AMS Classification Numbers**]{}: 32A07, 32A25, 32A36
[**Key Words**]{}: Bergman projection, Bergman kernel, weak-type estimate, polydisc, Hartogs triangle
address:
- 'Zhenghui Huo, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606-3390, USA'
- 'Brett D. Wick, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA'
author:
- 'Zhenghui Huo and Brett D. Wick'
bibliography:
- '2.bib'
title: 'Weak-type estimates for the Bergman projection on the polydisc and the Hartogs triangle'
---
[^1]
\[section\] \[thm\][Claim]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Example]{} \[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Remark]{}
Introduction
============
Let $\Omega\subseteq \mathbb C^n$ be a bounded domain. Let $L^2(\Omega)$ denote the space of square-integrable functions with respect to the Lebesgue measure $dV$ on $\Omega$. Let $A^2(\Omega)$ denote the subspace of square-integrable holomorphic functions. The Bergman projection $P$ is the orthogonal projection from $L^2(\Omega)$ onto $A^2(\Omega)$. Associated with $P$, there is a unique function $K_\Omega$ on $\Omega\times\Omega$ such that for any $f\in L^2(\Omega)$: $$P(f)(z)=\int_{\Omega}K_\Omega(z;\bar w)f(w)dV(w).$$ Let $P^+$ denote the absolute Bergman projection defined by: $$P^+(f)(z)=\int_{\Omega}|K_\Omega(z;\bar w)|f(w)dV(w).$$ Mapping properties of $P$ have been an object of considerable interest for many years. By its definition, the Bergman projection is a $L^2$ bounded operator. It is natural to consider the regularity of $P$ in other settings. Using known estimates for the Bergman kernel, $L^p$ regularity results have been obtained in various settings. See [@Fefferman; @PS; @McNeal1; @McNeal3; @NRSW; @McNeal3; @McNeal2; @MS; @CD; @EL; @BS; @Zhenghui2]. In all these results, the domain needs to satisfy certain nice boundary conditions. On some other domains, the projection has only a finite range of mapping regularity. See for example [@KP; @BS; @Yunus; @DebrajY; @EM; @EM2; @CHEN] for recent progress along this line.
Among the results mentioned above, there are mainly two techniques adopted. One is to use the Schur’s test (see for example [@Zhu]), where boundedness can be deduced from analyzing the behavior of the absolute Bergman projection on a certain test function $h$. In many cases, one can choose $h$ to be the distance function to the boundary of the domain $\Omega$ or the Bergman kernel on the diagonal. The second approach is to show that the (absolute) Bergman projection satisfies certain weak-type estimate. For example, if the projection is of weak-type $(1,1)$, then its $L^2$ regularity together with interpolation theorem implies the $L^p$ regularity for $1<p\leq 2$. Since the Bergman projection is self-adjoint, $L^p$ regularity for $1<p\leq 2$ yields $L^p$ regularity for $1<p<\infty$.
While both techniques are powerful tools on obtaining $L^p$ regularity results, the Schur’s test is unable to tell the weak-type regularity of the operator near the endpoint of its $L^p$ range. In this paper, we choose the polydisc and the Hartogs triangle as two classical examples and investigate the weak-type regularity of the Bergman projection on them.
The polydisc serves as a simple example where the Bergman kernel function is of a product form. It is well known that the weak-type behavior of the classical operators in the multi-parameter setting could be very different from the one-parameter case. For instance, the double Hilbert transform $H_1H_2$ on $\mathbb R^2$ and the Hilbert transform $H$ on $\mathbb R$ behave differently near $L^1$: $H$ is of weak-type (1,1) while $H_1H_2$ is of weak-type $L\log^+L$. See for example [@Fefferman72]. By the same reason, one should expect the weak-type regularity of the Bergman projection on $\mathbb D^n$ to be different from the Bergman projection on $\mathbb D$.
The Hartogs triangle $\mathbb H$, on the other hand, is a classical model where the projection has only limited $L^p$ regularity. It was shown by Chakrabarti and Zeytuncu in [@DebrajY] that the Bergman projection on the Hartogs triangle is $L^p$-regular if and only if $\frac{4}{3}<p<4$. Since the Hartogs triangle is biholomorphically equivalent to $\mathbb D\times \mathbb D\backslash\{0\}$, the $L^p$ boundedness of the Bergman projection on $\mathbb H$ can also be related to the regularity of the projection on the weighted space $L^p(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{2-p})$. From this perspective, both the product structure of $\mathbb D^2$ and the weight $|z_2|^{2-p}$ may affect the weak-type regularity of the projection near $L^{\frac{4}{3}}$ and $L^4$.
We summarize our results about the Bergman projection $P$ as follows:
1. On the bidisc, $P$ is not of weak-type (1,1). (Theorem 3.1)
2. On the polydisc $\mathbb D^n$, $P$ is of weak-type $L(\log^+L)^{n-1}$. (Theorem 3.7)
3. On the Hartogs triangle $\mathbb H$, $P$ is *not* of weak-type $({4}/{3},{4}/{3})$. (Theorem 4.1)
4. On the Hartogs triangle $\mathbb H$, $P$ is of weak-type $(4,4)$. (Theorem 4.2)
5. For any $\epsilon>0$, $P$ on $\mathbb H$ is bounded from $L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb H,|z_2|^{-\epsilon})$ to $L^{\frac{4}{3},\infty}(\mathbb H)$. (Theorem 4.6)
Results (1) and (2) above are not surprising from a multi-parameter analysis perspective, and hence could be known to people. Since we couldn’t find them in the literature, we decide to put them here. As a consequence of Result (4), the projection $P$ is bounded from the Lorentz space $L^{4/3,1}(\mathbb H)$ to $L^{4/3}(\mathbb H)$. See Remark 4.4. Also, we provide refinements of Result (5). See Theorems 4.7 and 4.9.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we recall the definition of the Hartogs triangle and provide lemmas that will be used in the paper. In Section 3, we consider weak-type estimates for the Bergman projection on the bidsc and the polydisc. We give an example in the proof of Theorem 3.1 to show that the projection $P$ is not of weak-type (1,1). We show in Theorem 3.7 that $P$ on the polydisc $\mathbb D^n$ is of weak-type $L(\log^+L)^{n-1}$. In Section 4, we state and prove weak-type results for the Bergman projection on the Hartogs triangle.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $\mathbb D$ denote the unit disc in $\mathbb C$. The Bergman kernel on $\mathbb D$ is given by, $$K_{\mathbb D}(z;\bar w)=\frac{1}{\pi(1-z\bar w)^2}, \;\;\;\text{ for } z,w\in \mathbb D.$$ Since the Bergman kernel on the product domain $\Omega_1\times\Omega_2$ equals the product of the kernel functions on $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$, the Bergman kernel on the polydisc $\mathbb D^n$ is given by, $$K_{\mathbb D^n}(z;\bar w)=\prod_{j=1}^{n}\frac{1}{\pi(1-z_j\bar w_j)^2},\;\;\; \text{ for } z,w\in \mathbb D^n.$$ The Hartogs triangle $\mathbb H$ is defined by $\mathbb H=\{(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb C^2:|z_1|<|z_2|<1\}.$ Let $\mathbb D^*$ denote the punctured disc $\mathbb D\backslash \{0\}$. The mapping $(z_1,z_2)\mapsto (\frac{z_1}{z_2},z_2)$ is a biholomorphism from $\mathbb H$ onto $\mathbb D\times \mathbb D^*$. The biholomorphic transformation formula (see [@Krantz]) then implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{K}
K_{\mathbb H}(z_1,z_2;\bar w_1,\bar w_2)&=\frac{1}{z_2\bar w_2}K_{\mathbb D\times\mathbb D^*}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2},z_2;\frac{\bar w_1}{\bar w_2},\bar w_2\right)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{z_2\bar w_2}K_{\mathbb D\times\mathbb D}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2},z_2;\frac{\bar w_1}{\bar w_2},\bar w_2\right)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\pi^2z_2\bar w_2(1-\frac{z_1\bar w_1}{z_2 \bar w_2})^2(1-z_2\bar w_2)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The second equality sign above holds since $A^2(\mathbb D\times\mathbb D^*)$ and $A^2(\mathbb D^2)$ are identical.
Given functions of several variables $f$ and $g$, we use $f\lesssim g$ to denote that $f\leq Cg$ for a constant $C$. If $f\lesssim g$ and $g\lesssim f$, then we say $f$ is comparable to $g$ and write $f\approx g$. We reference below the Forelli-Rudin estimate. See for example [@Zhu] for its proof.
\[lemma2.1\] Let $\sigma$ denote Lebesgue measure on the unit circle $\mathbb S^1\subset\mathbb C$. For $\epsilon<1$ and $w\in\mathbb D$, let $$\label{**}
a_{\epsilon,\delta}(w)=\int_{\mathbb D}\frac{(1-|\eta|^2)^{-\epsilon}}{|1-w\bar\eta |^{2-\epsilon-\delta}}dV(\eta),$$ and let $$\label{ }
b_\delta(w)=\int_{\mathbb S^1}\frac{1}{|1-w\bar\eta|^{1-\delta}}d\sigma(\eta).$$ Then
1. for $\delta>0$, both $a_{\epsilon,\delta}$ and $b_{\delta}$ are bounded on $\mathbb D$;
2. for $\delta=0$, both $a_{\epsilon,\delta}(w)$ and $b_{\delta}(w)$ are comparable to the function $-\log(1-|w|^2)$;
3. for $\delta<0$, both $a_{\epsilon,\delta}(w)$ and $b_{\delta}(w)$ are comparable to the function $(1-|w|^2)^{\delta}$.
We also recall the weighted inequalities by Bekollé and Bonami in [@BB78] for $P$ and $P^+$ on the unit disk:
Let $T_z$ denote the Carleson tent over $z$ in $\mathbb D$ defined as below:
- $T_z:=\left\{w\in \mathbb D:\left|1-\bar w\frac{z}{|z|}\right|<1-|z|\right\}$ for $z\neq 0$, and
- $T_z:= \mathbb D$ for $z=0$.
Let the weight $\mu$ be a positive, locally integrable function on the $\mathbb D$. Let $1<p<\infty$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $P:L^p(\mathbb D,\mu)\mapsto L^p(\mathbb D,\mu)$ is bounded;
2. $P^+:L^p(\mathbb D,\mu)\mapsto L^p(\mathbb D,\mu)$ is bounded;
3. The Bekollé-Bonami constant $B_p(\mu)$ is finite where: $$B_p(\mu):=\sup_{z\in \mathbb D}\frac{\int_{T_z}\mu(w) dV(w)}{\int_{T_z}dV(w)}\left(\frac{\int_{T_z}\mu^{-\frac{1}{p-1}} (w)dV(w)}{\int_{T_z}dV(w)}\right)^{p-1}.$$
We end this section by recalling the definitions of the weak $L^p$ space, weak-type $(p,p)$, and the $L(\log^+L)^k$ space. Given a subset $U$ in the domain $\Omega$ and let $\mu$ be a measure on $\Omega$. We use the notation $\mu(U)$ to denote the $\mu$-measure of $U$. When $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure, we will simply write $|U|$.
Let $(X,\mu)$ be a measure space. For $0<p<\infty$, the weak $L^p$ space $L^{p,\infty}(X,\mu)$ is defined as the set of all $\mu$-measurable functions $f$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|_{L^{p,\infty}}=\inf\left\{C>0:\mu\{x\in X:|f(x)|>\lambda\}\leq\frac{C^p}{\lambda^p} \;\;\text{ for all } \lambda>0\right\}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$
Let $(X,\mu)$ and $(Y,\nu)$ be two measure spaces. Let $0<p<\infty$ and $0<q<\infty$. An operator $T$ that is said to be of weak-type $(p,q)$ if $T$ is bounded from $L^p(X,\mu)$ to $L^{q,\infty}(Y,\nu)$, i.e. for any $f\in L^p(X,\mu)$ and any $\lambda>0$, $$\label{2.8}
\nu(\{y\in Y:|T(f)(y)|>\lambda\})\lesssim\frac{\|f\|^q_{L^p(X,\mu)}}{\lambda^q}.$$
Set $\log^+ x:=\begin{cases}0& x=0\\\max\{0,\log x\}& x>0.\end{cases}$ Let $\mathcal L^p(\log^+\mathcal L)^k(\Omega)$ be the set of all functions $f$ on $\Omega$ satisfying $\int_{\Omega} |f(z)|^p(\log^+|f(z)|)^kdV<\infty$. We define the Orlicz space $L^p(\log^+L)^k(\Omega)$ to be the linear hull of $\mathcal L^p(\log^+\mathcal L)^k(\Omega)$ with the norm $$\|f\|_{L^p(\log^+L)^k(\Omega)}=\inf\left\{\lambda>0:\int_{\Omega} \left|{f(z)}/{\lambda}\right|^p\left(\log^+\left|{f(z)}/{\lambda}\right|\right)^kdV(z)\leq 1\right\}.$$ We say an operator $T$ is of weak-type $L^p(\log^+L)^k$ on $\Omega$ if for any $f\in L^p(\log^+L)^k(\Omega)$ and any $\lambda>0$, $$\label{2.9}|\{z\in \Omega:|T(f)(z)|>\lambda\}|\lesssim \frac{\|f\|^p_{L^p(\log^+L)^k(\Omega)}}{\lambda^p}.$$
For more details about the Orlicz space, see for example [@Rao].
It is worth noting that when $\nu$ is a finite measure and $\lambda$ is chosen to be small, inequalities (\[2.8\]) and (\[2.9\]) trivially holds. Since all the domains involved in this paper are bounded and hence have finite Lebesgue measure, we only need to check (\[2.8\]) for large $\lambda$ to prove the weak-type results.
Weak-type estimates for the Bergman projection on the polydisc
==============================================================
The results in this section are not surprising from a multi-parameter analysis perspective, and could be known to experts. Since we couldn’t find them in the literature, we decide to put them here with their proofs.
The Bergman projection $P$ on the bidisc $\mathbb D^2$ is not of weak-type $(1,1)$.
By (\[2.8\]), it suffices to show that there exists a parameter family of integrable functions $\{f_s\}$ on $\mathbb D^2$ satisfying the inequality below: $$\label{3.1}
|\{(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb D^2:|P(f_s)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\geq\frac{C_s\|f_s\|_{L^1}}{\lambda},$$ where $C_s$ can be arbitrarily large. For $1>s>0$, we set $$f_s(w)=(1-s^2)^4|1-sw_1|^{-4}|1-sw_2|^{-4}={\pi^4(1-s^2)^4}|K_{\mathbb D^2}(s,s;\bar w_1, \bar w_2)|^2.$$ Hence $\|f_s\|_{L^1}=\pi^4(1-s^2)^4K_{\mathbb D^2}(s,s;s,s)=\pi^2$. On the other hand, it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
P(f_s)(z_1,z_2)&=\int_{\mathbb D^2}\frac{(1-s^2)^4(1-s\bar w_1)^{-2}(1-s\bar w_2)^{-2}}{\pi^2(1-z_1\bar w_1)^2(1-z_2\bar w_2)^2}\frac{1}{(1-sw_1)^2(1-sw_2)^2}dV(w_1,w_2)\nonumber\\&=\overline{P\left(\frac{(1-s^2)^4(1-sw_1)^{-2}(1-sw_2)^{-2}}{(1-\bar z_1 w_1)^2(1-\bar z_2 w_2)^2}\right)(s,s)}\nonumber\\&=\frac{(1-s^2)^4(1-s^2)^{-2}(1-s^2)^{-2}}{(1-sz_1)^2(1-sz_2)^2}=(1-sz_1)^{-2}(1-sz_2)^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\{(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb D^2:|P(f_s)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}=\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb D^2:|1-sz_1|^{-2}|1-sz_2|^{-2}>\lambda\right\}.$ Set $U_{\lambda,s}=\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb D^2:|1-sz_2|^2<|1-sz_1|^{-2}\lambda^{-1} \text { and } 2|1-sz_1|<(1-s)^{-1}\lambda^{-1/2}\right\}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.2}
&\left|\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb D^2:|1-sz_1|^{-2}|1-sz_2|^{-2}>\lambda\right\}\right|\nonumber\\\geq&|U_{t,s}|=
\int_{\left\{z_1\in\mathbb D:2|1-sz_1|<(1-s)^{-1}\lambda^{-1/2}\right\}}\int_{\left\{z_2\in \mathbb D:|1-sz_2|<{|1-sz_1|^{-1}\lambda^{-1/2}}\right\}}dV(z_2)dV(z_1).\end{aligned}$$ By a change of the variable $z_2=\frac{i-w_2}{i+w_2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\left\{z_2\in\mathbb D:|1-sz_2|<{|1-sz_1|^{-1}}\lambda^{-1/2}\right\}}dV(z_2)\nonumber\\=&\int_{\left\{w_2\in \mathbb C:\text{Im}(w_2)>0,\frac{|(1-s)i+(1+s)w_2|}{|i+w_2|}<\frac{1}{|1-sz_1|\lambda^{1/2}}\right\}}\frac{4}{|i+w_2|^4}dV(w_2).\end{aligned}$$ When $|w_2|<1$, we have $|i+w|\approx 1$ and $|(1-s)i+(1+s)w_2|\leq (1+s)|w_2|+(1-s)$. Combining these inequalities with the fact that $2|1-sz_1|<(1-s)^{-1}\lambda^{-1/2}$ for $(z_1,z_2)\in U_{t,s}$, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.4}
&\int_{\left\{w_2\in \mathbb C:\text{Im}(w_2)>0,\frac{|(1-s)i+(1+s)w_2|}{|i+w_2|}<\frac{1}{|1-sz_1|\lambda^{1/2}}\right\}}\frac{4}{|i+w_2|^4}dV(w_2)\nonumber\\\geq
&\int_{\left\{w_2\in \mathbb C:|w_2|<1,\text{Im}(w_2)>0,\frac{|(1-s)i+(1+s)w_2|}{|i+w_2|}<\frac{1}{|1-sz_1|\lambda^{1/2}}\right\}}\frac{4}{|i+w_2|^4}dV(w_2)\nonumber\\\gtrsim& \int_{\left\{w_2\in \mathbb C:|w_2|<1,\text{Im}(w_2)>0,{|w_2|}<\frac{1}{|1-sz_1|\lambda^{1/2}}-(1-s)\right\}}dV(w_2)\nonumber\\\gtrsim& \left(\frac{1}{|1-sz_1|\lambda^{1/2}}-(1-s)\right)^2\gtrsim {|1-sz_1|^{-2}}\lambda^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying inequalities (\[3.4\]) and Lemma 2.1 to (\[3.2\]) and choose $\lambda=16^{-1}(1-s)^{-2}$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
|U_{t,s}|\gtrsim&\int_{\left\{z_1\in\mathbb D:|1-sz_1|<2\right\}}{|1-sz_1|^{-2}}\lambda^{-1}dV(z_1)\nonumber\\=
&\int_{\mathbb D}{|1-sz_1|^{-2}}\lambda^{-1}dV(z_1)\approx
\frac{1}{\lambda}\log\left(\frac{1}{1-s^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
&|\{(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb D^2:|P(f_s)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\gtrsim \frac{1}{\lambda}\log\left(\frac{1}{1-s}\right)=\frac{(-\log {(1-s)})\|f_s\|_{L^1}}{\pi^2\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $(-\log (1-s))$ approaches $\infty$ as $s$ tends to $1$, (\[3.1\]) holds and the proof is complete.
Using the same example in the proof of Theorem 3.1, one can also show that Theorem 3.1 holds true for the polydisc case.
The positive result for the weak-type estimate of the Bergman projection is a consequence of the following two theorems from [@DHZZ].
The Bergman projection is of weak-type $(1,1)$ on the unit disc.
The Bergman projection is a bounded operator from $L\log^+L(\mathbb D)$ to $L^1(\mathbb D)$.
The Bergman projection on the bidisc $\mathbb D^2$ is of weak-type $L\log^+ L$.
Let $P_1$ and $P_2$ denote the Bergman projection in variable $z_1$ and $z_2$ respectively. Then the Bergman projection $P$ on the bidisc $\mathbb D^2$ equals $P_1\circ P_2$. By Theorems 3.3, 3.4 and Fubini’s theorem, we have for all $f\in L^1(\mathbb D^2)$ $$\begin{aligned}
&|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2:|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\\=&|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2:|P_1\circ P_2(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\\=&\int_{\mathbb D}|\{z_1\in\mathbb D:|P_1\circ P_2(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|d V(z_2)\lesssim\frac{\|P_2(f)\|_{L^1}}{\lambda}\lesssim\frac{\|f\|_{L\log^+L}}{\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$
By slightly modifying of the proof of Theorem 3.4, one also obtains the following theorem:
For $k\in \mathbb N$, the Bergman projection is bounded from $L(\log^+L)^{k+1}(\mathbb D)$ to $L(\log^+L)^{k}(\mathbb D)$.
It suffices to show that the Bergman projection is bounded from the unit sphere of $L(\log^+L)^{k+1}(\mathbb D)$ to $L(\log^+L)^{k}(\mathbb D)$. Given $f\in L(\log^+L)^{k+1}(\mathbb D)$ with $\|f\|_{L(\log^+L)^{k+1}(\mathbb D)}$ equal to $1$, the definition of the Orlicz norm $\|\cdot\|_{L(\log^+L)^{k+1}(\mathbb D)}$ implies: $$1=\|f\|_{L(\log^+L)^{k+1}(\mathbb D)}=\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|\left(\log^+|f(z)|\right)^{k+1}dV(z).$$ If $\|P(f)\|_{L(\log^+L)^k(\mathbb D)}\leq1$, then $\|P(f)\|_{L(\log^+L)^k(\mathbb D)}\leq \|f\|_{L(\log^+L)^{k+1}(\mathbb D)}$ and the theorem is proved. We turn to consider the case when $\|P(f)\|_{L(\log^+L)^k(\mathbb D)}=\lambda>1$. We show that in this case, the estimate $\|P(f)\|_{L(\log^+L)^k(\mathbb D)}\lesssim\|f\|_{L(\log^+L)^{k+1}(\mathbb D)}$ still holds.
For a fixed $t>0$, we set $$f_1(z)=\begin{cases}
f(z)& |f(z)|>t\\0& \text{otherwise}
\end{cases},\;\; \text{ and }\;\; f_2(z)=\begin{cases}
0& |f(z)|>t\\f(z)& \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Then $f(z)=f_1(z)+f_2(z)$. For a function $g$ on $\mathbb D$ and a fixed $t>0$, let $g_*(t)$ denote the distribution function: $g_*(t):=|\{z\in \mathbb D:g(z)>t\}|.$ Since the Bergman projection is $L^2$ bounded by its definition and of weak-type (1,1) by Theorem 3.3, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&(P(f))_*(t)=|\{z\in\mathbb D:|P(f)(z)|>t\}|\\\leq& |\{z\in\mathbb D:|P(f_1)(z)|>\frac{t}{2}\}|+ |\{z\in\mathbb D:|P(f_2)(z)|>\frac{t}{2}\}|\\\lesssim&\frac{\|f_1\|_{L^1}}{t}+\frac{\|f_2\|^2_{L^2}}{t^2}
=\frac{\int_t^\infty f_*(s)ds}{t}+\frac{2\int_0^t sf_*(s)ds}{t^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying both sides of the inequality by $(\log t)^{k}+k(\log t)^{k-1}$ and integrating them from 1 to $\infty$ yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.9}
&\int_1^\infty(P(f))_*(t)((\log t)^{k}+k(\log t)^{k-1})dt\nonumber\\\lesssim&\int_1^\infty((\log t)^{k}+k(\log t)^{k-1})\left(\frac{\int_t^\infty f_*(s)ds}{t}+\frac{2\int_0^t sf_*(s)ds}{t^2}\right)dt\nonumber\\=&\int_1^\infty(\frac{(\log s)^{k+1}}{k+1}+{(\log s)^k})f_*(s)ds+2\int_0^\infty\int_{\max\{1,s\}}^\infty\frac{(\log t)^{k}+k(\log t)^{k-1}}{t^2}sf_*(s)dtds\nonumber\\\lesssim&\int_1^\infty(\frac{(\log s)^{k+1}}{k+1}+{(\log s)^k})f_*(s)ds+\int_0^\infty\int_{\max\{1,s\}}^\infty\frac{(\log t)^{k}+1}{t^2}sf_*(s)dtds.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\int_{\max\{1,s\}}^\infty\frac{(\log t)^{k}+1}{t^2}dt=-(\frac{1}{t}+\sum_{j=0}^{k}\frac{k!}{j!t}(\log t)^j)|_{\max\{1,s\}}^\infty$, there holds $$\int_0^\infty\int_{\max\{1,s\}}^\infty\frac{(\log t)^{k}+1}{t^2}sf_*(s)dtds\lesssim\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|(\log^+|f(z)|)^{k}dV(z).$$ We claim that $\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|(\log^+|f(z)|)^{k}dV(z)\lesssim 1$. Assume the claim is true. Then applying this claim and the fact that $\int_1^\infty(\frac{(\log s)^{k+1}}{k+1}+{(\log s)^k})f_*(s)ds=\|f\|_{L(\log^+ L)^{k+1}}$ into (\[3.9\]) yields the estimate: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.10}\int_1^\infty(P(f))_*(t)((\log t)^{k}+k(\log t)^{k-1})dt\lesssim \|f\|_{L(\log^+ L)^{k+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|P(f)\|_{L(\log^+L)^k}=\lambda$, there holds that $$\int_{\mathbb D}\left|P\left(\frac{f}{\lambda}\right)(z)\right|\left(\log^+\left|P\left(\frac{f}{\lambda}\right)(z)\right|\right)^kdV(z)=1.$$ Thus $$\int_{\mathbb D}|P({f})(z)|(\log^+|P(\frac{f}{\lambda})(z)|)^kdV(z)=\lambda=\|P(f)\|_{L(\log^+L)^k(\mathbb D)}.$$ Note also that $\lambda>1$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.11}\|P(f)\|_{L(\log^+L)^k(\mathbb D)}&=\int_{\mathbb D}|P({f})(z)|(\log^+|P(\frac{f}{\lambda})(z)|)^kdV(z)\nonumber\\&\leq
\int_{\mathbb D}|P({f})(z)|(\log^+|P({f})(z)|)^kdV(z)\nonumber\\&=\int_1^\infty(P(f))_*(t)((\log t)^{k}+k(\log t)^{k-1})dt.\end{aligned}$$ Combining inequalities (\[3.10\]) and (\[3.11\]) yields the desired estimate: $$\|P(f)\|_{L(\log^+L)^k(\mathbb D)}\lesssim \|f\|_{L(\log^+L)^{k+1}}.$$ We turn to prove the claim. By Hölder’s inequality, there holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|(\log^+|f(z)|)^{k}dV(z)&\leq\left(\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|(\log^+|f(z)|)^{k+1}dV(z)\right)^{\frac{k}{k+1}}\left(\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|dV(z)\right)^{\frac{1}{k+1}}\nonumber\\&=\left(\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|dV(z)\right)^{\frac{1}{k+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|dV(z)&=\int_{\{z\in \mathbb D:|f(z)<e|\}}|f(z)|dV(z)+\int_{\{z\in \mathbb D:|f(z)\geq e|\}}|f(z)|dV(z)\\&\leq e|\mathbb D|+\int_{\{z\in \mathbb D:|f(z)\geq e|\}}|f(z)|(\log^+|f|)^{k+1}dV(z)\leq e\pi+1\approx 1,\end{aligned}$$ there holds $\int_{\mathbb D}|f(z)|(\log^+|f(z)|)^{k}dV(z)\lesssim 1$ and the proof is complete.
Theorem 3.6 together with the argument in the proof of Theorem 3.5 then gives the weak-type estimate for the Bergman projection on the polydisc:
The Bergman projection on the polydisc $\mathbb D^n$ is of weak-type $L(\log^+L)^{n-1}$.
Weak-type estimates for the Bergman projection on $\mathbb H$
=============================================================
The Bergman projection on the Hartogs triangle is not of weak-type $(\frac{4}{3},\frac{4}{3})$.
For a constant $p>\frac{4}{3}$, let $p^\prime=\frac{p}{p-1}$ denote its conjugate index. Set $f_p(z)=\bar z_2|z_2|^{-p^\prime}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|f_p\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}}=&\int_{\mathbb H}|z_2|^{\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)}dV(z_1,z_2)=\int_{\mathbb D^2}|z_2|^{2+\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)}dV(z_1,z_2)=\frac{\pi^2(p-1)}{4(p-\frac{4}{3})}.\end{aligned}$$ Given $(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb H$, $$\begin{aligned}
|P(f_p)(z_1,z_2)|=\int_{\mathbb H}\sum_{a+b\geq -1,a\geq 0}\frac{(z_1\bar w_1)^a(z_2\bar w_2)^b}{\|w_1^aw_2^b\|^2_{L^2}}\bar w_2|w_2|^{-p^\prime}dV(w_1,w_2).\end{aligned}$$ Since the Hartogs triangle is a Reinhardt domain, it’s easy to check using polar coordinates that $\int_{\mathbb H} \bar w_1^a\bar w_2^b\bar w_2|w_2|^{1-p^\prime}dV(w_1,w_2)\neq 0$ if and only if $a=0$ and $b=-1$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
|P(f_p)(z_1,z_2)|&=\left|\int_{\mathbb H}\frac{1}{z_2\bar w_2\|w_2^{-1}\|^2_{L^2}}\bar w_2|w_2|^{-p^\prime}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|\nonumber\\&=\pi^{-2}\left|\int_{\mathbb H}\frac{1}{z_2}|w_2|^{-p^\prime}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|=\frac{p-1}{(3p-{4})|z_2|}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for $\frac{p-1}{(3p-{4})\lambda}<1$, $$\begin{aligned}
|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f_p)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|=&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|z_2|<\frac{p-1}{(3p-4)\lambda}\right\}}dV(z_1,z_2)
\nonumber\\=&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2:|z_2|<\frac{p-1}{(3p-{4})\lambda}\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\=&\frac{\pi^2}{4}\left(\frac{p-1}{(3p-{4})\lambda}\right)^4\approx\frac{\|f_p\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}}\frac{1}{(p-{4}/{3})^3\lambda^{{8}/{3}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $p={4}/{3}+{\lambda^{-{9}/{10}}}$, then ${(p-1)}(3p-{4})^{-1}\lambda^{-1}$ still goes to 0 as $\lambda$ tends to $\infty$. Hence ${(p-1)}(3p-{4})^{-1}\lambda^{-1}<1$ holds. On the other hand, ${(p-{4}/{3})^{-3}\lambda^{-{8}/{3}}}=\lambda^{{1}/{30}},$ which is blowing up as $\lambda$ tends to $\infty$. Therefore, the weak-type estimate $$|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f_p)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\lesssim \frac{ \|f_p\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}}$$ fails and the Bergman projection on $\mathbb H$ is not of weak-type $({4}/{3},{4}/{3})$.
The Bergman projection on the Hartogs triangle is of weak-type $({4},{4})$.
Let $f$ be an arbitrary function in $L^4(\mathbb H)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|^4_{L^4}=&\int_{\mathbb H}|f(z_1,z_2)|^4dV(z_1)dV(z_2)\nonumber\\=&\int_{\mathbb D^2}|f(z_1z_2,z_2)|^4|z_2|^2dV(z_1)dV(z_2)\nonumber\\=&\int_{\mathbb D^2}|z_2f(z_1z_2,z_2)|^4|z_2|^{-2}dV(z_1)dV(z_2).\end{aligned}$$ Set $g(z_1,z_2)=z_2f(z_1z_2,z_2)$. Then $g\in L^4(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{-2}dV)$ and $\|g\|_{L^4(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{-2}dV)}=\|f\|_{L^4(\mathbb H)}.$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|&=\left|\int_{\mathbb H}\frac{f(w_1,w_2)}{\pi^2z_2\bar w_2(1-\frac{z_1\bar w_1}{z_2 \bar w_2})^2(1-z_2\bar w_2)^2}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|\nonumber\\&=\left|\int_{\mathbb D^2}\frac{w_2f(w_1w_2,w_2)}{\pi^2z_2(1-\frac{z_1}{z_2}\bar w_1)^2(1-z_2\bar w_2)^2}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|=\frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2},z_2\right)\right|.\end{aligned}$$ Then there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.8}
&|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\nonumber\\=&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H: \frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2},z_2\right)\right|>\lambda\right\}}dV(z_1,z_2)
\nonumber\\=&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: \frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|>\lambda\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)
\nonumber\\=&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: |z_2|\leq\frac{1}{2} \text{ and }\frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|>\lambda\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\&+\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: |z_2|>\frac{1}{2} \text{ and } \frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|>\lambda\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2).\end{aligned}$$ We first consider the integral with $|z_2|\leq\frac{1}{2}$. When $|z_2|\leq\frac{1}{2}$, the Bergman kernel $K_{\mathbb D^2}$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
|K_{\mathbb D^2}(z_1,z_2;\bar w_1,\bar w_2)|=\frac{1}{\pi^2|1-z_1\bar w_1|^2|1-z_2\bar w_2|^2}\approx\frac{1}{\pi|1-z_1\bar w_1|^2}=|K_{\mathbb D}(z_1;\bar w_1)|.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)|&=\left|\int_{\mathbb D^2}\frac{g(w_1,w_2)}{\pi^2(1-z_1\bar w_1)^2(1-z_2\bar w_2)^2}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|\nonumber\\&\leq\int_{\mathbb D^2}\frac{|g(w_1,w_2)|}{\pi^2|1-z_1\bar w_1|^2|1-z_2\bar w_2|^2}dV(w_1,w_2)
\nonumber\\&\lesssim\int_{\mathbb D}\frac{\int_{\mathbb D}|g(w_1,w_2)|dV(w_2)}{\pi|1-z_1\bar w_1|^2}dV(w_1)\nonumber\\&=P^+_{\mathbb D}\left(\int_{\mathbb D}|g(w_1,w_2)|dV(w_2)\right)(z_1).\end{aligned}$$ Set $G(w_1)=\int_{\mathbb D}|g(w_1,w_2)|dV(w_2)$. Then there exists a constant $C$ such that, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.101}
&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: |z_2|\leq\frac{1}{2} \text{ and }\frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|>\lambda\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\\leq&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: |z_2|\leq\frac{1}{2} \text{ and }\frac{1}{|z_2|}P^+_{\mathbb D}(G)\left({z_1}\right)>C\lambda\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)
\nonumber\\\leq&\int_{\mathbb D}\int_{\left\{z_2\in\mathbb D: |z_2|\leq\frac{1}{2} \text{ and }\frac{1}{C\lambda}P^+_{\mathbb D}(G)\left({z_1}\right)>|z_2|\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_2)d(z_1)
\nonumber\\\lesssim&\int_{\mathbb D}\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{C\lambda}P^+_{\mathbb D}(G)\left({z_1}\right)}r^3drd(z_1)
\lesssim\int_{\mathbb D}\frac{\left(P^+_{\mathbb D}(G)\left({z_1}\right)\right)^4}{\lambda^4}dV(z_1)=\frac{\|P^+_{\mathbb D}(G)\|^4_{L^4(\mathbb D)}}{\lambda^4}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Hölder’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.11}
\int_{\mathbb D}G(w_1)^4dV(w_1)\lesssim \int_{\mathbb D}\int_{\mathbb D}|g(w_1,w_2)|^4dV(w_2)dV(w_1)=\|g\|^4_{L^4(\mathbb D^2)}\leq\|g\|^4_{L^4(\mathbb D^2,|w_2|^{-2})}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $G(w_1)$ is in $L^4(\mathbb D)$. By (\[4.11\]) and the $L^p$ boundedness of $P^+_{\mathbb D}$, inequality (\[4.101\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.12}
\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: |z_2|\leq\frac{1}{2} \text{ and }\frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|>\lambda\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)\lesssim\frac{\|g\|^4_{L^4( \mathbb D^2,|w_2|^{-2})}}{\lambda^4}=\frac{\|f\|^4_{L^4( \mathbb H)}}{\lambda^4}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we turn to the integral in (\[4.8\]) with $|z_2|> \frac{1}{2}$. By $|z_2|> \frac{1}{2}$, there holds $\frac{1}{|z_2|}<2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.13}
&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: |z_2|>\frac{1}{2} \text{ and } \frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|>\lambda\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\
\leq&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: \left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|>\frac{\lambda}{2}\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)
\nonumber\\
\leq&\frac{2^4\int_{\mathbb D^2} \left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|^4|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)}{\lambda^4}
\nonumber\\
\leq&\frac{2^4\int_{\mathbb D^2} \left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|^4dV(z_1,z_2)}{\lambda^4}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $P_{\mathbb D^2}$ is also $L^p$ bounded for $1<p<\infty$, there holds $$\frac{2^4\int_{\mathbb D^2} \left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|^4dV(z_1,z_2)}{\lambda^4}\lesssim\frac{\|g\|^4_{L^4( \mathbb D^2)}}{\lambda^4}\leq\frac{\|g\|^4_{L^4(\mathbb D^2,|w_2|^{-2})}}{\lambda^4}=\frac{\|f\|^4_{L^4( \mathbb H)}}{\lambda^4}.$$ Hence we also obtain the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.14}
&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2: |z_2|>\frac{1}{2} \text{ and } \frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left({z_1},z_2\right)\right|>\lambda\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)\lesssim\frac{\|f\|^4_{L^4( \mathbb H)}}{\lambda^4}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying (\[4.12\]) and (\[4.14\]) to (\[4.8\]) yields the desired weak-type (4,4) estimate.
It can be shown that if the Bergman projection $P$ on a weighted space $L^p(\mathbb D^2,\mu)$ is of weak-type $(p,p)$, then $P$ is bounded on $L^p(\mathbb D^2,\mu)$. The idea of the proof can be found in Theorem 1 in [@Rahm] and Theorem 1.2 in [@ZhenghuiWick2]. Theorem 4.2, on the other hand, shows a different phenomenon in the Hartogs triangle case: the Bergman projection on $\mathbb H$ is of weak-type $(4,4)$ but not $L^4$-bounded. This difference is caused by the fact that while $L^{4}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{-2})$ and $L^4(\mathbb H)$ are isometrically equivalent via the mapping $(z_1,z_2)\to (z_1z_2,z_2)$ between $\mathbb D\times \mathbb D\backslash\{0\}$ and $\mathbb H$, the weak spaces $L^{4,\infty}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{-2})$ and $L^{4,\infty}(\mathbb H)$ are not.
Since the Bergman projection $P$ is self-adjoint, a duality argument together with Theorem 4.2 implies that $P$ is bounded from the Lorentz space $L^{4/3,1}(\mathbb H)$ to $L^{{4}/{3}}(\mathbb H)$. See for example Theorem 1.4.16 in [@Grafakos].
Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 also provide an alternative proof of the $L^p$-regularity result for the Bergman projection on the Hartogs triangle: by interpolation, the weak type $(4,4)$ and $L^2$ regularity of the Bergman projection implies that the projection is $L^p$ bounded for $p\in [2,4)$. Then a duality argument yields the $L^p$ regularity for $p\in ({4}/{3},4)$. Since the projection is not of weak-type $({4}/{3},{4}/{3})$, it’s not $L^{{4}/{3}}$ bounded, and hence not $L^p$ bounded for $p\notin ({4}/{3},4)$. Therefore the Bergman projection on $\mathbb H$ is $L^p$ bounded if and only if $p\in ({4}/{3},4)$.
Using the same idea of the proof of Theorem 4.2, one can obtain the following weak-type estimate for $P$ near $L^{\frac{4}{3}}$. Here we provide another proof using Lemma 2.2.
For any $\epsilon>0$, the Bergman projection $P$ on the Hartogs triangle satisfies the following weak-type estimate: $$\label{4.16}
|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\lesssim \frac{\|f\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}(\mathbb H,|z_2|^{-\epsilon})}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}}.$$
We claim that the Bergman projection is bounded on $L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb H,|z_2|^{-\epsilon})$. Then the desired estimate holds: $$\begin{aligned}
|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\leq&
\int_{\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}}|z_2|^{-\epsilon}dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\
\leq&\int_{\mathbb H}\frac{|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|^{{4}/{3}}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}}|z_2|^{-\epsilon}dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\\lesssim&\frac{\|f\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}(\mathbb H,|z_2|^{-\epsilon})}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ To prove the claim, we recall that for any given $f\in L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb H,|z_2|^{-\epsilon})$, the induced function $g(w_1,w_2):=w_2f(w_1w_2,w_2)$ is in $L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|&=\left|\int_{\mathbb H}\frac{f(w_1,w_2)}{\pi^2z_2\bar w_2(1-\frac{z_1\bar w_1}{z_2 \bar w_2})^2(1-z_2\bar w_2)^2}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|\nonumber\\&=\left|\int_{\mathbb D^2}\frac{w_2f(w_1w_2,w_2)}{\pi^2z_2(1-\frac{z_1}{z_2}\bar w_1)^2(1-z_2\bar w_2)^2}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|=\frac{1}{|z_2|}\left|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2},z_2\right)\right|.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Then it is easy to see that the two operator norms $\|P\|_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb H,|z_2|^{-\epsilon})}$ and $\|P_{\mathbb D^2}\|_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}$ are identical. We first show that $P_{\mathbb D}$ is bounded on $L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D,|w|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})$. Recall the Carleson tent $T_z$ in Lemma 2.2. When $|z|>\frac{1}{2}$, the function $|w|\approx 1$ for all $w\in T_z$. Hence for $|z|>\frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\label{4.261}
\frac{\int_{T_z}|w|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon}dV(w)\left(\int_{ T_z}|w|^{(\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon)\frac{1}{1-p}}dV(w)\right)^{p-1}}{\left(V(T_z)\right)^{p}}\lesssim 1.$$ For $|z|\leq \frac{1}{2}$, the Lebesgue measure of $|T_z|\approx 1$. Thus for $p=\frac{4}{3}$, there holds
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.27}&\frac{\int_{T_z}|w|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon}dV(w)\left(\int_{ T_z}|w|^{(\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon)\frac{1}{1-p}}dV(w)\right)^{p-1}}{\left|T_z\right|^{p}}\nonumber\\\lesssim& \int_{\mathbb D}|w|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon}dV(w)\left(\int_{\mathbb D}|w|^{(\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon)\frac{1}{1-p}}dV(w)\right)^{p-1}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$
Combining (\[4.261\]) and (\[4.27\]) yields that the Bekollé-Bonami constant $B_{\frac{4}{3}}(|w|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})$ is finite. Then Lemma 2.2 implies the boundedness of $P_{\mathbb D}$ on $L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D,|w|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})$. Note that $P_{\mathbb D^2}=P_2\circ P_1$ where $P_j$ is the projection in the variable $z_j$. There holds via Fubini’s theorem that $$\begin{aligned}
\|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}=&\int_{\mathbb D^2}|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)(z_1,z_2)|^{\frac{4}{3}}|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon}dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\=&\int_{\mathbb D^2}|P_2P_1(g)(z_1,z_2)|^{\frac{4}{3}}|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon}dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\=&\int_{\mathbb D}\|P_2P_1(g)(z_1,\cdot)\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D,|z|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}dV(z_1)\nonumber\\\lesssim&\int_{\mathbb D}\|P_1(g)(z_1,\cdot)\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D,|z|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}dV(z_1)=\|P_1(g)\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}.
\end{aligned}$$ By Fubini’s theorem again, $P_1$ is bounded on $L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})$. Thus $$\|P_{\mathbb D^2}(g)\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}\lesssim\|P_1(g)\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}\lesssim \|g\|^{\frac{4}{3}}_{L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}.$$ The boundedness of $P_{\mathbb D^2}$ on ${L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb D^2,|z_2|^{\frac{2}{3}-\epsilon})}$ then implies the boundedness of $P$ on ${L^{\frac{4}{3}}(\mathbb H,|z_2|^{-\epsilon})}$, which completes the proof of the claim.
Note that for $\alpha<-1$, the integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.21}\int_{\mathbb D}|z|^{-2}(-\log|z|+1)^{\alpha}dV(z)=&2\pi\int_0^1r^{-1}(-\log r+1)^\alpha dr\nonumber\\=&2\pi\int_{-\infty}^0(-t+1)^\alpha dt=\frac{-2\pi}{\alpha+1}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ An similar argument as in inequalities (\[4.261\]) and (\[4.27\]) then implies that the Bekollé-Bonami constant $B_{\frac{4}{3}}(|z|^{\frac{2}{3}}(-\log|z|+1)^{\epsilon})$ is finite for $\epsilon>\frac{1}{3}$. Since $x^{-a}\gtrsim -\log x+1\geq 1$ on $(0,1)$ for all $a>0$, replacing $|z_2|^{-\epsilon}$ by $(-\log|z_2|+1)^{\epsilon}$ in the proof of Theorem 4.6 yields a better estimate:
For any $\epsilon>\frac{1}{3}$, the Bergman projection $P$ on the Hartogs triangle satisfies the following weak-type estimate: $$\label{4.22}
|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\lesssim \frac{\|f\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}(\mathbb H,(-\log|z_2|+1)^{\epsilon})}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}}.$$
For $\epsilon\leq\frac{1}{3}$, Theorem 4.7 does not hold anymore. Below we provide an example to illustrate the failure of the estimate (\[4.22\]) when $\epsilon=\frac{1}{3}$.
Set $f_p(z)=\bar z_2|z_2|^{-p^\prime}(-\log|z_2|+1)^{-1}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.23}
\|f_p\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}(\mathbb H,(-\log|z_2|+1)^{{1}/{3}})}=&\int_{\mathbb H}|z_2|^{\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)}(-\log|z_2|+1)^{-1}dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\=&\int_{\mathbb D^2}|z_2|^{2+\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)}(-\log|z_2|+1)^{-1}dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\=&2\pi^2\int_{0}^1x^{3+\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)}(-\log x+1)^{-1}dx\nonumber\\=&2\pi^2 e^{4+\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)}\text{E}_1(4+\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)),\end{aligned}$$ where $E_1$ is the *exponential integral* defined by $$\text{E}_1(x)=\int_{x}^{\infty}t^{-1}e^{-t}d t.$$ Note that ([@Abramowitz], p. 229, 5.1.20) $$\frac{1}{2}e^{-x}\log\left(1+\frac{2}{x}\right)<\text{E}_1(x)<e^{-x}\log\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right).$$ Therefore as $p\to \frac{4}{3}$, there holds $4+\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)\to 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\text{E}_1\left(4+\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)\right)\approx \log\left(\frac{1}{4+\frac{4}{3}(1-p^\prime)}\right)\approx\log\left(\frac{1}{3p-4}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this back into (\[4.23\]) yields $\|f_p\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}(\mathbb H,(-\log|z_2|+1)^{{1}/{3}})}\approx \log\left(\frac{1}{3p-4}\right)$. On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
|P(f_p)(z_1,z_2)|&=\left|\int_{\mathbb H}\frac{1}{z_2\bar w_2\|w_2^{-1}\|^2_{L^2}}\bar w_2|w_2|^{-p^\prime}(-\log|z_2|+1)^{-1}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|\nonumber\\&=\pi^{-2}\left|\int_{\mathbb H}\frac{1}{z_2}|w_2|^{-p^\prime}(-\log|z_2|+1)^{-1}dV(w_1,w_2)\right|\approx\frac{1}{|z_2|}\log\left(\frac{1}{3p-4}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, when $\log\left(\frac{1}{3p-4}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda}$ is small, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f_p)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\nonumber\\\gtrsim&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|z_2|<\log\left(\frac{1}{3p-4}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda}\right\}}dV(z_1,z_2)
\nonumber\\=&\int_{\left\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb D^2:|z_2|<\log\left(\frac{1}{3p-4}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda}\right\}}|z_2|^2dV(z_1,z_2)\nonumber\\=&\frac{\pi^2}{4}\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{3p-4}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda}\right)^4\approx\frac{\|f_p\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}}\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{p-{4}/{3}}\right)\right)^{3}\frac{1}{\lambda^{{8}/{3}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $p={4}/{3}+\exp\left\{-\lambda^{{9}/{10}}\right\}$, then $\log\left(\frac{1}{3p-4}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda}$ still goes to 0 as $\lambda$ tends to $\infty$. Hence $\frac{p-1}{(3p-{4})\lambda}<1$ holds. Note that $\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{p-{4}/{3}}\right)\right)^{3}\frac{1}{\lambda^{{8}/{3}}}=\lambda^{{1}/{30}},$ which is blowing up as $\lambda$ tends to $\infty$. Therefore, the weak-type estimate $$|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f_p)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\lesssim\frac{\|f\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}(\mathbb H,(-\log|z_2|+1)^{\epsilon})}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}} \;\;\text{ fails for }\epsilon={1}/{3}.$$
Estimate (\[4.22\]) in Theorem 4.7 is a consequence of the finite integral in (\[4.21\]) and the Bekollé-Bonami theory on the unit disc. The integrand $|z|^{-2}(-\log|z|+1)^\alpha$ blows up at a slower speed near the origin than $|z|^{-2}$ and hence is in $L^1(\mathbb D)$. Similarly, one can construct an integrable function $|z|^{-2}(-\log|z|+1)^{-1}(\log(-\log|z|+1)+1)^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha<-1$ from $|z|^{-2}(-\log|z|+1)^{-1}$. Iterating this process, we obtain a sequence of functions $\{f_{\alpha,j}(z)\}$ in $L^1(\mathbb D)$ where $f_{\alpha,j}(z)=|z|^{-2}h_j^{\alpha}(z)\prod_{k=1}^{j-1}h_k^{-1}(z)$ with $\alpha<-1$ and $h_j(z)$ defined as follows:
1. $h_1(z)=-\log|z|+1$;
2. $h_{j+1}(z)=\log(h_j(z)+1)+1$ for $j>0$.
Then repeating the argument for (\[4.261\]) and (\[4.27\]) yields that the Bekollé-Bonami constant $B_{\frac{4}{3}}(f^{-{1}/{3}}_{\alpha,j})<\infty$. Using this fact, (\[4.22\]) can be generalized as below:
Let $f_{\alpha,j}$ be defined as above. For any $\alpha<-1$, the Bergman projection $P$ on the Hartogs triangle satisfies the following weak-type estimate: $$|\{(z_1,z_2)\in\mathbb H:|P(f)(z_1,z_2)|>\lambda\}|\lesssim \frac{\|f\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}\left(\mathbb H,\left(|z_2|^{2}f_{\alpha,j}(z_2)\right)^{-{1}/{3}}\right)}}{\lambda^{{4}/{3}}}.$$
Despite Theorems 4.6, 4.7 and 4.9, a sharp weak-type estimate for $P$ near $L^{{4}/{3}}$ is still unknown to us. One of our guesses is the weak-type $L^{{4}/{3}}(\log^+L)^{\alpha}$ estimate. For $p>{4}/{3}$ and $\alpha>0$, there holds $\|\bar z_2|z_2|^{-p}\|^{{4}/{3}}_{L^{{4}/{3}}(\log^+L)^{\alpha}}\lesssim\left(p-{4}/{3}\right)^{-\alpha-1}.$ Then an argument as in the proof of Theorem 4.1 would imply that the projection $P$ is not of weak-type $L^{{4}/{3}}(\log^+L)^{\alpha}$ for $\alpha<{1}/{3}$. For $\alpha={1}/{3}$, the estimate holds for $f_p(z)=\bar z_2|z_2|^{-p^\prime}$ which is served as a counterexample in the proof of Theorem 4.1. Hence we suspect that the Bergman projection is bounded from $L^{{4}/{3}}(\log^+L)^{{1}/{3}}(\mathbb H)$ to $L^{{4}/{3},\infty}(\mathbb H)$. We hope to further investigate it in the future.
$L^p$ regularity of the Bergman projection has also been studied on various generalizations of the Hartogs triangle. See for instance [@EM; @EM2; @CHEN]. It would be interesting to study the weak-type regularity of the Bergman projection in those settings.
[^1]: BDW’s research is partially supported by National Science Foundation grants DMS \# 1560955 and DMS \# 1800057.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Johan P. Bj[ø]{}rgen, Andrii V. Sukhorukov, Jorrit Leenaarts, Mats Carlsson, Jaime de la Cruz Rodríguez, Göran B. Scharmer'
- 'Viggo H. Hansteen'
bibliography:
- 'article.bib'
date: 'Received; Accepted '
title: 'Three-dimensional modeling of the [H&K]{} lines in the solar atmosphere'
---
Introduction
============
The resonance doublet of represents the two strongest lines in the visible solar spectrum, the H line at 3968.469 Å and the K line at 3933.663 Å (all wavelenghts are given in air for $\lambda>2000$ Å). Observations through the wings and the cores of these lines allow to investigate the photosphere and the chromosphere. The H and K lines of share similar formation properties as the h and k lines of , typically showing wide damping wings, and central reversals in their cores. As calcium is 18 times less abundant than magnesium in the solar atmosphere , the H and K [line cores are formed lower in the chromosphere than the h and k cores]{}.
Most of the strongest and diagnostically-important chromospheric lines such as the h and k or Ly-$\alpha$ and Ly-$\beta$ lines reside in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum that is absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, and therefore they must be observed from space. The H and K lines are in the violet part of the visible spectrum and can be observed with ground-based facilities such as the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope , the German Vacuum Tower Telescope , GREGOR , and the Dunn Solar Telescope . The H and K line wings are formed in the photosphere with their opacity following local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) . They were used to obtain the temperature stratification of the upper photosphere and to investigate the reversed granulation both in observations and simulations . The H and K line cores are formed in the chromosphere, and cover a narrow spectral range of $\sim0.4$ Å. So far, imaging observations in the cores have been performed with broad-band filters having their transmission profiles 0.3–3 Å wide . Thus, previously-observed H and K core images were strongly contaminated with photospheric signal coming from the wings.
In August 2016 the new instrument CHROMIS was installed at the SST. CHROMIS is an imaging spectrometer for the blue part of the spectrum designed as a dual Fabry-P[é]{}rot filter system with a spectral transmission profile of ${\sim}120$ mÅ width around 400 nm. The system is optimized for a short integration time allowing to scan fast through the line core with a high time cadence and minimal degradation caused by the atmospheric turbulence. By using image post-processing CHROMIS data can reach a diffraction-limited spatial resolution of $1.22 \lambda/\rm{D} \approx$ 01 (or 73 km on the surface of the Sun), which is close to the spatial resolution of today’s magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the chromosphere . CHROMIS allows to sample the inner wings and line-core of the H or K lines in $\sim10$ s with multiple frames and good signal-to-noise, in 2D images at the diffraction limit and at a high spectral resolution so that a clean chromospheric signal is obtained.
In the solar spectrum, the infrared triplet of consists of three strong lines at 8498.018 Å, 8542.089 Å, and 8662.140 Å, whose cores are formed in the chromosphere as well. Among them, the 8542 Å line is the most studied and used [to investigate the magnetic field and temperature structure]{} . The 8542 Å line is only weakly affected by horizontal radiative transfer (3D) and partial redistribution (PRD) effects and can be modeled with a modest computational effort [in one-dimensional (1D) models]{} . The H and K lines are formed much higher, in the less dense upper chromosphere where 3D and PRD effects play an essential role in the line formation , than the infrared lines. Previously, these lines have been modeled including effects of PRD, but only in a one-dimensional (1D) radiative transfer approach . Using a 3D non-LTE radiative transfer approach including effects of PRD has become feasible recently with an upgrade of the Multi3D code . Previously, the most accurate treatment of chromospheric lines was to model features in the core and in the wings of lines separately using different numerical codes like in or . The Multi3D code was used to model the line core including 3D radiative transfer but in the simplifying approximation of complete redistribution (CRD). The RH code was used to model the wings of the line using a [1.5D]{} radiative transfer approach but including PRD effects, which are essential in the inner wings.
In this paper, we use various model atmospheres (3D snapshots) computed with the Bifrost code , to model the formation of the H and K lines in a full 3D non-LTE PRD approach using the Multi3D code. We compare our calculated data with observations of a quiet Sun region taken by SST/CHROMIS.
Section \[sec:observation\] presents the observations taken with SST/CHROMIS. We discuss the method and the setup of our computations as well as important details of the PRD line transfer in Section \[sec:modeling\]. We compare morphological properties of images as well as statistical properties of the line profile features for our calculated and observed data sets in Section \[sec:comparison\_obs\]. In Section \[sec:result\_diagnostic\], we discuss how the observed features of the lines correlate with the properties of the atmosphere and what observable diagnostics are the most useful to probe the chromosphere. In Section \[sec:discussion\], we conclude and suggest how observations in the H and K lines can be used to study the chromosphere.
Observations {#sec:observation}
============
We use data observed with the CHROMIS instrument at the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope on October 12, 2016 at 10:46–10:56 UT. The target was a quiet Sun region near the disk center at $\theta_x = 2$, $\theta_y = -38$(Helioprojective-Cartesian coordinates).
The K line was sampled with 36 wavelength points covering a 1.409 Å interval around the line center at 3933.664 Å with one continuum point at 4000 Å. The line core was sampled within a $\pm 0.528$ Å interval with 59 mÅ spacing. The line wings were sampled outside the core interval up to $\pm 1.409$ Å with 118 mÅ spacing. The camera was run at $80$ frames per second with an exposure time of $12$ ms; a full line scan took 13 seconds. CHROMIS has a spectral transmission profile with a 120 mÅ FWHM, a field of view about 63” $\times$ 42” and a pixel size of 00375.
The K data set is complemented with [observations of the magnetically sensitive]{} 6302 Å line taken simultaneously on the same target with the CRisp Imaging SpectroPolarimeter . The 6302 Å was sampled with 16 wavelength points on a non-equidistant wavelength grid covering from $-1180$ mÅ to $+80$ mÅ around 6302 Å. A full line scan took 8 seconds. We acquired also simultaneous CRISP observations in 8542 Å and H-$\alpha$, so the total cadence is $37$ seconds.
Final data sets were produced from the raw data using the CHROMISRED pipeline (L[ö]{}fdahl et al. in prep.) for the K observations and the CRISPRED pipeline for the observations. The CHROMIS data where calibrated by scaling the spatially-averaged spectrum to an atlas profile.
Figure \[fig:obs1\] shows two images from the K observations in the red wing and the core of the line. The wing image shows the upper photosphere with a distinct reversed granulation pattern and bright magnetic field concentrations in intergranular lanes. The core image shows the chromosphere covered with thin, elongated fibrils that appear resolved at the spatial resolution of CHROMIS. In the upper panel we show the vertical component of the magnetic field vector, derived from a Milne-Eddington inversion of the photospheric data. These inversions were performed with a modified version of the 1D code presented in . From the whole field of view we selected a square region of the quiet Sun, outlined in Fig. \[fig:obs1\]. This region matches the physical extent of our simulations and has a similar photospheric magnetic field configuration. We use observed data within this region for the comparison with our synthetic data.
Modeling {#sec:modeling}
========
Radiative transfer computations {#sec:radtrans}
-------------------------------
We numerically solve the non-LTE radiative transfer problem with the latest version of the Multi3D code in various model atmospheres discretized on a Cartesian three-dimensional (3D) grid.
For a given model atom, the code simultaneously solves the system of statistical equilibrium equations and integrates the radiative transfer equation at spectral points covered by the bound-bound and bound-free transitions of the model atom. The solution is computed by iteration until convergence using multilevel accelerated $\Lambda$-iteration (M-ALI) with pre-conditioned radiative rates following . The method of short characteristics is used to integrate the transfer equation. Either linear of the 3rd-order hermitian interpolation is used to approximate the source function in the formal solution of the transfer equation. We use the 24-angle quadrature (set “A4”) from @carlson1963. The code allows to solve the radiative transfer equation either in 3D by taking into account the horizontal transfer or radiation, or in the [1.5D]{} approximation by treating each vertical column as an independent plane-parallel atmosphere.
By default, the code treats line scattering with complete redistribution (CRD). We use a recent upgrade of the code that allows to treat resonance line scattering with partial redistribution (PRD) as well as cross-redistribution (XRD). For more details we refer to Section \[sec:line-treatment\].
Model atom {#sec:model-atom}
----------
We used a five-level plus continuum model atom of the ion illustrated in Fig. \[fig:model-atom\]. It contains the lowest levels of that are sufficient to represent the physics of formation for the H, K, and T lines together. The properties of the atomic levels are from the NIST Atomic Spectra Database following for and for .
Transition probabilities for the permitted transitions (H, K, and T) are from . To ensure the correct population of the 3d $^2$D$^\text{e}$ term, we added the 3d $^2$D$^\text{e}$ – 4s $^2$S$^\text{e}$ multiplet with two forbidden lines at 7291.4714 Å and 7323.8901 Å with transition probabilities from . Both forbidden lines are present, although blended, in the solar spectrum . The broadening parameters of all lines are from the Vienna Atomic Line Database among which the van der Waals parameters are taken from .
Photoionization cross-sections for the bound-free transitions are from the TOPBase server of the Opacity Project . The original cross-sections are sampled on a very fine $10^3$–$10^4$-point grid of frequencies with well-resolved resonance and autoionization transitions. For each atomic level in the model, we smoothed and downsampled the original data to ${\sim}$30-point grid following and . Bound-bound [electron]{} collisional rates are composed of data from and extrapolations following . Bound-free collisional rates are either from for the ground 4s $^2$S$^\text{e}$ level or from the general formula provided by for the excited levels. We also include collisional autoionization and dielectronic recombination . We adopt a standard atomic weight of the Ca atom, 40.078 [a.m.u.]{} for a mixture of 96.9% $^{40}$Ca, 2.1% $^{44}$Ca, and 1.0% $^{42,43,46,48}$Ca isotopes. The solar abundance of Ca is taken to be 6.34 on the standard $[\mathrm{H}]=12.00$ scale .
Model atmospheres {#sec:model_atmosphere}
-----------------
As model atmospheres we use three snapshots from three different radiation-magnetohydrodynamic (R-MHD) numerical simulations done with the Bifrost code . All three runs simulated a bipolar magnetic region, [which consists of two magnetic polarity patches separated by 8 Mm (illustrated for Model 2 in Fig. \[fig:model-atomsphere-magnetic\]). The region is]{} similar to an enhanced network with an unsigned magnetic field strength of 50 G in the photosphere. In all three cases, the simulation box has the same physical size of 24 Mm $\times$ 24 Mm $\times$ 16.9 Mm spanning from the top of the convection zone up to the corona. The models differ in the spatial resolutions of their coordinate grids and in the equations of state (EoS) used for the initial R-MHD setup. We refer to these models as Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3. We selected and prepared all three models so that, compared to the diffraction-limited spatial resolution of SST/CHROMIS, their horizontal grid spacing is larger for Model 1, and is smaller for Model 2 and Model 3.
Model 1 is based on the public Bifrost model atmosphere published by . We took a snapshot at t=3850 s of solar time. [The simulation used an EoS that includes the effects of non-equilibrium ionization of hydrogen]{} . The original model has $504 \times 504 \times 496$ grid points within the full physical extent of the simulations. We reduced the grid size of this model to save computational time. We clipped the vertical range of heights to $-$0.48…$+$14.2 Mm keeping only formation heights of the spectrum. We also halved the horizontal grid resolution by removing every other point in the XY-direction. The final model has $252 \times 252 \times 440$ grid points with a uniform horizontal grid spacing of 95 km and a vertical grid spacing ranging from 19 km in the photosphere and the chromosphere to 96 km in the corona.
Model 2 was made using the same initial setup as Model 1. There are two differences. First, this simulation was done using a different EoS that includes effects of the non-equilibrium ionization of hydrogen and helium . Second, we took this snapshot at a different moment of simulation time, 780 s after the running code was switched from the LTE EoS to the non-equilibrium EoS of hydrogen and helium. We clipped the vertical range of heights to $-0.53$…$+$6.6 Mm, but kept the original horizontal grid resolution. The final model has $504 \times 504 \times 336$ grid points with a uniform horizontal grid spacing of 48 km.
Model 3 has a different EoS setup. The ionization and the recombination of hydrogen and helium were treated in instantaneous LTE[, which means that the atomic number densities follow the Saha-Boltzmann equations.]{} The original size of this model grid is $768 \times 768 \times 768$ points. We clipped the vertical range of heights to the same range as in Model 2 and we kept the original horizontal resolution. The final model has $768 \times 768 \times 476$ grid points with the uniform horizontal grid spacing of 31 km and a vertical grid spacing from 13 km in the photosphere and the chromosphere to 27 km in the corona.
For a comparison of the different EoS effect on the temperature stratification, we refer the reader to .
Line treatment in CRD, PRD, and XRD {#sec:line-treatment}
-----------------------------------
Contrary to many photospheric lines, which can be modeled assuming photon scattering with complete redistribution (CRD), the resonance doublet as well as the infrared triplet of are formed in the chromosphere and require a more accurate treatment of resonance photon scattering with partial redistribution. [In PRD, the frequency and direction of the ingoing and outgoing photon in a scattering event can be correlated. To the contrary, in CRD they are independent.]{}
In addition, as all the lines share the same upper term 4p $^2$P$^\text{o}$ and have either sharp (4s $^2$S$^\text{e}$ for H and K) or metastable (3d $^2$D$^\text{e}$ for infrared triplet) lower terms, they all are affected by resonance Raman scattering of photons, often called “cross-redistribution” (XRD). Thus, a photon absorbed in one of the H, K, or infrared triplet lines can be emitted in the same line (resonance scattering) or in one of the other lines (resonance Raman scattering). A classical example of cross-redistribution in astrophysics is the formation of the Ly-$\beta$ line , which is interlocked with the H-$\alpha$ line.
Following , we tested the formation of all the five lines either in CRD or PRD, with or without XRD using various 1D models of the solar atmosphere. We found that PRD is essential for the H and K lines, but less important for the 8542 Å and 8662 Å lines. Cross-redistribution has very weak effect on the intensity profiles of the infrared triplet lines, but generally makes 2%–10% intensity difference in the inner wings of the H and K lines. The 8498 Å line has the smallest transition probability and is formed mostly in the photosphere. It shows very little effects of PRD and makes no contribution with XRD to its subordinates, the K and the 8542 Å lines. We treat the 8498 Å line in CRD reducing the total computational time by 10%. [Including XRD increases the total computational time by 35 % compared to PRD.]{} We treat the H, K, 8542 Å, and 8662 Å lines with XRD (orange in Fig. \[fig:model-atom\]). Thus, photons can be either scattered resonantly in each of these lines, being absorbed and emitted in the same transition, or cross-redistributed in the [3968]{} Å${}\leftrightarrow{}$8662 Å as well as [3934]{} Å${}\leftrightarrow{}$8542 Å cascades, being absorbed in one and emitted in the other transition.
Cross-redistribution provides an extra escape route for photons absorbed in the H and K lines at heights where the subordinate infrared triplet lines are formed. Thus, mostly the inner wings and the outer slopes of the peaks of the H and K lines are affected, but not the cores as at those heights the infrared triplet lines are optically thin and scattering redistribution is dominated by thermal motions in the line cores. Figure \[fig:figure\_xrd\] illustrates this effect in the synthetic profiles of the K line. Normally, XRD slightly decreases the intensity in the inner wings without much center-to-limb variation (see Fig. \[fig:center\_2\_limb\]).
Effects of [1.5D]{}/3D RT and CRD/PRD/XRD
-----------------------------------------
\
Because they could not perform non-LTE 3D PRD computations, modeled the h&k lines with different treatments in the core and in the wing parts of the profile:
In the cores of resonance lines, the redistribution is close to CRD as it is controlled by random frequency shifts owing to thermal (Doppler) motions, which destroys the frequency-coherency of the scattering. As resonance lines are strong and highly scattering, their cores are formed higher up in the chromosphere where the effects of horizontal radiative transfer become essential, and three-dimensional radiative transfer must be applied. Therefore, a 3D CRD treatment is reasonably accurate for the cores of such lines.
In the wings of resonance lines, PRD effects are more important because of the radiative damping is much larger than collisional damping. Because the line wings are formed relatively deep in the atmosphere and the effect of horizontal radiative transfer is small there, a [1.5D]{} PRD treatment can be used to approximate the wing intensity for such lines.
presented a method to perform radiative transfer computations in 3D non-LTE including PRD. Therefore we test the influence on the [H&K]{} lines of the simplifying assumptions of [1.5D]{} XRD, 3D CRD, and 3D PRD compared to the most accurate treatment of 3D XRD.
tested whether the inclusion of cross-redistribution influences the intensity and center-to-limb variation of the H line in a 1D model of the solar atmosphere. Here we perform a similar comparison, but now for a 3D atmosphere and including 3D radiative transfer. Figure \[fig:center\_2\_limb\] shows the center-to-limb variation of spatially-averaged intensity profiles of the K line treated accurately in 3D XRD and approximately in [1.5D]{} XRD, 3D CRD, and 3D PRD. We note that 3D effects are dominant in the line core although some coherency is still present as there is a small intensity difference compared to 3D XRD. Outside of the line core, the redistribution effects become dominant and 3D CRD produces large errors in the wings. The 3D CRD reach the redistribution intensities at $\Delta \lambda \approx \pm 3 \AA$. The redistribution effects increase towards the limb as the difference between the 3D CRD and 3D XRD is increasing. The [1.5D]{} RT approximation is accurate in the outer wings (at more than $\sim 0.3$ Å from line center) of the line but is not at the K$_1$ minima and K$_2$ peaks [(See section \[sec:line\_features\] for a definition of K$_1$ and K$_2$)]{}. On average, the cross-redistribution decreases the intensity in the inner line wings by 5–10%. Figure \[fig:fig1\_1dprd\_vs\_3dprd\] shows how the 3D XRD intensities are related to the approximate [1.5D]{} XRD intensities at the emission peaks (K$_2$, see Section \[sec:line\_features\]) and the approximate 3D CRD intensities at the central line depression (K$_3$) for all profiles in Model 1. At the core, the accurate and the approximate intensities are linearly related and the 3D CRD approximation overestimates radiation temperatures by less than 50 K. At the emission peaks, there is a saturation effect in [1.5D]{} XRD depending on the range of observed intensities. Below 4.5 kK intensities are underestimated by 300 K, above 5 kK intensities are overestimated by 200 K, in between intensities are accurate. This is similar to what was observed for the h and k lines , although these lines are not affected by cross-redistribution.
Therefore, the K line intensity can be accurately modeled only if the effects of 3D radiative transfer and XRD are considered together. The same is true for the H line.
Throughout the rest of this paper, we derive our results from the synthetic [H&K]{} data that were computed with the combined effects of non-LTE, 3D radiative transfer with XRD.
Line profile features {#sec:line_features}
---------------------
The diagnostic properties of the H and K lines can be investigated with techniques of various complexity. The easiest technique is to search how a single line parameter, for example an equivalent width or a central depth, is related to some general property of the model atmosphere, which is computationally and practically easy but is only of limited use. The most elaborate technique would be solving the inverse problem of radiative transfer in the H and K lines to restore the whole structure of the atmosphere at formation heights of the lines. This is in principle possible in the [1.5D]{} approach , where each pixel is treated as an independent atmosphere, but not with full 3D radiative transfer.
We choose a procedure of intermediate complexity similar to what was done by , as the h and k and the H and K lines are formed in a similar way and have similar line profile shapes. First, we synthesize the H and K intensity profiles, next we classify the synthetic profile features, and finally we correlate the properties of the features with the parameters of the model atmosphere at their formation heights.
We classify the profile features for the H and K lines using the notation system introduced by for ”standard” K line-core profiles with two emission peaks close to the line core. Arriving from the short-wavelength side the first minimum is denoted as K$_\mathrm{1V}$, the first emission peak is K$_\mathrm{2V}$, the central minimum is K$_3$, the second peak K$_\mathrm{2R}$ and the third minimum is K$_\mathrm{1R}$. The H line is characterized similarly.
We wrote a feature-finding code to automatically classify the line profiles in each pixel of each of the three models. Standard profiles (see Fig. \[fig:figure\_1\]a), follow the classification described above.
If we find only one emission peak (as in Fig. \[fig:figure\_1\]b), we assign it either to the 2V- or the 2R-feature depending on which side it is with respect to the nominal line center. We find that quite often the 3-feature can be mistaken for a 1-feature if the true line core (i.e., the wavelength with the largest $\tau_\nu=1$ height) is hidden in the slope of the single 2-feature due to a strong velocity gradient. We therefore assign the 3-feature to the lowest intensity minimum next to the emission peak. The other remaining minimum is the 1-feature. If the total shift of both the minima off the line center is more than 75 kms$^{-1}$, then there is no 3-feature and the minima are the 1V- and 1R-features. In 1% –2% of the single-peaked profiles the wavelength of the peak actually has the largest $\tau_\nu=1$ height. This happens when the source function is monotonically increasing with height in the chromosphere. This is rare in our quiet-Sun like atmosphere models, but might be more common in simulations with stronger magnetic activity.
If the profile has only one minimum and no peaks as in Fig. \[fig:figure\_1\]c then we only assign the 3-feature.
The most common complication is when the profile has more than two emission peaks as in Fig. \[fig:figure\_1\]d. We then assign the features based on rules that were empirically determined to give a reasonable result.
We note that the feature-finding algorithm still produces many incorrect identifications. Averaged over all three model atmospheres, we got the following fractions of the profile types: 1% pure absorption, 16.5% one emission peak, 61% two emission peaks, 21.5% several emission peaks. Model 2 has the strongest velocity gradients in the chromosphere and produces 80% more many-peaked profiles than Model 1 or Model 3 do. As the classifying algorithm is ambiguous for many-peaked profiles, we have the largest uncertainties with Model 2.
Synthetic data degradation {#sec:datadegradation}
--------------------------
To compare our observations with our computations, we degraded the synthetic K data to match the spatial and spectral resolution as well as the wavelength sampling of SST/CHROMIS.
First, we convolved each synthetic image with the spatial PSF of the instrument, a 2D Gaussian kernel having $\text{FWHM} = 0\farcs1$. Second, we convolved each synthetic spectral profile with the measured transmission profile of the CHROMIS filter having $\text{FWHM} = 120$ mÅ at 3930 Å. Third, we binned synthetic images to match the spatial pixel size of the instrumental CCD chip, 00375. The physical extent of the synthetic image, 24 Mm${}\times{}$24 Mm, maps to $884 \times 884$ pixels on the CCD chip. Fourth, we sampled synthetic spectral profiles at wavelengths corresponding to the wavelength grid without the continuum point along one scan of the CHROMIS observations (see Sect. \[sec:observation\]). For each of the three atmosphere models. the resulting data is an array of $884 \times 884 \times 35$ values along the $(\text{X}, \text{Y}, \lambda)$-directions.
We do not include any degradation of the synthetic data to for instrumental straylight or residual effects of atmospheric turbulence. We therefore expect the synthetic images to have a considerably higher contrast than the observations.
Formation of [H&K]{} {#sec:caiiHK}
====================
[In this section we will discuss how the [H&K]{} are formed and display four exemplary line profiles from our 3D XRD computations. We only discuss the K line, since the H line forms in the same way.]{}
An illustration of the formation of [H&K]{} {#sec:formation_emission_peaks}
-------------------------------------------
[ The formation of the [H&K]{} lines are severely complicated by velocity fields, PRD/XRD effects, and the highly in-homogeneous temperature structure of the solar chromosphere (examples are shown in Section \[sec:intensity-formation\]). To set the stage, we use the 1D FAL-C model atmosphere , to illustrate the basic formation of the K line in a four-panel Eddington-Barbier diagram. ]{} [ PRD adds an extra complexity to the analysis, by making the line source function frequency-dependent. To keep things somewhat simpler, we use the CRD approximation here, which means that the line source function is independent of frequency.]{}
[Figure \[fig:eb\_four\_panel\] shows $2\times2$ formation diagrams following @2003rtsa.book.....R for three different computations: the FAL-C temperature structure without microturbulence and with a constant microturbulence (5 kms$^{-1}$), and a computation with constant microturbulence (5 kms$^{-1}$), but with a modified temperature structure. The microturbulence, $\xi$, is an ad-hoc parameter used to broaden the spectral lines to fit the observed ones. We note that the model atmospheres from Bifrost do not include microturbulence. ]{}
[ Panel (c) in Fig. \[fig:eb\_four\_panel\] shows the vertical emergent intensity for the K line. Panel (b) shows the optical depth as function of height at the wavelengths of the K$_{2\rm{V}}$ and K$_{3}$ features. The emission peak, K$_{2\rm{V}}$, is formed at the maximum of the line source function, which is shown in panel (d). The line source function is only partially coupled to the chromospheric temperature rise. The K$_{3}$ feature is formed at the largest formation height at 1.9 Mm for all the cases. ]{} [ Panel (a) shows the broadening effect on the extinction profile from the microturbulence. Panel (c) shows that the microturbulence (5 km s$^{-1}$ in this case) increases the K$_{2}$ separation by a factor $3$ compared to the case without microturbulence.]{} [ Panel (d) shows two different temperature stratifications, illustrating how the depth where the chromospheric temperature rise is located affects the emergent line profile. The K$_2$ separation increases slightly and the K$_1$ location shifts outward to $\Delta \lambda = \pm 1.5$ Å with the deeper temperature rise shown in panel (c). ]{}
Analysis of line intensity formation {#sec:intensity-formation}
------------------------------------
\
We discuss the formation of four example K line profiles by using the method of [computed in 3D XRD with Model 2.]{} We decompose the contribution function to the emergent intensity $$\label{eq:C_I}
\newcommand*{\dd}{ \ensuremath{ \mathrm{d} } } C_I( \nu, z )
\equiv
\dfrac{ \dd I(\nu, z) }{ \dd z }
=
\dfrac{ \chi(\nu, z) }{ \tau(\nu, z) } \cdot
S(\nu, z)\cdot
\tau(\nu, z) \exp\bigl( -\tau(\nu, z) \bigr)$$ into three components, $\chi/\tau$, $S$, and $\tau \exp( -\tau )$, which we plot side by side in a 2$\times$2 panel diagram showing the dependence on the frequency $\nu$ along the X-axis and the dependence on the height $z$ along the Y-axis. On each panel we overplotted optical depth unity as function of frequency $z(\tau_\nu =1)$, as well as the vertical velocity $v_\text{Z}(z)$.
The first component is the ratio of the total [(line plus continuum)]{} opacity $\chi$, to the optical depth $\tau$. It is dominant at small optical depths and is sensitive to the line-of-sight velocity gradient.
The second component is the total source function $S$, which is frequency-dependent for PRD lines. To emphasize this feature, we plot the source function $S$ in temperature units along the redward and blueward slopes of the $z(\tau_\nu =1)$ curve. We also show the local gas temperature.
The third component $\tau \exp( -\tau )$ outlines where the optical depth $\tau$ equals unity.
The contribution function $C_I$ is shown on the last panel together with the emergent intensity profile $I(\nu)$.
Figure \[fig:four\_panel\_1\] provides 2$\times$2 diagrams for four types of intensity profiles that we used to classify the features. A normal profile with two emission peaks (Subfigure a), a profile with a single emission peak (Subfigure b), a pure absorption profile (Subfigure c), and a complex profile with many emission peaks (Subfigure d).
Subfigure [(a)]{} shows the formation of a normal profile with two emission peaks and K$_\text{2V}$ is stronger than K$_\text{2R}$. The positive asymmetry is caused by a combination of an upflow at 1.2 Mm and a downflow at 2.4 Mm and by an enhancement of the source function at 1.2 Mm. K$_\text{2V}$ is formed at 1.3 Mm with $T_\text{b} = 4.9$ kK, which is roughly 500 K lower than the gas temperature at the same height. K$_\text{2R}$ is formed at 0.9 Mm and has an upper-chromospheric contribution from 2.1 Mm. K$_3$ is well-formed as a central depression formed at the maximum formation height of 2.2 Mm and its Doppler-shift matches the vertical velocity at this height.
PRD effects add an extra complexity to the analysis. The line source function is not constant anymore and varies strongly with wavelength. The source function starts decoupling from the Planck function already at $\pm$30 kms$^{-1}$ around the line core and then it strongly diverges at $\pm$12 kms$^{-1}$.
Subfigure [(b)]{} shows a profile with a single emission peak. This shape is caused by a strong downflow at 1.5–1.9 Mm in the wake of a shock wave that has passed before. This profile has no K$_3$, and the maximum formation height is located in the blue slope of the emission peak, at $\Delta\varv = -10$ kms$^{-1}$. The only emission peak is formed at 1.6 Mm and is identified as K$_\text{2V}$ being on the blue side off the line center, at $\Delta\varv = +2$ kms$^{-1}$. The source function and the Planck function are decoupled from each other at K$_\text{2V}$. The difference in the observed brightness and the local gas temperatures is 2.1 kK. The source function and the Planck function are almost coupled at K$_\text{1R}$ and K$_\text{1V}$ located at $\Delta\varv = -13$ kms$^{-1}$ and $\Delta\varv = +12$ kms$^{-1}$ respectively, so that the brightness temperature at both minima corresponds to the local temperature.
Subfigure [(c)]{} shows a pure absorption profile. Throughout the entire range of the formation heights, the vertical velocity does not exceed 2.5 kms$^{-1}$. This makes the formation height profile almost symmetric around the line center and the shape of the intensity profile is mostly defined by the variation of the source function with height. The source function is well-coupled to the Planck function up to 0.6 Mm and they follow a very flat slope. These absorption profiles usually appear if the vertical velocity amplitude is small, and the chromosphere is cold without a strong temperature increase.
[ Subfigure [(d)]{} shows a profile with large peak-to-peak separation. Both emission peaks, at $\pm$27 kms$^{-1}$, are caused by a deep chromospheric temperature rise at $z=0.35$ Mm. The emission peaks are symmetric because the vertical velocity is only 1 kms$^{-1}$ at the formation height. The source-function decouples from the Planck function at 0.4 Mm and decreases towards the maximum formation height at $2.7$ Mm, forming the central core. ]{}
Comparison between observations and simulations {#sec:comparison_obs}
===============================================
We compared our synthetic data with the SST/CHROMIS observations made in the K line. We also tried to reproduce some general properties of the K line in the solar spectrum using older data. As the H and K lines share many common properties and are formed in the chromosphere in practically the same way, we expect our conclusions to be similar for them both.
The primary reason to prefer the K line to the H line is that the former has a factor two higher opacity and therefore is formed slightly higher in the chromosphere. This allows to probe the largest height range in the atmosphere. In addition, the H line typically has less pronounced H$_\mathrm{2V}$ and H$_\mathrm{2R}$ emission peaks.
[Another practical reason is that the H line is blended with the H-$\epsilon$ line of at 3970.075 Å, that is, in the red wing just next to the H$_\text{1R}$ feature.]{}
Spatially-averaged K spectrum {#subsec:spat_aver}
------------------------------
\
We compare spatially-averaged intensity profiles of the K line from our simulations computed with 3D XRD with spatially-averaged profiles from our observations and high-resolution profiles from the Hamburg [quiet-Sun]{} disk-center intensity atlas . Figure \[fig:atlas\_solar\] (*top*) relates undegraded profiles from our calculations to the atlas profile measured with $\lambda/\delta\lambda = 4.5\cdot 10^5$ resolution. The atlas profile shows distinct K$_\text{1V}$, K$_\text{2V}$, K$_3$, K$_\text{2R}$, and K$_\text{1R}$ features, with K$_\text{2V}$ stronger than K$_\text{2R}$ and separated by 0.3 Å, and with K$_3$ shifted by $-$0.03 Åoff the nominal line center. The two separated emission peaks are reproduced by Model 1 and Model 3, while they are blended together in Model 2 and separate only towards the limb (see Fig. \[fig:center\_2\_limb\] and Section \[sec:c2l-variation\]). The peak separation in all three models is less than one half of the peak separation in the atlas profile. The same is true for the K$_\text{1V}$-to-K$_\text{1R}$ distance, which is the biggest, but still insufficient, in Model 2. The peak asymmetry is correct in Model 3, stronger in Model 2, and too big in Model 1. Peak intensities are too low in Model 1 and Model 3 and are too high in Model 2. The opposite is true for the line core intensities. The K$_3$ core is red shifted in Model 1 and Model 3 and might be at the right position in Model 2 as the blended peaks are slightly blue shifted off the line center. The K$_1$ features as well as the inner wings have a lower intensity in the simulations than in the atlas, except for the outer wings in Model 1, which are brighter than in the atlas profile.
Figure \[fig:atlas\_solar\] (*bottom*) relates the spatially-averaged profile observed with SST/CHROMIS with the simulated line profiles degraded to CHROMIS spectral resolution.
In the observed profile, we can still recognize all the features although K$_\text{2R}$ is only a small bump in the red flank of the line and not a [clear]{} local maximum. The peak asymmetry and the K$_2$ intensities are reduced, while the K$_3$ intensity is increased. The wavelength positions as well as the corresponding separations of the features are almost unaffected. The spatial and spectral resolution of the instrument smooth out small spectral features in the synthetic data so that the K$_3$ core disappears and the K$_2$ features cannot be resolved as two separate peaks. The K$_1$ and inner wing intensities remain roughly the same while the K$_2$ intensities are reduced.
None of the models reproduce both the full-resolution and the degraded K line profiles. The models appear either too cold or too hot in the upper photosphere, and they are too cold around the temperature minimum and are either too cold or too hot in the middle chromosphere, where non-thermal broadening is not strong enough in the simulations.
Center-to-limb variation {#sec:c2l-variation}
------------------------
Center-to-limb observations of the solar K spectrum show two effects First, all their intensities undergo limb-darkening. Second, the K$_1$ and K$_2$ separations increase towards the limb. First shown by and later confirmed by more accurate modeling by , the H and K lines must be treated in PRD as modeling assuming CRD cannot reproduce any of the center-to-limb effects. However, it is not possible to accurately model both effects using the same 1D model atmosphere . We tested whether we can reproduce both center-to-limb effects in Model 1 and Model 2. We computed spatially-averaged K-line intensities at $\mu = 1.0$, 0.66, 0.33, and 0.2 in the most accurate 3D XRD treatment. [We computed the intensity output for two azimuths: 0 and 90 degrees, that is, along the X-axis and the Y-axis and four different latitude directions having $\mu_\text{Z}$ = 1, 0.66, 0.33, and 0.2. For each latitude we average over the two azimuths.]{} For comparison, we adopted the observations taken with the Sacramento Peak Observatory spectrograph from the disk center towards the south pole of the Sun, with the slit aligned in the North-South direction and an exposure time of 30 s.
Figure \[fig:center\_2\_limb\] illustrates the first center-to-limb effect in the K line. All features as well as the inner wings of the K line undergo a limb darkening in both model atmospheres, that is, their intensities steadily decrease towards the limb. We note that the emission peaks at K$_\text{2V}$ and K$_\text{2R}$ as well as the outer minima at K$_\text{1V}$ and K$_\text{1R}$ become more separated towards the limb.
Figure \[fig:c2l-variation\] relates the observed and synthesized distances of K$_\text{1V}$ and K$_\text{2V}$ off the line center. In this figure, we show variations of the absolute values (upper panel) as well as slopes of their trends (lower panel).
We note the same problem discussed above that the calculated K$_1$ separations are much smaller [than]{} the observed ones. Model 1 produces less than 50% and Model 2 produces 70–80% of the observed widths. The K$_\text{1V}$ features show similar trends in both models. These trends are flatter than the observed one. The K$_\text{2V}$ features show very steep trends in both models, while the observed trend is a bit less steep than the observed K$_\text{1V}$ trend.
Although both model atmospheres do not reproduce correct separations between the corresponding features, they do reproduce the observed trends in center-to-limb behaviour. In a certain sense, Model 1 fits better as it does not show extreme the trends of Model 2.
Statistics of the K line parameters {#sec:obs-line-parameters}
------------------------------------
Using the observed CHROMIS dataset and our synthetic data sets, we investigated the distributions of four observable K-line parameters: 1) the brightness temperature at the [K$_2$]{} emission peaks $T_\text{b}(\text{K}_2)$; 2) the wavelength separation between the [K$_1$]{} minima; 3) the wavelength separation between the [K$_2$]{} maxima; 4) the peak asymmetry $$\label{eq:peak-asymmetry}
A =
\dfrac{
I(\text{K}_\text{2V}) - I(\text{K}_\text{2R})
}{
I(\text{K}_\text{2V}) + I(\text{K}_\text{2R}).
}$$
We spatially degraded the synthetic dataset as in Sec. \[sec:datadegradation\]. The simulated emission peaks are roughly a factor 2.1 narrower than the observations, as shown in Fig. \[fig:atlas\_solar\]. Degrading with the spectral resolution of CHROMIS (120 mÅ) would lead to unrealistically many single-peaked profiles and too-low [K$_2$]{} intensities and too high [K$_1$]{} intensities. We therefore smeared with a Gaussian of $120/2.1$ mÅ$ = 57$ mÅ, where the factor 2.1 comes from the difference in emission peak width. This lower value is chosen so that the simulated profiles are smoothed, just as in the observations, but not so much that the emission peaks blend together. We note that this comparison is somewhat unfair. However, given the difference in the width of the central emission peaks, it allows a reasonable comparison of the distribution of the profile parameters.
Figure \[fig:obs3\] shows distributions of all four parameters in the observations and in the simulations. The models predict a too low [K$_2$]{} brightness temperature compared to the observations, most likely caused by a too low temperature in the middle chromosphere in the simulations. The median brightness temperature in the simulations is 4.2 kK, while the observed one is 4.4 kK. The straylight contamination in the observations can affect the $T_\text{B}(\text{K}_2)$ distribution by decreasing its dynamical range of temperatures, so the real discrepancy between observations and simulations might be smaller than implied by the distributions.
The mean [K$_1$]{} separation is smaller in the models than is observed, and their distribution has a long asymmetric tail towards high values, while the observed distribution is more symmetric. Likewise, the simulated [K$_2$]{} separations are on average lower and show a tail in the distribution towards high values. The observed distribution is more symmetric. The [K$_1$]{} and [K$_2$]{} separation distributions are not sensitive to straylight contamination and the disagreement between the models and the observations means that physical processes that produces non-thermal line broadening are missing or not sufficiently strong in the models. Previously, similar effects have been reported for Model 1 by for the h and k lines and by for the 1335 Å triplet.
Finally, the peak asymmetry shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:obs3\] can be used to assess strong velocity gradients caused by shock waves traveling upwards in the chromosphere . It is known from observations , that K$_\text{2V}$ is usually stronger than K$_\text{2R}$ meaning that the peak asymmetry is slightly negative. All three distributions are centered around zero showing mean values of $-0.01$ (observations), and 0.01–0.04 (simulations). The observed distribution is negatively skewed with a bit longer tail of negative values and it goes from $-0.3$ to 0.2. The synthetic distributions are positively skewed with a fairly long tail of positive values and they go from $-0.3$ to 0.5. The synthetic distributions are wider. The closest, although not good, agreement with the observations appears in Model 3. The observed peak asymmetry distribution is not very sensitive to straylight. The model distributions might be influenced by the fact that we use a single snapshot from each simulation run. The mean and the skewness of the distribution might depend on the phases of the global box oscillations which are present in the simulations .
Images in the K line {#sec:imaging-in-K-line}
---------------------
We investigate whether Bifrost simulations reproduce similar chromospheric structures as we see in observed K images. Figure \[fig:obs2\] relates line-wing and line-core images observed with SST/CHROMIS to similar images synthesized using the three Bifrost model atmospheres. Again, we spatially smeared the simulated images to SST/CHROMIS resolution, but smeared spectrally with a Gaussian with FWHM of 57 mÅ. Smearing the simulated images with the full CHROMIS profile leads to too much mixing of low-chromospheric signal in the line-core images, and would not allow us to compare the fibril structure formed in the mid and upper chromosphere. We stress again that this is not a fair comparison of the imagery, and the small peak separation in the synthetic profiles is a clear indication that the chromosphere is not yet modeled correctly in the Bifrost models.
The line-wing images were observed and simulated close to the K$_\mathrm{1V}$ features, so they sample the upper photosphere just below the temperature minimum. We see regular brightness patterns in all four cases. These patterns come from reversed granulation, acoustic wave fronts and magnetic features. The Bifrost models show a brightness pattern with similar spatial scales in the most quiet regions (in the corners) as in the observations but with larger spatial scales between the two polarities in the central part of the field of view. This region has flux-emergence in the simulations and also larger size granules. All the simulations show higher contrast compared to the observations. On average, Model 2 and Model 3 are darker and Model 1 is brighter than the observations. The typical size of magnetic field concentrations in intergranular lanes is also larger in the synthetic images: they appear as bright tiny dots of 4.8–5.1 kK in the observations while in the simulations they look like bright, diffuse, and elongated spots of 5.0–5.2 kK. Cold granular patches can be quite dark in the simulations, with values below 4.0 kK, while in the observations they are somewhat higher, typically 4.1–4.2 kK.
The line core images in Figure \[fig:obs2\] show images at the nominal line center. The observations show a rather diffuse pattern of reversed granulation and sub-canopy shock waves away from magnetic field concentrations, with superimposed fibrilar structure that appears semi-transparent. The fibrils are thin (less than 0.3 Mm wide), are typically 5–10 Mm long, and many originate at bright patches of magnetic concentrations seen in the observed line-wing image. The observed fibrils cover the whole field of view, and they are typically only slightly curved.
The synthetic images have a higher contrast than the observations. The areas above the photospheric magnetic elements are bright. The 96-km resolution Model 1 shows only a few fibrils, Model 2 with 48 km resolution shows more, and Model 3 with 31 km resolution shows most. The fine fibrils in Model 3 are quite reminiscent of the observed ones. Still all models show too few fibrils and too strong visibility of the underlying shocks and reversed granulation. The numerical simulations have a horizontal grid spacing of 31 or 48 km. The smallest structures that can be formed in the simulation are roughly four times the grid spacing, and are thus of comparable size or larger than the spatial resolution of CHROMIS/SST. Simulations with higher spatial resolution are thus required to resolve the smallest observable scales.
The hottest network structures are brighter than 5 kK in the simulations and have only 4.7–4.9 kK in the observations. The coldest internetwork patches are colder than 4.1 kK in the simulations and are 4.1–4.2 kK in the observations.
We conclude that visually Model 3 shows more fine details than Model 1 or Model 2, and the structures in Model 3 are more similar to the observed chromospheric structures than those in Models 1 and 2.
In terms of the root-mean-square contrast of the intensity, all Bifrost models produce a factor of 1.8–2.0 higher contrast in the line wing and a factor of 2.9–3.4 higher contrast in the line core in comparison with the observations. This discrepancy is at least partially caused by the straylight contamination, which we did not correct for in the reduction procedure.
Diagnostic potential of the H and K lines {#sec:result_diagnostic}
=========================================
We use undegraded synthetic K-line spectrograms to demonstrate which properties of the line profile are useful for diagnosing the chromosphere. We discuss results for the K line only, because the H line is formed in the same way. In some sections we employ only one model atmosphere out of three because the other models show similar results.
Formation heights of the profile features
-----------------------------------------
We identify the K-line profile features in all three model atmospheres and measure corresponding formation heights. [The zero-point for the formation height is defined as the average height where the optical depth at 5000 Å is unity.]{} Using the Eddington-Barbier approximation at $\mu = 1$, we define the formation height $z$ at a given frequency $\nu$ as the height where the optical depth equals unity, $\tau_\nu = 1$. Figure \[fig:fig3\_height\] shows the obtained distributions of $z(\tau_\nu = 1)$ at the frequency of the [K$_2$]{} and [K$_3$]{} features.
The [K$_3$]{} feature is formed in the widest range of heights at 0.5–4.0 Mm. The side lobe on the left side of the distribution near 0.5–1.0 Mm consists of pixels where the feature-finding algorithm failed. Less than half of them are when K$_3$ is mistaken for K$_1$ around a single emission peak (see Sect. \[sec:line\_features\]). The rest are when K$_3$ is mistaken for some local minimum in a complex profile with many emission peaks. Such local minima are formed between the upper photosphere and the lower chromosphere. On average, K$_3$ forms at 1.9[$\pm 0.6$]{} Mm. The [K$_2$]{} emission peaks are on average formed below [K$_3$]{}, at 0.3–3.0 Mm. On average, K$_\text{2V}$ forms at 1.3[$\pm 0.5$]{} Mm and K$_\text{2R}$ forms at 1.0[$\pm 0.5$]{} Mm. Model 2 shows the biggest mean formation heights, 1.4 Mm for K$_\text{2V}$ and 1.1 Mm for K$_\text{2R}$.
The K$_\text{2V}$ distributions show three maxima in all three models.
The leftmost side maximum at 0.5 Mm is obtained from profiles with a single emission peak. The emission peak is produced in the lower chromosphere by strong downflows following the upward passage of shock waves. The next peak mode at 0.8 Mm is caused by complex profiles with many emission peaks, where the standard classification cannot by applied. The principal peak at 1.3–1.4 Mm is obtained from standard profiles with two emission peaks. It is strong for K$_\text{2V}$ and is weak for K$_\text{2R}$ as the red emission peak is often difficult to measure in normal profiles because it is weak or appears as a slight bump in the line profile but not a local maximum.
Features of the H line are formed below the corresponding features of the K line. On average, H$_3$ forms 150 km below K$_3$, H$_\text{2V}$ forms 150 km below K$_\text{2V}$, and H$_\text{2R}$ forms 100 km below K$_\text{2R}$.
The K$_3$ minimum
-----------------
The cores of the K and H lines are the most interesting features as they are the most highly formed parts of the line profiles. At K$_3$ and H$_3$ one can observe the middle-upper chromosphere, still below the h and k or the Ly-$\alpha$ lines in the UV, but above the other visible, the T or the H-$\alpha,\beta$ lines. Figure \[fig:figatmos\] illustrates this on the Model 2 slice, marked in Fig. \[fig:obs2\].
All strong chromospheric line cores are formed at heights where the magnetic pressure $P_\text{B}$ dominates the gas pressure $P_\text{gas}$ (this is illustrated by the plasma $\beta = P_\text{gas} / P_\text{B} = 1$ curve). Owing to a factor $\sim~17$ higher opacity, the h and k lines always form above the H and K lines. This difference in formation heights goes from 40 km to 1900 km depending on the density variation in the atmosphere. At the same time, the H line always forms below the K line, on average 120 km. Both the H and K line cores form around 2200 km in this slice. The 8542 Å line forms much below, around 1400 km.
At network regions with strong vertical magnetic fields, the transition region lies much lower and the and the lines are formed very close to each other just below the transition region (for example between a width of 21 Mm and 25 Mm in Fig. \[fig:figatmos\]). In the internetwork magnetic fields are more horizontal and the transition region lies much higher on many density loops, which outline the magnetic field direction. There, the and the lines are formed much higher with a much bigger spacing in between their formation heights (for example between a width of 16–20 Mm). If we define the transition region as the height where the temperature goes above 30 kK, then the K line forms, on average in all three models, 1.25 Mm below the transition region. We did not find any correlation between the K line intensity and the height of the transition region.
We want to illustrate a common feature of strong chromospheric lines. For each model, we composed two images in the XY-plane made of intensities and corresponding formation heights at K$_3$ given in Fig. \[fig:k3\_image\]. In each image there are many [white sprinkles in the upper panel and black sprinkles in the lower panel that are caused by misfits of the K$_3$ feature.]{} The effect of increasing horizontal resolution is visible from Model 1, which has very diffuse and unsharp structures, to Model 3, which has many small-scale sharp elements. The feature we would like to point attention at is the anti-correlation of the observed intensity with the formation height at K$_3$. In other words, bright radiation of the network is formed much below dim radiation of the internetwork formed higher up.
Panel a) of Fig. \[fig:eddington\_b\] shows the validity of the Eddington-Barbier relation at $\mu = 1$ for the K$_3$ emergent intensity, $$\label{eq:EB-relation}
I(\lambda_3, \mu = 1) = S\bigl( \lambda_3, z = z(\tau = 1) \bigr)$$
where $\tau=1$ is at the wavelength position of the K$_3$ feature.
As the K line is a strongly scattering one with the photon destruction probability $\epsilon \approx 10^{-4}$ and as CRD is approximately valid at the line core, then the line source function at K$_3$ is mostly equal to the angle- and profile-averaged intensity $\bar{J}^\varphi$. This is correct for $z(\tau = 1) > 1.3$ Mm as can be seen in panel b) of Fig. \[fig:eddington\_b\]. Below $z(\tau = 1) = 1.3$ Mm, the line source function becomes more coupled to the local Planck function. The mean intensity of scattered radiation is decreasing with height, that is why we observe an anti-correlation of $T_\text{b}$ with $z(\tau = 1)$ in Fig. \[fig:k3\_image\].
Diagnostic properties of the H and K lines
------------------------------------------
Following we investigated what kind of diagnostic the H and K lines can provide for the chromosphere. We studied how intensities, wavelength positions, and other derived properties of the [vertically-emergent ($\mu=1.00$)]{} synthetic profile features are related to the physical properties of the [individual columns of the 3D]{} model atmosphere at the corresponding heights. We present results for the K line only as they are similar for the H line.
We use the following notations. The speed of light is $c$. The vertical velocity is $\varv_\text{Z}(z)$ and it depends on height $z$. The central wavelength of the K line is $\lambda_0$. For K$_\text{2V}$, K$_3$, and K$_\text{2R}$, we denote their wavelengths $\lambda(\text{K}_\text{2V})$, $\lambda(\text{K}_3)$, and $\lambda(\text{K}_\text{2R})$. The same notation in parentheses is used for the emergent intensity $I$ and the corresponding brightness temperature $T_\text{b}$. The formation height of K$_3$ is $z_3 \equiv z(\text{K}_3)$. Similarly, the averaged formation height of K$_2$ is $$\label{eq:z_2}
z_2
=
\tfrac{1}{2}
\bigl[
z_\text{2V} + z_\text{2R}
\bigr]
\equiv
\tfrac{1}{2}
\bigl[
z(\text{K}_\text{2V}) + z(\text{K}_\text{2R})
\bigr].$$ The Doppler shift of K$_3$ is $$\label{eq:v_3}
\varv_3
=
c \dfrac{ \Delta\lambda_3 }{ \lambda_0 }
\equiv
c \dfrac{ \lambda_0 - \lambda(\text{K}_3) }{ \lambda_0 }.$$ The averaged Doppler shift of K$_2$ is $$\label{eq:v_2}
\varv_2
=
c
\dfrac{
\lambda_0 - \tfrac{1}{2}
\bigl[ \lambda(\text{K}_\text{2V}) + \lambda(\text{K}_\text{2R}) \bigr]
}{
\lambda_0
}.$$ The peak-to-peak distance or the peak separation is $$\label{eq:Dv_2}
\Delta\varv_2
=
c \dfrac{ \Delta\lambda_2 }{ \lambda_0 }
\equiv
c \dfrac{
\lambda(\text{K}_\text{2R}) - \lambda(\text{K}_\text{2V})
}{ \lambda_0 }.$$ The averaged vertical velocity at peaks is $$\label{eq:v_Z2}
\langle \varv_\text{Z} \rangle_2
=
\tfrac{1}{2}
\bigl[
\varv_\text{Z}( z_\text{2V} ) + \varv_\text{Z}( z_\text{2R} )
\bigr].$$ The maximum amplitude of the vertical velocity $$\label{eq:Dv_Z}
\Delta \varv_\text{Z}
=
\max_{z_2 \leq z \leq z_3} v_\text{Z}(z) -
\min_{z_2 \leq z \leq z_3} v_\text{Z}(z)$$ is measured between $z_2$ and $z_3$, that is, the range of heights where the central part of the profile between the emission peaks is formed. In the same range of heights we define the mean vertical velocity $$\label{eq:mean_v_Z}
\newcommand*{\dd}{ \ensuremath{ \mathrm{d} } } \langle \varv_\text{Z} \rangle_{2{-}3}
=
\dfrac{ 1 }{ z_3 - z_2 }
\int_{z_2}^{z_3} \!\varv_\text{Z}(\zeta) \,\dd\zeta.$$ The peak asymmetry $A$ is the same as in Eq. .
### Velocities {#sec:feature-velocities}
\
showed that the h and k lines are good for tracing the line-of-sight velocities in the chromosphere through the h$_3$/k$_3$ or the h$_2$/k$_2$ features. We test whether the same is true for the H and K lines.
We examined whether the K$_3$ Doppler shift $\varv_3$ (Eq. \[eq:v\_3\]) corresponds to the vertical velocity $v_\text{Z}(z_3)$ at the K$_3$ formation height $z_3$. Panel a) in Fig. \[fig:fig\_zmin\] shows this is true with a very strong correlation. Two spurious spots outside of the main distribution resulted from K$_3$ misfits in complex profiles with more than two emission peaks. The wavelength position of K$_3$ is a very accurate probe for velocities in the upper chromosphere.
We studied how the K$_2$ peak separation $\Delta \varv_2$ (Eq. \[eq:Dv\_2\]) is related to the corresponding maximum amplitude of the vertical velocity $\Delta\varv_\text{Z}$ (Eq. \[eq:Dv\_Z\]). Panel b) in Fig. \[fig:fig\_zmin\] shows a decent correlation for $\Delta \varv_2 < 20$ kms$^{-1}$. [An example is given in panel (a) of Figure \[fig:four\_panel\_1\], where a 11 kms${^{-1}}$ K$_2$ peak separation corresponds to $\Delta\varv_\text{Z}$=5 kms${^{-1}}$.]{} A larger separation of the K$_2$ peaks is caused by the deep chromospheric heating discussed in Section \[sec:deep\_chromo\] and is not dependent on the velocity amplitudes.
We related the averaged K$_2$ Doppler shift $\varv_2$ (Eq. \[eq:v\_2\]) with the averaged vertical velocity $\langle\varv_\text{Z}\rangle_2$ at K$_2$ (Eq. \[eq:v\_Z2\]). Panel c) in Fig. \[fig:fig\_zmin\] shows that this is a good velocity diagnostic for the middle chromosphere, especially for strong velocities. The distribution shows a number of points sticking out towards the left at $\langle\varv_\text{Z}\rangle_2=0$. They are mainly caused by misidentifications of one or both of the [K$_2$]{} peaks. We note that in the simulations one has access to the formation heights of the peaks, while this is not the case for observations. Observationally, $\varv_2$ can thus be used to estimate the vertical velocity in the chromosphere at the peak [formation]{} heights, but it is not possible to estimate the formation heights themselves.
Finally, we related the peak asymmetry $A$ (Eq. \[eq:peak-asymmetry\]) with the mean vertical velocity $\langle\varv_\text{Z}\rangle_{2{-}3}$ (Eq. \[eq:mean\_v\_Z\]). In the quiet Sun observations, the peak asymmetry is mostly positive indicating in the chromosphere a particular type of downflows that follow upward passages of shock waves . Panel d) in Fig. \[fig:fig\_zmin\] shows an anti-correlation of $A$ with $\langle\varv_\text{Z}\rangle_{2{-}3}$, which means that the blue emission peak becomes stronger than the red emission peak if material in the middle-upper chromosphere is mainly moving down and vice versa. This dependence is almost linear for small velocities but then saturates for large ones.
### K$_2$ intensities {#sec:K2-temperatures}
The emission peaks of the h and k lines of demonstrate a correlation of their brightness temperature $T_\text{b}$ with the gas temperature $T_\text{gas}$ at the corresponding formation heights. We investigated the validity of this relation for the emission peaks of the [H&K]{} lines.
Figure \[fig:fig7\_temp\] shows correlations between the brightness temperature $T_\text{b}(\text{K}_\text{2V})$ at K$_\text{2V}$ or $T_\text{b}(\text{K}_\text{2R})$ at K$_\text{2R}$ and the related gas temperature $T_\text{gas}(z_\text{2V})$ or $T_\text{gas}(z_\text{2R})$. For each model atmosphere there is a certain range of $T_\text{b}$ where this relation is valid, therefore the peaks can probe the gas temperature in the chromosphere.
In Model 1, this range is 4.5–6 kK. Below 4.5 kK, the peak intensity gets set by the scattered radiation in the middle chromosphere and the distribution spreads out decreasing the correlation. Intensities at both peaks underestimate the gas temperature by 0.5–1 kK.
In Model 2, the range of the linear correlation is 4.7–6.8 kK. The blue peak intensity underestimates the gas temperature by $\sim 2$ kK, while the red peak intensity underestimates it by 1 kK. [The difference between red and blue peak]{} is caused by much stronger velocity fields in this model, [which causes large variations of the opacity along the line of sight (For examples see Figure \[fig:four\_panel\_1\])]{}.
In Model 3, the validity range is 4.7–6.4 kK. This model shows the most accurate linear dependence with the smallest spread. There are side secondary clusters of points at 3.7–4.6 kK for K$_\text{2V}$ and at 3.7–4.2 kK for K$_\text{2R}$ where there is no correlation and intensity is controlled by the scattered radiation.
In all models, the K$_\text{2R}$ peak shows a stronger correlation than the K$_\text{2V}$ peak.
We test the correlations by computing them using the line profiles with a single emission peak only, which constitute only 16% of the entire population. We obtain very similar distributions, therefore we conclude that these types of correlations are not sensitive to our algorithm for the profile feature classification.
We test this relation for the K$_3$ feature as well. The line core is strongly scattering and its brightness temperature is not correlated to the local gas temperature. Therefore, the [K$_3$]{} brightness temperature cannot be used to measure the gas temperature in the chromosphere.
### K$_1$ intensities {#sec:K1-temperatures}
\
The K$_1$ minima are formed between the upper photosphere and the lower chromosphere. There, they are caused by either a global temperature minimum or one of the local minima. The line source function at such heights is often still partially coupled to the Planck function. Therefore the K$_1$ minima can be used to diagnose the temperature in the temperature minimum.
investigated how the K$_1$ intensity relates to the global temperature minimum in the 1D HRSA model atmosphere. They found that the brightness temperature at K$_1$ was lower than the gas temperature at the minimum.
We apply their approach to measure the temperature minimum in our 3D Bifrost model atmospheres. Such 3D R-MHD model atmospheres have a very complicated temperature structure that is not as easy to classify as it can be done with traditional 1D hydrostatic model atmospheres that typically have a single well-defined temperature minimum around a height of 500 km.
Since the line source function is frequency-dependent in the line wings due to PRD, the K$_\text{1V}$ or K$_\text{1R}$ features can be formed at different formation heights. Therefore, we first determine the formation height of each feature and then search in a height interval of 200 km around these formation heights for the deepest temperature minimum. We define the global temperature minimum as the height with the lowest gas temperature [obtained]{} either from K$_\text{1V}$ or K$_\text{1R}$.
[Panel a) in Fig.]{} \[fig:fig18\_heat\] shows how the averaged brightness temperature $T_\text{b}(\text{K}_1)$ at K$_1$ relates to the gas temperature at the minimum. The K$_1$ brightness temperature overestimates the minimum’s temperature at low [K$_1$]{} intensities. From $T_\text{b}(\text{K}_1) = 4.4$ kK and above there are two arms in the distribution. One, along the red solid line, shows a tight linear correlation meaning that the radiation temperature and the gas temperature are well coupled. The other, along the red dashed line, underestimates the minimum’s temperature. The atmospheric columns that produce the line along the red [solid]{} line all have very wide [K$_1$]{} separations and formation heights so low in the atmosphere that the source function is still strongly coupled to the Planck function.
In all three models, this global correlation is very strong. We conclude that K$_1$ could be used to assess the temperature of the temperature minimum using [panel a) in ]{}Fig. \[fig:fig18\_heat\] as a calibration. The bifurcation of the distribution above $T_\text{b}(\text{K}_1) = 4.6$ kK adds some ambiguity, however.
### [K$_2$]{} peak separation {#sec:deep_chromo}
As we noted for the distribution on panel b) in Fig. \[fig:fig\_zmin\], there is no correlation between the K$_2$ peak separation and the maximum velocity amplitude in the middle-upper chromosphere if the former is more than 20 kms$^{-1}$. By applying the Eddington-Barbier approximation, we conjecture that a separation between the K$_2$ peaks significantly larger than 20 kms$^{-1}$ indicates that there is a temperature increase already much deeper in the atmosphere than typical for our simulations [(an example of a profile is given in panel (d) of Figure \[fig:four\_panel\_1\])]{}.
We identify the location of this temperature increase assuming that at the formation height $z_2$ of K$_2$ the source function is decreasing when moving deeper into the atmosphere. If this is true, we stop at height where the source function is 90% of its value at $z_2$. From this height up we integrate the density to obtain the column mass where the temperature rise occurs. If K$_2$ is misidentified or if the source function is only increasing with increasing depth, we discard this profile from the sample.
[Panel b) in Fig.]{} \[fig:fig18\_heat\] shows that K$_2$ peak separations above 25 km s$^{-1}$ are indeed associated with a deeply located temperature increase (i.e., at high column mass). The correlation is very tight. We note that in our model atmospheres we only have a very small fraction of profiles that show this effect. Nevertheless, because the effect is based on simple radiation transfer properties we expect that very wide K$_2$ peak separations can be evidence of a deep chromospheric temperature rise also in observations. However, because the observed and simulated line profiles show substantial differences, we also note that observed wide peak separations can be caused by effects not present in our models.
Summary and conclusions {#sec:discussion}
=======================
We investigated the formation and the diagnostic value of the H and K lines through observations and numerical modeling.
We modeled the spectrum by considering the non-LTE, the 3D RT, and [PRD]{}/XRD effects together. 3D RT effects are important in the cores of the lines, while the PRD/XRD effects mostly influence the wings. A joint treatment of all three effects is important to obtain correct synthetic intensities.
We computed synthetic line profiles in 3D non-LTE including XRD from snapshots from three different radiation-MHD models computed with the Bifrost code.
We compared the synthetic spatially-averaged spectrum with a standard solar atlas and our SST/CHROMIS observations. None of the model atmospheres reproduces the observed spectral profiles. In Model 2, the emission peaks are usually blended at disk-center and become separated only towards the limb. Model 1 and Model 3 reproduce the two emission peaks. All three models have a too low wavelength separation between the K$_1$ and K$_2$ features. We conclude that something is missing in all models that is responsible for the broader observed profiles. Two possibilities for this are a lack of motions at scales [smaller than the photon mean free path (”microturbulence”, 1D modeling shows that amplitudes of 5 km s$^{-1}$ are sufficient)]{}, and too weak heating processes in the lower chromosphere (see [Fig. \[fig:eb\_four\_panel\], [panel (d) of Fig. \[fig:four\_panel\_1\]]{}, and]{} the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:fig18\_heat\]).
The same behaviour has been reported for the h and k lines of and lines in Model 1. The models also predict a too low [K$_2$]{} radiation temperature.
We compared the center-to-limb variation with Model 1, Model 2, and observations performed at Sacramento Peak . The models reproduce the observed trends in variation of the intensity of the line features and the K$_1$ and K$_2$ separations, but do not reproduce their absolute values.
We investigated several diagnostic possibilities of the H and K lines. The H$_3$/K$_3$ features trace the vertical velocity in the upper chromosphere. Furthermore, the [K$_2$]{} peak separation correlates with the velocity difference between the K$_2$ and K$_3$ formation heights for peak separations below 20 kms$^{-1}$. For larger peak separation we find a good correlation with the column mass where the chromospheric temperature rise occurs. The [K$_2$]{} asymmetry can be used to measure the average velocity between the line core and the emission peaks.
The models predict a too low peak separation, and the correlation that we found thus point towards, on average, too low vertical velocities fields and a too high location of the chromospheric temperature rise in the models.
The brightness temperature of H$_2$/K$_2$ and H$_1$/K$_1$ can probe the local conditions in the upper photosphere to the middle chromosphere. We showed that the brightness temperature of H$_1$/K$_1$ correlates with the temperature in a local or global temperature minimum along the line of sight. The brightness temperature of the H$_2$/K$_2$ features correlates with the gas temperature at their formation heights, especially for high temperatures. The offset between the gas temperature and the K$_2$ brightness temperature is somewhat different in all three models, which means that the temperature estimates derived from the brightness temperature have an uncertainty [in the range of $0.5-2$kK.]{}
The H and K lines of have similar formation properties similar as the h and k lines of . The main difference is the larger formation heights of the h and k lines. Within magnetic elements this height difference is small, but in the simulated internetwork regions the difference can be up to 2000 km.
We studied three different model atmospheres that span a large variation of physical conditions, and all models produce similar correlations between observables and the atmospheric parameters. We therefore believe that the correlations presented in this paper will be valid in the quiet Sun. However, these correlations might not be valid under different circumstances, for example in active regions.
[The simulations that we use here do not include the Hall term and ambipolar diffusion resulting from the interaction of ions and neutral particles.]{} has shown that inclusion of those effects in 2.5D models leads to enhanced dissipation of magnetic free energy, which, [ in turn,]{} leads to an increase in heating in the chromosphere.
In addition, showed that ion-neutral effects in a different 2.5D simulation with a larger spatial extent and higher spatial resolution, produces structures that have the same properties as type II spicules . These spicules are notably absent from our simulations, and might play a role in setting the average properties of the [H&K]{} line profiles.
All three snapshots that we use are computed with a different equation of state. The equation of state has a large impact on the density and temperature structure in the chromosphere and transition region . We can therefore not draw any conclusions with respect to the effect of EOS or spatial resolution on the line profiles. Radiative transfer computations as described in this manuscript should be performed on new 3D simulations with a higher resolution, an equation of state including non-equilibrium ionization of both hydrogen and helium, and including the effects of ion-neutral interactions.
We thank David Bühler and Jayant Joshi for acquiring the quiet-Sun data. The Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope is operated on the island of La Palma by the Institute for Solar Physics of Stockholm University in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. The computations were performed on resources provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at the High Performance Computing Center North at Umeå University and the PDC Centre for High Performance Computing (PDC-HPC) at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. JdlCR is supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (2015-03994), the Swedish National Space Board (128/15) and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB). This research was supported by the CHROMOBS and CHROMATIC grants of the Knut och Alice Wallenberg foundation and by the Research Council of Norway through the grant “Solar Atmospheric Modelling” and through grants of computing time from the Programme for Supercomputing.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We search for $\CP$ violation in the charged charm meson decay $D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$, based on a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $921\invfb$ collected by the Belle experiment at the KEKB $e^{+}e^{-}$ asymmetric-energy collider. The measured $\CP$-violating asymmetry is $[+2.31\pm1.24{\ensuremath{\mathrm{(stat.)}}\xspace}\pm0.23{\ensuremath{\mathrm{(syst.)}}\xspace}]\%$, which is consistent with the standard model prediction and has a significantly improved precision compared to previous results.'
title: |
\
Search for [$\CP$]{} violation in the [$D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$]{} decay at Belle
---
Within the standard model (SM), the violation of charge-parity ($\CP$) symmetry in the charm system is expected to be small \[$\order(10^{-3})$\] owing to suppression from the Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani mechanism [@GIM]. These order-of-magnitude estimates [@Gino] suffer from large uncertainties [@Brod] due to nonperturbative long-distance effects resulting from a finite charm-quark mass. The problem came to the fore in 2012, when the world average of the difference in $\CP$-violating asymmetries between $D^{0}\to K^{+}K^{-}$ and $D^{0}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ decays was measured to be $\Delta A_{\CP}=(-0.656\pm 0.154)\%$ [@Amhis]; here, each asymmetry is $$A_{\CP}(D\to f) = \frac{\Gamma(D\to f) - \Gamma(\Dbar\to\overline{f})}{\Gamma(D\to f) + \Gamma(\Dbar\to\overline{f})},$$ where $\Gamma(D\to f)$ and $\Gamma(\Dbar\to\overline{f})$ are the decay rates for a given process and its $\CP$ conjugate, respectively. This led to much discussion as to whether the result was consistent with the SM or a signature of new physics (NP). Though the current $\Delta A_{\CP}$ value is consistent with zero [@Amhis-new], it is important to study those decay channels expected by the SM to exhibit negligible $\CP$ violation.
Singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays like $D^{+}\to \pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ [@charge] are excellent candidates to probe $\CP$ violation in the charm sector [@Grossman]. Such decays require additional strong and weak phases besides those in the tree diagram to have a sizable $\CP$ asymmetry. The phases can appear in either a strong or an electroweak loop (e.g., box diagram). As the former produces only isospin singlets, it cannot contribute to the $I=2$ final state of $\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$. On the other hand, electroweak loop diagrams have too small an amplitude of $\order(10^{-6})$ for the interference to manifest $\CP$ violation. Any $\CP$ asymmetry found in these channels would therefore point to NP [@Grossman; @Buccella]. In particular, the authors of Ref. [@Grossman] suggested looking for $\CP$ violation in $D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ as well as verifying a sum rule that relates individual asymmetries of the three isospin-related $D\to\pi\pi$ decays as potential NP probes. The sum rule, which reduces the theoretical uncertainty due to strong interaction effects, can be characterized by the ratio $$R=
\frac{\left|{\cal A}_1\right|^2-\left|\bar{{\cal A}}_1\right|^2+\left|{\cal A}_2\right|^2-\left|\bar{{\cal A}}_2\right|^2-\frac{2}{3}(\left|{\cal A}_3\right|^2-\left|\bar{{\cal A}}_3\right|^2)}
{\left|{\cal A}_1\right|^2+\left|\bar{{\cal A}}_1\right|^2+\left|{\cal A}_2\right|^2+\left|\bar{{\cal A}}_2\right|^2+\frac{2}{3}(\left|{\cal A}_3\right|^2+\left|\bar{{\cal A}}_3\right|^2)},$$ where ${\cal A}_{1}$, ${\cal A}_{2}$, and ${\cal A}_{3}$ are the amplitudes of $D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$, $D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$, and $D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$, respectively; $\bar{{\cal A}}_{1}$, $\bar{{\cal A}}_{2}$, and $\bar{{\cal A}}_{3}$ are those of their $\CP$ conjugates. The amplitudes are normalized so that $$\left|{\cal A}_k\right|^2\propto\frac{{\cal B}_{k}}{\tau_{0\,(+)}\,p_{k}},$$ where ${\cal B}_{k}$ is the branching fraction of the decay $D\to\pi_{i}\pi_{j}$, $\tau_{0\,(+)}$ is the appropriate $D^{0}\,(D^{+})$ lifetime, and $$p_{k}=\frac{\{[m^2_D-(m_i+m_j)^2][m^2_D+(m_i-m_j)^2]\}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{2\,m_D},$$ is the breakup momentum in the $D$ rest frame. The indices $i$ and $j$ correspond to the pion daughters. As the masses of the charged and neutral species of the $D$ or $\pi$ mesons are close to each other, we consider all $p_{k}$ values to be equal. We use Eqs. (3)–(4) and the relation $$\left|{\cal A}_k\right|^2-\left|\bar{{\cal A}}_k\right|^2=A_{\CP}\left(\left|{\cal A}_k\right|^2+\left|\bar{{\cal A}}_k\right|^2\right)$$ to rewrite Eq.(2) as $$\begin{aligned}
R =\frac{A_{\CP}(D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)}{1+\frac{\tau_{D^{0}}}{{\cal B}_{1}}\left(\frac{{\cal B}_{2}}{\tau_{D^{0}}}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{{\cal B}_{3}}{\tau_{D^{+}}}\right)}
+\,\frac{A_{\CP}(D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0)}{1+\frac{\tau_{D^{0}}}{{\cal B}_{2}}\left(\frac{{\cal B}_{1}}{\tau_{D^{0}}}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{{\cal B}_{3}}{\tau_{D^{+}}}\right)} \\\nonumber
-\,\frac{A_{\CP}(D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)}{1+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\tau_{D^{+}}}{{\cal B}_{3}}\left(\frac{{\cal B}_{2}}{\tau_{D^{0}}}+\frac{{\cal B}_{1}}{\tau_{D^{0}}}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ If the value of $R$ is consistent with zero while the $\CP$ asymmetry in $D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ is nonzero [@Grossman], it would be an NP signature.
A test of the above sum rule requires the measurement of the time-integrated $\CP$ asymmetries $A_{\CP}(D^{0}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{-})$, $A_{\CP}(D^{0}\to\pi^{0}\pi^{0})$, and $A_{\CP}(D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0})$. The current world average of $A_{\CP}(D^{0}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{-})$ is $(+0.13\pm 0.14)\%$ [@pdg]. Three years ago, Belle measured $A_{\CP}(D^{0}\to\pi^{0}\pi^{0})$ as $[-0.03\pm 0.64{\ensuremath{\mathrm{(stat.)}}\xspace}\pm 0.10{\ensuremath{\mathrm{(syst.)}}\xspace}]\%$ [@Nisar_P]. However the charged-mode asymmetry measured by CLEO has an uncertainty of $2.9\%$ [@mendez] and therefore limits the precision with which the above sum rule can be tested.
We present herein an improved measurement of $\CP$ asymmetry for the channel $D^{+} \to\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ using the full $e^{+}e^{-}$ collision data sample recorded by the Belle experiment [@Abashian] at the KEKB asymmetric-energy collider [@Kurokawa]. The data sample was recorded at three different center-of-mass (CM) energies: at the $\Y4S$ and $\Y5S$ resonances and $60{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}$ below the $\Y4S$ peak, with corresponding integrated luminosities of $711$, $121$ and $89\invfb$, respectively. The detector components relevant for the study are a tracking system comprising a silicon vertex detector and a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), a particle identification device that consists of a barrel-like arrangement of time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF) and an array of aerogel threshold Cherenkov counters (ACC), and a CsI(Tl) crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL). All these components are located inside a superconducting solenoid that provides a 1.5T magnetic field.
For the measurement, we consider an exclusive sample of $D^{\pm}$ mesons tagged by $D^{*\pm}\to D^{\pm}\pi^{0}$ decays, and another that is not tagged by the $D^{*\pm}$ decays. The former sample has a better signal-to-noise ratio while the latter has more events. For optimal sensitivity, we combine their asymmetry measurements.
From a simultaneous fit to the invariant-mass ($M_{D}$) distributions of the $\pi^{\pm}\pi^{0}$ samples, we determine the raw asymmetry $$A_{\rm raw}^{\pi\pi} = \frac{N(D^{+}\to\pi^{+} \pi^{0})-N(D^{-}\to\pi^{-} \pi^{0})}{N(D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0})+N(D^{-}\to\pi^{-} \pi^{0})},$$ where $N(D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0})$ and $N(D^{-}\to\pi^{-} \pi^{0})$ are the yields for the signal and its $\CP$-conjugate process, respectively. $A_{\rm raw}^{\pi\pi}$ has three contributing terms: $$A_{\rm raw}^{\pi\pi} = A_{\CP}^{\pi\pi} + A_{\FB} + A_{\varepsilon}^{\pi^{\pm}}.$$ The first term, $A_{\CP}^{\pi\pi}$, is the true asymmetry. The forward-backward asymmetry, $A_{\FB}$, arises due to interference between the amplitudes mediated by a virtual photon, a $Z^{0}$ boson, and higher-order effects [@FB-paper1; @FB-paper2; @FB-paper3] in $e^{+}e^{-} \to\ccbar$. It is an odd function of the cosine of the $D^{*\pm}$ polar angle, $\theta^{*}$, in the CM frame. The pion-detection efficiency asymmetry, $A_{\varepsilon}^{\pi^{\pm}}$, is a function of the $\pi^{\pm}$ momentum and polar angle.
We make use of the high-statistics normalization channel $D^{+}\to\KS\pi^{+}$ to correct the measured asymmetry for $A_{\FB}$ and $A_{\varepsilon}^{\pi^{\pm}}$. As both signal and normalization decays arise from the same underlying process, $A_{\FB}$ should be identical for them. This assumption has been verified by checking the consistency of the $\cos\theta^{*}$ distribution between the two decays. Further, we expect $A_{\varepsilon}^{\pi^{\pm}}$ to be the same if the two channels have similar pion momentum and polar-angle distributions. The angle distributions for the two channels are found to be identical. Though there is a small difference between the momentum distributions, it has been verified to have a negligible impact on the measurement. The raw asymmetry for the normalization channel is thus $$A_{\rm raw}^{K\pi} = A_{\CP}^{K\pi} + A_{\FB} + A_{\varepsilon}^{\pi^{\pm}},$$ where $A_{\CP}^{K\pi}$ is the $\CP$ asymmetry of $D^{+}\to\KS\pi^{+}$; this has been measured to be $[-0.363\pm 0.094{\ensuremath{\mathrm{(stat.)}}\xspace}\pm 0.067{\ensuremath{\mathrm{(syst.)}}\xspace}]\%$ [@brko], including the $\CP$ asymmetry induced by $K^{0}$-$\Kbar^0$ mixing and the difference in interactions of $K^{0}$ and $\Kbar^{0}$ mesons with the detector material. The difference in the raw asymmetries is $$\Delta A_{\rm raw} \equiv A_{\rm raw}^{\pi \pi} - A_{\rm raw}^{K \pi} = A_{\CP}^{\pi \pi} - A_{\CP}^{K \pi},$$ which leads to $$\label{imp_eqn}
A_{\CP}^{\pi\pi} = A_{\CP}^{K\pi} + \Delta A_{\rm raw}.$$
Monte Carlo (MC) simulated events are used to devise and optimize the selection criteria; the size of the MC sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity six times that of the data. We perform the optimization by maximizing the signal significance, $N_{\rm sig}/\sqrt{N_{\rm sig}+N_{\rm bkg}}$, where $N_{\rm sig}$ $(N_{\rm bkg})$ is the number of signal (background) events expected within a $\pm 3\sigma$ window ($\sigma = 15.3{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$) around the nominal $D$ mass [@pdg]. The branching fraction of the signal channel used in the $N_{\rm sig}$ calculation is the current world average, $1.24\times 10^{-3}$ [@pdg]. The background level is corrected for a possible data-MC difference by comparing yields in the $M_D$ sidebands of $1.70$–$1.76$ and $1.92$–$2.00{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$.
Charged-track candidates must originate from near the $e^{+}e^{-}$ interaction point (IP), with an impact parameter along the $z$ axis and in the transverse plane of less than $3.0$ and $1.0\cm$, respectively. (The $z$ axis is the direction opposite the $e^{+}$ beam.) They must have a momentum greater than $840{~\mathrm{Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$. They are treated as pions if the likelihood ratio, ${{\cal L}_{\pi}}/({{\cal L}_{\pi}}+{{\cal L}_K})$, is greater than 0.6, where ${\cal L}_{\pi}$ and ${\cal L}_{K}$ are the pion and kaon likelihoods, respectively. These are calculated with information from the CDC, TOF and ACC. This requirement, when applied to charged particles with a momentum distribution similar to that of the signal decay, yields a pion identification efficiency of approximately $88\%$ and a kaon-to-pion misidentification probability of about $7\%$.
The high-momentum (“hard”) $\pi^{0}$ candidates that would originate from two-body $D$ decay are reconstructed from pairs of photons by requiring the diphoton invariant mass to be within $\pm 16{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$ of the nominal $\pi^{0}$ mass [@pdg]. The hard $\pi^{0}$ daughter photons in the barrel, forward– and backward–endcap regions of the ECL are required to have an energy greater than 50, 100 and $150{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}$, respectively. (The barrel, forward– and backward–endcap regions span the polar angle ranges $32.2$–$128.0^{\circ}$, $12.4$–$31.4^{\circ}$ and $130.7$–$155.1^{\circ}$, respectively.) The thresholds for the endcap photons are higher due to the higher beam background. The hard $\pi^{0}$ must have a momentum greater than $1.06{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$.
Charged $D$ meson candidates are formed by combining a charged-pion with a hard-$\pi^{0}$ candidate, and requiring the resultant $M_{D}$ distribution to lie within $\pm200{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$ of the nominal $D$ mass [@pdg]. For $D^{*+}$ reconstruction in the tagged sample, low-momentum (“soft”) $\pi^{0}$ candidates are reconstructed from a pair of photon candidates whose energy criteria are optimized for each ECL region; the corresponding values are listed in Table \[phot\_cuts\]. The soft-$\pi^{0}$ invariant mass is required to be within an optimized window, $125$–$143{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$. It is verified during optimization that the $\pi^{0}$ mass distributions in simulations are in agreement with control data consisting of a high-statistics sample of $D^{+}\to K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ decays, with the $D^+$ arising from $D^{*+}\to D^{+}\pi^{0}$.
Case $E_{\gamma 1}$ criterion $E_{\gamma 2}$ criterion
------ -------------------------- -----------------------------
1 $>$46 MeV (barrel) $>$46 MeV (barrel)
2 $>$36 MeV (barrel) $>$68 MeV (forward endcap)
3 $>$30 MeV (barrel) $>$44 MeV (backward endcap)
: Optimized requirements on the soft-$\pi^{0}$ photon energies (ECL region) in the tagged sample. []{data-label="phot_cuts"}
For the tagged sample, $D^{*}$ candidates are formed by combining $D$ mesons with soft $\pi^{0}$ candidates such that the mass difference between the $D^{*}$ and $D$ candidates, $\Delta M$, lies within an optimized window of $139$–$142{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$. This corresponds approximately to a $\pm 1.5 \sigma$ signal region, where $\sigma$ is the $\Delta M$ resolution. For the fit to extract $A_{\CP}$ (described below), two intervals of $D^{*}$ CM momentum with different signal-to-background ratios are chosen: $p^{*}_{D^{*}} > 2.95{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$ and $2.50{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}< p^{*}_{D^{*}} <2.95{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$. The first corresponds to an optimized $p^{*}_{D^{*}}$ criterion with maximal signal significance. The second interval is added to increase the statistical sensitivity of the measurement, while ensuring that the lower bound excludes $D^{*}$ mesons from a $B$-meson decay, as the latter might introduce a nontrivial $\CP$ asymmetry.
After the above selection criteria are applied, we find that about $3\%$ of events have multiple $D^{*}$ candidates. We perform a best-candidate selection (BCS) to remove spurious $D^{*}$ candidates formed from fake soft-$\pi^{0}$ mesons. This is done by retaining, for each event, the candidate whose $\Delta M$ value lies closest to the mean of the $\Delta M$ distribution, $140.69{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$. For events with multiple $D^{*}$ candidates, with at least one of them being the true candidate, the BCS successfully identifies the correct one around $65\%$ of the time. As the spurious $D^*$ candidates also correspond to true $D$ candidates, this component peaks in the $M_{D}$ distribution. By performing the BCS, we ensure that only one $D$ candidate is selected per event, and so avoid overestimating the signal component in the $M_{D}$ fits.
If there are no suitable $D^{*}$ candidates found in an event, the charged $D$ candidates, if any, are considered for the untagged sample. Here, we require that the $D$ CM momentum be above an optimized threshold of $2.65{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$. In case there are multiple $D$ candidates in the event, the one with the daughter $\pi^0$ candidate having a reconstructed mass closest to the nominal $\pi^0$ mass [@pdg] is chosen. If there are still multiple surviving candidates, the one whose charged-pion daughter has the smallest transverse impact parameter is retained. About $2\%$ of events in the untagged sample have multiple $D$ candidates; for such events, with at least one of them being the true candidate, the BCS successfully identifies the correct one around $66\%$ of the time.
For the normalization channel, we reconstruct $K^{0}_{S}$ candidates from pairs of oppositely charged tracks that have an invariant mass within $30{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$ $(\pm 5 \sigma)$ of the nominal $\KS$ mass. The transverse impact parameter of the track candidates is required to be larger than $0.02\cm$ for high-momentum ($>1.5{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$) and $0.03\cm$ for low-momentum ($<1.5{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$) $\KS$ candidates. The $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ vertex must be displaced from the IP by a minimum (maximum) transverse (longitudinal) distance of $0.22\cm$ ($2.40\cm$) for high-momentum candidates and $0.08\cm$ ($1.80\cm$) for the remaining candidates. The direction of the $\KS$ momentum must be within 0.03rad (0.10rad) of the direction between the IP and the vertex for high-momentum (remaining) candidates. The surviving $\KS$ candidates are kinematically constrained to their nominal masses [@pdg]. Candidate events for the $D^{+}\to\KS\pi^{+}$ channel are selected with essentially the same requirements as for signal, except that we require the $D$ candidate mass to lie within $\pm80{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$ of the nominal $D$ mass; the tighter criterion is due to the better mass resolution with an all-charged final state. Similar to the signal channel described earlier, nonoverlapping tagged and untagged samples are formed.
A fitting range of $1.68$–$2.06{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$ in $M_{D}$ is chosen for the signal $D\to\pi\pi$ channel. For the tagged sample, a simultaneous unbinned maximum-likelihood fit of the two $p^{*}_{D^{*}}$ intervals and oppositely charged $D$ meson candidates is performed. Similarly, for the untagged sample, a simultaneous binned maximum-likelihood fit of oppositely charged $D$ meson candidates is done. We use a combination of a Crystal Ball (CB) [@Skwarnicki] and a Gaussian function to model the signal peak for both tagged and untagged fits. The background in the tagged fit is parametrized by the sum of a reversed CB and a linear polynomial, while that for the untagged fit uses a quadratic rather than a linear polynomial. All signal shape parameters for the tagged fit are fixed to MC values except for an overall mean and a width scaling factor, which are floated. We introduce the scaling factor to account for the possible difference between data and simulations. For the untagged fit, all shape parameters are fixed to MC values, aside from the overall mean, which is floated, and the width scaling factor, which is fixed from the tagged-data fit. For the background, the cutoff and tail parameters of the reversed CB are fixed from MC events, and all other shape parameters are floated. For the tagged fit, the two $p^{*}_{D^{*}}$ intervals are required to have a common signal asymmetry but have separate background asymmetries. For the tagged sample, the total signal yield obtained from the fit is $6632\pm 256$ with $A^{\pi\pi}_{\mathrm{raw}}=(+0.52\pm1.92)\%$; the corresponding results for the untagged sample are $100934 \pm 1952$ and $(+3.77\pm1.60)\%$. The quoted uncertainties are statistical. Figures \[fit\_pipi\] and \[fit\_pipi\_untag\] show the projections of the simultaneous fit performed on the tagged and untagged data samples, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Invariant mass distributions for the $\pi^{\pm}\pi^{0}$ system for the tagged $D\to\pi\pi$ sample in the intervals $p^{*}_{D^{*}}> 2.95{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$ (top) and $2.50{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}< p^{*}_{D^{*}} < 2.95{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$ (bottom). Left (right) panels correspond to $D^{+}$ ($D^{-}$) samples. Points with error bars are the data. The solid blue curves are the results of the fit. The red dashed, blue dotted and green dash-dotted curves show the signal, total- and peaking-background contributions, respectively. The normalized residuals are shown below each distribution, and the post-fit $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom ($\chi^{2}$/d.o.f.) is given in each panel.[]{data-label="fit_pipi"}](pipi_tagged3.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
For the $D^+\to\KS\pi^+$ normalization channel, a fitting range of $1.80$–$1.94{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$ is chosen and the simultaneous fits for the tagged sample, with two $p^{*}_{D^{*}}$ intervals, and the untagged sample are performed as for the $D\to\pi\pi$ signal channel. The narrower fitting range can be afforded because of the better $D$-mass resolution. The signal peak is modeled with the sum of a Gaussian and an asymmetric Gaussian function, with all shape parameters floated. The background shape is parametrized with a linear polynomial, whose slope is floated. The total signal yield obtained from the tagged fit is $68434\pm 308$ with $A_{\mathrm{raw}}^{K\pi}= (-0.29\pm 0.44)\%$; the corresponding results for the untagged sample are $982029 \pm 1797$ and $(-0.25\pm0.17)\%$. The quoted uncertainties are again statistical. Figure \[fit\_kspi\] shows the projections of the simultaneous fit performed on the tagged and untagged data samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Invariant mass distributions for the $\pi^{\pm}\pi^{0}$ system for the untagged $D\to\pi\pi$ sample. The top two panels are the full distributions with signal and background components, while the bottom two show the corresponding background-subtracted distributions. Left (right) panels correspond to $D^{+}$ ($D^{-}$) samples. Points with error bars, colored curves, and residual plots are described in the caption of Fig. \[fit\_pipi\].[]{data-label="fit_pipi_untag"}](pipi_untagged5.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
From the results of the fit to the signal and normalization channels, we calculate $\Delta A_{\rm raw}$ (tagged) $=(+0.81\pm1.97\pm0.19)\%$ and $\Delta A_{\rm raw}$ (untagged) $ =(+4.02 \pm 1.61 \pm 0.32) \% $. The first uncertainty quoted in each measurement is statistical and the second is systematic (see below). A combination of the two [@err-add] gives $$\Delta A_{\rm raw}=(+2.67 \pm 1.24 \pm 0.20)\%,$$ which, in conjunction with the world average of $A_{\CP}(D^+ \to \KS \pi^+)$ [@pdg], results in $$A_{\CP}(D^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)=(+2.31\pm1.24\pm0.23)\%.$$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Invariant mass distributions for the $\KS\pi^{\pm}$ system for the normalization channel, $D\to\KS\pi^{\pm}$, in the intervals $p^{*}_{D^{*}}> 2.95{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$ (top) and $2.50{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}< p^{*}_{D^{*}} < 2.95{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c}$ (middle) for the tagged sample, and for the untagged sample (bottom). Left (right) panels correspond to $D^+$($D^-$) samples. Points with error bars, colored curves, and residual plots are described in the caption of Fig. \[fit\_pipi\]. []{data-label="fit_kspi"}](kspi_full3.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
The major sources of systematic uncertainty for the $A_{\CP}$ measurement are: (i) uncertainty in the signal and background shapes for the $D\to\pi\pi $ fits, (ii) uncertainty in modeling the peaking-background shape, and (iii) uncertainty in the $A_{\CP}$ measurement for the normalization channel. Source (i) arises from fixing some of the shape parameters to MC values. Its contribution to the systematic uncertainties is estimated by constructing an ensemble of fits, randomizing the fixed parameters with Gaussian distributions whose mean and width are set to MC values and then extracting the RMS of the $A_{\rm raw}$ distribution obtained from the fits. The peaking background of source (ii) is due to misreconstructed $D$ or $D_{s}$ meson decays and exhibits a broad peaking structure shifted to the left of the signal peak (Figs. \[fit\_pipi\] and \[fit\_pipi\_untag\]). As it is only partially present in the fitting range, the reversed-CB shape is subject to uncertainty. We vary the lower $M_{D}$ threshold between 1.68 to $1.72{~\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$ in steps of $10{~\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}$ and then refit to assess the impact on the signal’s $A_{CP}$ determination. For source (iii), we rely on the world average of $A_{\CP}(D^+\to\KS\pi^+)$ [@pdg]. The various sources of systematic uncertainties and their values are listed in Table \[syst\]. The total uncertainty is $\pm 0.23\%$.
----------------------------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------
Source $D \to\pi\pi$ $D \to\pi\pi$
tagged untagged
Signal shape $\pm0.02$ $\pm 0.23$
Peaking background shape $\pm 0.19$ $\pm 0.22$
$\Delta A_{\rm raw}$ measurement $\pm 0.19$ $\pm 0.32$
$A_{\CP}(D\to\KS\pi)$ measurement $\pm 0.12$
Total
(combined $A_{\CP}$ measurement) $\pm 0.23$
----------------------------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------
: Summary of systematic uncertainties (%) on $A_{\CP}$. []{data-label="syst"}
In summary, we have measured the $\CP$-violating asymmetry $A_{\CP}$ for the $D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0}$ decay using $921\invfb$ of data, with the combined result from two disjoint samples: one tagged by the decay $D^{*+}\to D^{+}\pi^{0}$ and the other untagged. After correcting for the forward-backward asymmetry and detector-induced efficiency asymmetry, based on the normalization channel $D^{+}\to\KS\pi^{+}$, we obtain $A_{\CP}(D^{+}\to\pi^{+}\pi^{0})= [+2.31\pm1.24{\ensuremath{\mathrm{(stat.)}}\xspace}\pm0.23{\ensuremath{\mathrm{(syst.)}}\xspace}]\%$. The result is consistent with the SM expectation of null asymmetry and improves the precision by more than a factor of $2$ over the previous measurement [@mendez]. Inserting this result into Eq.(6) along with the current world averages of $A_{\CP}$ and ${\cal B}$ for $D^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ [@pdg] and $D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$ [@Nisar_P] decays, as well as $\tau_{0\,(+)}$ [@pdg], we obtain $R = (-2.2\pm 2.7)\times 10^{-3}$. The isospin sum rule holds to a precision of three per mille, putting constraints on the NP parameter space [@Grossman]. As the statistical error of $A_{\CP}(D^0\to\pi^0\pi^0)$, as well as of our result, dominate the total uncertainty on $R$, we expect a substantial improvement in testing the sum rule from the upcoming Belle II experiment [@belle2].
We thank the KEKB group for the excellent operation of the accelerator; the KEK cryogenics group for the efficient operation of the solenoid; and the KEK computer group, the National Institute of Informatics, and the PNNL/EMSL computing group for valuable computing and SINET5 network support. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), and the Tau-Lepton Physics Research Center of Nagoya University; the Australian Research Council; Austrian Science Fund under Grant No. P 26794-N20; the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contracts No. 10575109, No. 10775142, No. 10875115, No. 11175187, No. 11475187, No. 11521505 and No. 11575017; the Chinese Academy of Science Center for Excellence in Particle Physics; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under Contract No. LTT17020; the Carl Zeiss Foundation, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Excellence Cluster Universe, and the VolkswagenStiftung; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy; National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea Grants No. 2014R1A2A2A01005286, No. 2015R1A2A2A01003280, No. 2015H1A2A1033649, No. 2016R1D1A1B01010135, No. 2016K1A3A7A09005603, No. 2016R1D1A1B02012900; Radiation Science Research Institute, Foreign Large-size Research Facility Application Supporting project and the Global Science Experimental Data Hub Center of the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information; the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Center; the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Slovenian Research Agency; Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science and MINECO (Juan de la Cierva), Spain; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.
[30]{}
S.L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D [**2**]{}, 1285 (1970).
G. Isidori, J. F. Kamenik, Z. Ligeti, and G. Perez, Phys. Lett. B [**711**]{}, 46 (2012).
J. Brod, A. Kagan, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 014023 (2012).
Y. Amhis (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group), arXiv:1207.1158.
Y. Amhis (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group), arXiv:1612.07233.
Unless stated otherwise, the inclusion of charge-conjugate reactions are implied.
Y. Grossman, A. L. Kagan, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 114036 (2012); J. Zupan (private communication).
F. Buccella, M. Lusignoli, G. Mangano, G. Miele, A. Pugliese, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Lett. B [**302**]{}, 319 (1993).
C. Patrignani (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C [**40**]{}, 100001 (2016).
N. K. Nisar (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 211601 (2014).
H. Mendez (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 052013 (2010).
A. Abashian (Belle Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**479**]{}, 117 (2002); also, see the detector section in J. Brodzicka , Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. [**2012**]{}, 04D001 (2012).
S. Kurokawa and E. Kikutani, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**499**]{}, 1 (2003), and other papers in this volume; T. Abe , Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. [**2013**]{}, 03A001 (2013), and following articles up to 03A011.
F. A. Berends, K. J. F. Gaemers, and R. Gastmans, Nucl. Phys. [**B63**]{}, 381 (1973).
R. W. Brown, K. O. Mikaelian, V. K. Cung, and E. A. Paschos, Phys. Lett. B [**43**]{}, 403 (1973).
R. J. Cashmore, C. M. Hawkes, B. W. Lynn, and R. G. Stuart, Z. Phys. C [**30**]{}, 125 (1986).
B. R. Ko (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 021601 (2012); [**109**]{}, 119903(E) (2012).
T. Skwarnicki, Ph.D. Thesis, DESY F31-86-02 (1986), Appendix E.
J. Erler, Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{}, 453 (2015).
T. Abe (Belle II Collaboration), arXiv:1011.0352.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[**Factors of sums and alternating sums of products of\
$q$-binomial coefficients and powers of $q$-integers**]{}
Victor J. W. Guo[^1] and Su-Dan Wang$^{2}$
[$^1$School of Mathematical Sciences, Huaiyin Normal University, Huai’an, Jiangsu 223300,\
People’s Republic of China\
[[email protected]]{}\
$^2$Department of Mathematics, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062,\
People’s Republic of China\
[[email protected]]{} ]{}
0.7cm [[**Abstract.**]{} We prove that, for all positive integers $n_1, \ldots, n_m$, $n_{m+1}=n_1$, and non-negative integers $j$ and $r$ with $j\leqslant m$, the following two expressions $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{[n_1+n_m+1]}{n_1+n_{m}\brack n_1}^{-1}\sum_{k=0}^{n_1} q^{j(k^2+k)-(2r+1)k}[2k+1]^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^m {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\brack n_i-k},\\[5pt]
&\frac{1}{[n_1+n_m+1]}{n_1+n_{m}\brack n_1}^{-1}\sum_{k=0}^{n_1}(-1)^k q^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-2rk}[2k+1]^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^m {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\brack n_i-k}\end{aligned}$$ are Laurent polynomials in $q$ with integer coefficients, where $[n]=1+q+\cdots+q^{n-1}$ and ${n\brack k}=\prod_{i=1}^k(1-q^{n-i+1})/(1-q^i)$. This gives a $q$-analogue of some divisibility results of sums and alternating sums involving binomial coefficients and powers of integers obtained by Guo and Zeng. We also confirm some related conjectures of Guo and Zeng by establishing their $q$-analogues. Several conjectural congruences for sums involving products of $q$-ballot numbers $\left({2n\brack n-k}-{2n\brack n-k-1}\right)$ are proposed in the last section of this paper. ]{}
0.2cm [*Keywords:*]{} $q$-binomial coefficients; $q$-ballot numbers; $q$-Catalan numbers; $q$-super Catalan numbers; cyclotomic polynomial
0.2cm [*AMS Subject Classifications*]{} (2000): 05A30, 65Q05, 11B65
Introduction
============
In 2011, the first author and Zeng [@GZ2011] prove that, for all positive integers $n_1, \ldots, n_m$, $n_{m+1}=n_1$, and any non-negative integer $r$, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n_1}\varepsilon^k (2k+1)^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^{m} {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\choose n_i-k} \equiv 0 \mod (n_1+n_m+1){n_1+n_m\choose n_1}, \label{eq:guozeng-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon=\pm 1$. The congruence is very similar to the following congruences: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=-n_1}^{n_1}(-1)^k\prod_{i=1}^m
{n_i+n_{i+1}\choose n_i+k}\equiv 0\mod{ {n_1+n_m\choose n_1} }, \label{eq:guozeng-2} \\[5pt]
2\sum_{k=1}^{n_1}k^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^{m} {n_i+n_{i+1}\choose n_i+k}\equiv 0\mod{ n_1{n_1+n_m\choose n_1} }, \label{eq:guozeng-3}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{m+1}=n_1$, which were obtained by Guo, Jouhet, and Zeng [@GJZ], and Guo and Zeng [@GZ2010], respectively. Note that is a generalization of the following congruence due to Calkin [@Calkin]: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=-n}^n (-1)^k{2n\choose n+k}^m\equiv 0\mod{{2n\choose n}}\qquad \textrm{for $m{\geqslant}1$.} $$ It is known that both and have neat $q$-analogues (see [@GJZ] and [@GW]). It is also worth mentioning that $q$-analogues of classical congruences have been widely studied during the last decade (see, for example, [@PS; @SP; @Tauraso2012; @Tauraso2013]).
The first aim of this paper is to give a $q$-analogue of . Recall that the [*$q$-integers*]{} are defined as $[n]=1+q+\cdots+q^{n-1}$ and the [*$q$-binomial coefficients*]{} are defined by $${n\brack k}=
\begin{cases}\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^k\frac{1-q^{n-i+1}}{1-q^i} &\text{if $k\geqslant 0$,} \\[10pt]
0 &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Let $D$ be a polynomial in $q$. We say that two Laurent polynomials $A$ and $B$ in $q$ are congruent modulo $D$, denoted by $A\equiv B\mod D$, if $(A-B)/D$ is still a Laurent polynomial in $q$. Let $\N$ denote the set of non-negative integers and $\Z$ the set of positive integers. Our first result is as follows.
\[thm:fatorodd-first\] Let $n_1,\ldots,n_{m}\in\Z$, $n_{m+1}=n_1$, and $j,r\in\N$ with $j\leqslant m$. Then modulo $[n_1+n_m+1]{n_1+n_{m}\brack n_1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{n_1} q^{j(k^2+k)-(2r+1)k}[2k+1]^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^m {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\brack n_i-k}\equiv 0, \label{eq:first-1} \\[5pt]
&\sum_{k=0}^{n_1}(-1)^k q^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-2rk}[2k+1]^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^m {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\brack n_i-k} \equiv 0. \label{eq:first-2}\end{aligned}$$
The first author and Zeng [@GZ2011] also prove that, for all positive integers $n_1, \ldots, n_m$, $n_{m+1}=n_1$, and any non-negative integer $r$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -3mm \sum_{k=0}^{n_1}k^r(k+1)^r(2k+1)\prod_{i=1}^{m} {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\choose n_i-k} \notag\\[5pt]
&\equiv 0 \mod (n_1+n_m+1){n_1+n_m\choose n_1}n_1^{\min\{1,r\}}n_m^{\min\{1,{r\choose 2}\}}, \label{eq:guozeng-4}\\[5pt]
&\hskip -3mm \sum_{k=0}^{n_1}(-1)^{k} k^r(k+1)^r(2k+1)\prod_{i=1}^{m} {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\choose n_i-k} \notag\\[5pt]
&\equiv 0 \mod (n_1+n_m+1){n_1+n_m\choose n_1}n_1 ^{\min\{1,r\}}n_m ^{\min\{1,r\}}. \label{eq:guozeng-5}\end{aligned}$$ Actually in [@GZ2011] the congruence is deduced from and by noticing that $$(2k+1)^{2r}=(4k^2+4k+1)^r =\sum_{i=0}^r{r\choose i}4^{i}k^i(k+1)^i.$$
The second aim of this paper is to give the following $q$-analogue of and .
\[thm:fatorodd-second\] Let $n_1,\ldots,n_{m}\in\Z$, $n_{m+1}=n_1$, and $j,r\in\N$ with $j\leqslant m$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm \sum_{k=0}^{n_1} q^{j(k^2+k)-(r+1)k}[2k+1][k]^r[k+1]^r\prod_{i=1}^m {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\brack n_i-k} \notag\\[5pt]
&\equiv 0 \mod [n_1+n_m+1]{n_1+n_m\brack n_1}[n_1]^{\min\{1,r\}}[n_m]^{\min\{1,{r\choose 2}\}}, \\[5pt]
&\hskip -2mm \sum_{k=0}^{n_1}(-1)^k q^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-rk} [2k+1][k]^r[k+1]^r\prod_{i=1}^m {n_i+n_{i+1}+1\brack n_i-k} \notag \\[5pt]
&\equiv 0 \mod [n_1+n_m+1]{n_1+n_m\brack n_1}[n_1]^{\min\{1,r\}}[n_m]^{\min\{1,r\}}.\end{aligned}$$
Not like the $q=1$ case, it seems that Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\] cannot be derived from Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\] directly.
The $q$-ballot numbers $A_{n,k}(q)$ ($0{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}n$) are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
A_{n,k}(q)=q^{n-k}\frac{[2k+1]}{[2n+1]}{2n+1\brack n-k}={2n\brack n-k}-{2n\brack n-k-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that sums involving the ballot numbers $A_{n,k}:=A_{n,k}(1)$ have been considered by Miana and Romero [@MR2 Theorem 10] and Guo and Zeng [@GZ2011].
The third aim of this paper is to give the following congruences involving $q$-ballot numbers. Note that the $q=1$ case confirms a conjecture of Guo and Zeng [@GZ2011 Conjecture 1.3].
\[thm:q-ballot\] Let $n,s\in\Z$ and $r,j\in\N$ with $r+s\equiv 1\pmod{2}$ and $j\leqslant s$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{j(k^2+k)-rk}[2k+1]^r A_{n,k}(q)^s\equiv 0 \mod{ {2n\brack n} }, \label{eq:q-ballt-1}\\[5pt]
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-(r-1)k}[2k+1]^r A_{n,k}(q)^s \equiv 0 \mod{ {2n\brack n}}. \label{eq:q-ballt-2}\end{aligned}$$
Let $[n]!=[n][n-1]\cdots[1]$ be the [*$q$-factorial*]{} of $[n]$. It is easy to see that, for all $m,n\in\N$, the expression $\frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!}$ is a polynomial in $q$ by writing a $q$-factorial as a product of cyclotomic polynomials. The polynomials $\frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!}$ are usually called the [*$q$-super Catalan numbers*]{}. Warnaar and Zudilin [@WZ Proposition 2] have shown that the $q$-super Catalan numbers are polynomials in $q$ with non-negative integer coefficients.
We shall also prove the following congruences modulo $q$-super Catalan numbers.
\[thm:mn-qq\] Let $m,n,s,t\in\Z$ and $j,r\in \N$ with $r+s+t\equiv 1\pmod 2$ and $j\leqslant s+t$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
[m+n+1]\sum_{k=0}^m q^{j(k^2+k)-rk} [2k+1]^{r}A_{m,k}(q)^s A_{n,k}(q)^t
&\equiv 0 \mod \frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!}, \\[5pt]
[m+n+1]\sum_{k=0}^m (-1)^kq^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-(r-1)k} [2k+1]^{r}A_{m,k}(q)^s A_{n,k}(q)^t
&\equiv 0 \mod \frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that the $q=1$ case of Theorem \[thm:mn-qq\] confirms another conjecture of Guo and Zeng [@GZ2011 Conjecture 6.10]. It should also be mentioned that Theorem \[thm:mn-qq\] in the case where $m=n$ gives the $s\geqslant 2$ case of Theorem \[thm:q-ballot\] (see ).
The paper is organized as follows. We shall prove Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\] for $m=1$ in Section 2 and prove Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\] for $m=1$ in Section 3. A proof of Theorems \[thm:fatorodd-first\] and \[thm:fatorodd-second\] for $m\geqslant 2$ will be given in Section 4. The $q$-Chu-Vandermonde identity and the $q$-Dixon identity will play a key role in our proof. We shall prove Theorems \[thm:q-ballot\] and \[thm:mn-qq\] in Sections 5 and 6, respectively. We give some consequences of Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\] and some related conjectures in Section 7.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\] for $m=1$
=================================================
The [*$q$-shifted factorials*]{} (see [@GR]) are defined as $(a;q)_0=1$ and $(a;q)_n=(1-a)(1-aq)\cdots (1-aq^{n-1})$ for $n=1,2,\ldots.$ In order to prove Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\] for $m=1$, we shall first establish the following result.
Let $n\in\Z$ and $s\in\N$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{-k}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_s (q^{k+1};q)_s =(-1)^s q^{{s\choose 2}-sn-n}[2n+1]{2n\brack n}{n\brack s} (q;q)_s^2, \label{eq:r1m1-1}\\[5pt]
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{k^2}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_s (q^{k+1};q)_s =(-1)^s q^{s\choose 2}[2n+1]{2n\brack n}{n\brack s} (q;q)_s^2, \label{eq:r1m1-2} \\[5pt]
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{k\choose 2}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_s (q^{k+1};q)_s =0, \label{eq:r1m1-3}\\[5pt]
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{\frac{3k^2+k}{2}}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_s (q^{k+1};q)_s
=q^{s^2} [2n+1]{2n\brack n}{n\brack s}(q;q)_n(q;q)_s. \label{eq:r1m1-4}\end{aligned}$$
We proceed by induction on $s$. For $s=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{-k}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}
&=q^{-n}[2n+1]\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left({2n\brack n-k}-{2n\brack n-k-1}\right) \notag\\[5pt]
&=q^{-n}[2n+1]{2n\brack n}, \notag\\[5pt]
\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{k^2}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}
&=[2n+1]\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(q^{k^2}{2n\brack n-k}-q^{(k+1)^2}{2n\brack n-k-1}\right) \notag\\[5pt]
&=[2n+1]{2n\brack n}, \notag \\[5pt]
\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{k\choose 2}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}
&=q^{-n}[2n+1]\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{k+1\choose 2}\left({2n\brack n-k}-{2n\brack n-k-1}\right) \notag\\[5pt]
&=q^{-n}[2n+1]\sum_{k=-n}^{n}(-1)^k q^{k+1\choose 2}{2n\brack n-k} \notag\\[5pt]
&=0, \label{eq:app-qbino}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{\frac{3k^2+k}{2}}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}
&=[2n+1]\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{k+1\choose 2} \notag\\[5pt]
&\quad\times\left(q^{k^2}{2n\brack n-k}-q^{(k+1)^2}{2n\brack n-k-1}\right)\notag\\[5pt]
&=[2n+1]\sum_{k=-n}^{n}(-1)^k q^{\frac{3k^2+k}{2}}{2n\brack n-k} \notag\\[5pt]
&=[2n+1]{2n\brack n}(q;q)_n, \label{eq:app-qdixon}\end{aligned}$$ where the equality follows from the $q$-binomial theorem (see [@Andrews p. 36, Theorem 3.3]): $$\begin{aligned}
(x;q)_{N} &=\sum_{k=0}^{N}(-1)^k q^{k\choose 2}{N\brack k} x^k\end{aligned}$$ by taking $x=q^{-n}$ and $N=2n$, while the equality is the $l,m\to\infty$ case of the $q$-Dixon identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=-n}^{n}(-1)^k q^{\frac{3k^2+k}{2}}{l+m\brack l+k}{m+n\brack m+k}{n+l\brack n+k}
=\frac{(q;q)_{l+m+n}}{(q;q)_l (q;q)_m (q;q)_n}\end{aligned}$$ (see [@GZ-Dixon] for a short proof).
Suppose that the identities – are true for $s$. Noticing the relation $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_{s+1} (q^{k+1};q)_{s+1} \\
&=(1-q^{s-n})(1-q^{s+n+1}){2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_{s} (q^{k+1};q)_{s} \\
&\quad{}+q^{s-n}(1-q^{2n})(1-q^{2n+1}){2n-1\brack n-k-1}(q^{-k};q)_{s} (q^{k+1};q)_{s},\end{aligned}$$ we can easily deduce that the identities – hold for $s+1$. [$\Box$]{}
[*Remark.*]{} We have the following generalization of : $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{k\choose 2}[2k+1] {2n+1\brack n-k}(xq^{-k};q)_s (xq^{k+1};q)_s \notag\\
&\quad{} =x^n q^{-n}[2n+1]{2n\brack n}{s\brack n}\frac{(x;q)_{s-n}(x;q)_{s+1}(q;q)_{n}^2}{(x;q)_{n+1}},\end{aligned}$$ which can be proved in the same way as before.
We shall prove Theorem [\[thm:fatorodd-first\]]{} for $m=1$ in the following more general form:
Let $n\in\Z$ and $r,s\in\N$. Then modulo $[2n+1]{2n\brack n}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{-(2r+1)k}[2k+1]^{2r+1} {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_s (q^{k+1};q)_s \equiv 0, \label{eq:mod-r1m1-1}\\[5pt]
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{k^2-2rk}[2k+1]^{2r+1} {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_s (q^{k+1};q)_s \equiv 0, \label{eq:mod-r1m1-2} \\[5pt]
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{{k\choose 2}-2rk}[2k+1]^{2r+1} {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_s (q^{k+1};q)_s \equiv 0, \label{eq:mod-r1m1-3}\\[5pt]
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{\frac{3k^2+k}{2}-2rk}[2k+1]^{2r+1} {2n+1\brack n-k}(q^{-k};q)_s (q^{k+1};q)_s
\equiv 0. \label{eq:mod-r1m1-4}\end{aligned}$$
We proceed by induction on $r$. Denote the left-hand side of by $A_{r}(n,s)$. By , we know that is true for $r=0$. For $r\geqslant 1$, suppose that $$A_{r-1}(n,s)\equiv 0\mod [2n+1]{2n\brack n}$$ holds for all non-negative integers $n$ and $s$. It is easy to check that $$\begin{aligned}
{2n+1\brack n-k}[2k+1]^2
&=q^{2k-2n}{2n+1\brack n-k}[2n+1]^2 \\[5pt]
&\quad{}-q^{2k-2n}{2n-1\brack n-k-1}[2n][2n+1](1+q^{n-s})(1+q^{n+s+1}) \\[5pt]
&\quad{}+q^{2k-n-s}{2n-1\brack n-k-1}[2n][2n+1](1-q^{s-k})(1-q^{s+k+1}),\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
A_{r}(n,s)
&=q^{-2n}[2n+1]^2A_{r-1}(n,s)-q^{-2n}[2n][2n+1](1+q^{n-s})(1+q^{n+s+1})A_{r-1}(n-1,s) \notag\\[5pt]
&\quad{}+q^{-n-s}[2n][2n+1]A_{r-1}(n-1,s+1). \label{eq:rec-3-term}\end{aligned}$$
By the induction hypothesis, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[2n][2n+1]A_{r-1}(n-1,s)
&\equiv [2n][2n+1]A_{r-1}(n-1,s+1) \\[5pt]
&\equiv 0 \mod [2n][2n+1][2n-1]{2n-2\brack n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Noticing that $[2n][2n+1][2n-1]{2n-2\brack n-1}=[2n+1]{2n\brack n}[n]^2$, the recurrence immediately implies that holds for $r$. Similarly, we can prove –. [$\Box$]{}
Proof of Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\] for $m=1$
==================================================
For convenience, let $$\begin{aligned}
&P_r(n,j):=\sum_{k=0}^{n} q^{j(k^2+k)-(r+1)k}[2k+1][k]^r[k+1]^r {2n+1\brack n-k},\\[5pt]
&Q_r(n,j):=\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k q^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-rk}[2k+1][k]^r[k+1]^r {2n+1\brack n-k}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the $m=1$ case of Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\] can be restated as follows.
\[thm:fatorodd-secondm=1\] Let $n\in\Z$ and $r\in\N$. Then for $j=0,1$, there hold $$\begin{aligned}
&P_r(n,j)\equiv 0 \mod{[2n+1]{2n\brack n}[n]^{\min\{2,r\}}}, \label{eq:srnj-0}\\[5pt]
&Q_r(n,j)\equiv 0 \mod{[2n+1]{2n\brack n}[n]^{\min\{2,2r\}}}. \label{eq:trnj-0}\end{aligned}$$
We proceed by induction on $r$. For $r=0$, by –, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&P_0(n,0)=q^{-n}[2n+1]{2n\brack n},\quad P_0(n,1)=[2n+1]{2n\brack n},\\
&Q_0(n,0)=0\ (n\geqslant 1),\quad Q_0(n,1)=[2n+1]{2n\brack n}(q;q)_n.\end{aligned}$$ For $r{\geqslant}1$, observing that $$\begin{aligned}
q^{n-k}[k][k+1]{2n+1\brack n-k}=[n][n+1]{2n+1\brack n-k}-[2n][2n+1]{2n-1\brack n-k-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have the following recurrences: $$\begin{aligned}
&P_r(n,j)=q^{-n}[n][n+1]P_{r-1}(n,j)-q^{-n}[2n][2n+1]P_{r-1}(n-1,j), \label{eq:rec-srnj}\\[5pt]
&Q_r(n,j)=q^{-n}[n][n+1]Q_{r-1}(n,j)-q^{-n}[2n][2n+1]Q_{r-1}(n-1,j) \label{eq:rec-trnj}\end{aligned}$$ for $n{\geqslant}1$. From – we immediately get $$\begin{aligned}
&P_1(n,0)=q^{-2n}[n][2n+1]{2n\brack n},\quad P_2(n,0)=q^{-3n}[2][n]^2[2n+1]{2n\brack n},\\[5pt]
&P_1(n,1)=[n][2n+1]{2n\brack n},\quad P_2(n,1)=q^{-1}[2][n]^2[2n+1]{2n\brack n},\\[5pt]
&Q_1(1,0)=-q^{-1}[2][3],\quad Q_1(n,0)=0\ (n\geqslant 2),\quad Q_1(n,1)=-q[2n+1]{2n\brack n}[n]^2(q;q)_{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the congruence is true for $r=0,1,2$, while the congruence is true for $r=0,1$. We now assume that $r{\geqslant}3$ and holds for $r-1$ and $j=0,1$. Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{r-1}(n,j)\equiv 0\mod[2n+1]{2n\brack n}[n]^2.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
[2n][2n+1]P_{r-1}(n-1,j) \equiv 0\mod [2n][2n+1][2n-1]{2n-2\brack n-1}[n-1]^2.\end{aligned}$$ Since $[2n][2n+1][2n-1]{2n-2\brack n-1}=[2n+1]{2n\brack n}[n]^2$, from we deduce that $$P_r(n,j)\equiv 0 \pmod{[2n+1]{2n\brack n}[n]^{2}}.$$ This completes the inductive step of . The proof of is exactly the same. [$\Box$]{}
Proof of Theorems \[thm:fatorodd-first\] and \[thm:fatorodd-second\] for $m{\geqslant}2$
========================================================================================
For all non-negative integers $a_1,\ldots,a_l$, and $k$, let $$C(a_1,\ldots,a_l;k)=\prod_{i=1}^l {a_i+a_{i+1}+1\brack a_i-k},$$ where $a_{l+1}=a_1$, and let $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm S_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};j,q) \notag \\[5pt]
&=\frac{(q;q)_{n_1}(q;q)_{n_m}}{(q;q)_{n_1+n_m+1}}
\sum_{k=0}^{n_1} q^{j(k^2+k)-(r+1)k}2k+1][k]^r[k+1]^r C(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};k), \label{eq:sr-n1nm}\\[5pt]
&\hskip -2mm T_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};j,q) \notag \\[5pt]
&=\frac{(q;q)_{n_1}(q;q)_{n_m}}{(q;q)_{n_1+n_m+1}}
\sum_{k=0}^{n_1}(-1)^k q^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-rk} [2k+1][k]^r[k+1]^r C(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};k). \label{eq:tr-n1nm}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that, for $m{\geqslant}3$, $$\begin{aligned}
C(n_1,\ldots,n_m;k)=\frac{(q;q)_{n_2+n_3+1}(q;q)_{n_m+n_1+1}}{(q;q)_{n_1+k+1}(q;q)_{n_2-k}(q;q)_{n_m+n_3+1}}
{n_1+n_2+1\brack n_1-k}C(n_3,\ldots,n_m;k). \label{eq:C}\end{aligned}$$ Applying and the $q$-Chu-Vandermonde identity (see, for example, [@Andrews p. 37, (3.3.10)]) $$\begin{aligned}
{n_1+n_2+1\brack n_1-k}
=\sum_{s=0}^{n_1-k}\frac{q^{s(s+2k+1)}(q;q)_{n_1+k+1}(q;q)_{n_2-k}}{(q;q)_s (q;q)_{s+2k+1}(q;q)_{n_1-k-s}(q;q)_{n_2-k-s}}, \label{eq:vandermonde}\end{aligned}$$ we may write as $$\begin{aligned}
&\hskip -2mm S_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};j,q) \\
&=\frac{(q;q)_{n_2+n_3+1}(q;q)_{n_1} (q;q)_{n_m}}{(q;q)_{n_m+n_3+1}}\sum_{k=0}^{n_1}\sum_{s=0}^{n_1-k}
\frac{q^{j(k^2+k)-(r+1)k}[2k+1][k]^r[k+1]^r C(n_3,\ldots,n_{m};k)}{(q;q)_{s}(q;q)_{s+2k+1}(q;q)_{n_1-k-s}(q;q)_{n_2-k-s}} \\
&=\frac{(q;q)_{n_2+n_3+1}(q;q)_{n_1} (q;q)_{n_m}}{(q;q)_{n_m+n_3+1}}\sum_{l=0}^{n_1} q^{l^2+l}\sum_{k=0}^{l}
\frac{q^{(j-1)(k^2+k)-(r+1)k}[2k+1][k]^r[k+1]^r C(n_3,\ldots,n_{m};k)}{(q;q)_{l-k}(q;q)_{l+k}(q;q)_{n_1-l}(q;q)_{n_2-l}},\end{aligned}$$ where $l=s+k$. Noticing that $$\frac{C(n_3,\ldots, n_{m};k)}{(q;q)_{l-k}(q;q)_{l+k+1}}
=\frac{(q;q)_{n_{m}+n_3+1}}{(q;q)_{n_3+l+1}(q;q)_{n_{m}+l+1}}C(l,n_3,\ldots, n_{m};k),$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
S_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};j,q)
=\sum_{l=0}^{n_1} q^{l^2+l}{n_1\brack l}{n_2+n_3+1\brack n_2-l} S_r(l,n_3,\ldots,n_{m};j-1,q),\ m\geqslant 3. \label{eq:S-recsr}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for $m=2$, applying we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Sn1n2}
S_r(n_1,n_{2};j,q)=\sum_{l=0}^{n_1} q^{l^2+l}{n_1\brack l}{n_2\brack l}S_r(l;j-1,q).\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we have the following recurrence for : $$\begin{aligned}
T_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};j,q)
&=\sum_{l=0}^{n_1} q^{l^2+l}{n_1\brack l}{n_2+n_3+1\brack n_2-l} T_r(l,n_3,\ldots,n_{m};j-1,q),\ m\geqslant 3,\\[5pt]
T_r(n_1,n_{2};j,q)
&=\sum_{l=0}^{n_1} q^{l^2+l}{n_1\brack l}{n_2\brack l}T_r(l;j-1,q). \label{eq:Tn1n2}\end{aligned}$$
We now proceed by induction on $m$. In section 4, we have proved that Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\] holds for $m=1$. Suppose that Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\] is true for $m-1$ ($m{\geqslant}2$) and $0\leqslant j\leqslant m-1$. By the induction hypothesis and the relation $[l]{n_1\brack l}=[n_1]{n_1-1\brack l-1}$, it is easy to check that $$\begin{aligned}
&{n_1\brack l}S_r(l,n_3,\ldots,n_{m};j,q)\equiv0 \mod [n_1]^{\min\{1,r\}}[n_m]^{\min\{1,{r\choose 2}\}},\\[5pt]
&{n_1\brack l}T_r(l,n_3,\ldots,n_{m};j,q)\equiv0 \mod [n_1]^{\min\{1,r\}}[n_m]^{\min\{1,r\}}\end{aligned}$$ for any non-negative integer $l$. It follows from – that Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\] holds for $m$ and $1\leqslant j\leqslant m$. Applying the identity ${\alpha\brack k}_{q^{-1}}={\alpha\brack k}_{q}q^{k^2-\alpha k}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&S_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};0,q)=S_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};m,q^{-1}) q^{n_2+\cdots+n_{m-1}+n_1n_2+\cdots+n_{m-1}n_m-r},\\[5pt]
&T_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};0,q)=T_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};m-1,q^{-1}) q^{n_2+\cdots+n_{m-1}+n_1n_2+\cdots+n_{m-1}n_m-r}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\] also holds for $m$ and $j=0$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\]. Similarly, we can prove Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\] for $m\geqslant 2$.
[*Remark.*]{} If we apply the following form of the $q$-Chu-Vandermonde identity $$\begin{aligned}
{n_1+n_2+1\brack n_1-k}
=\sum_{s=0}^{n_1-k}\frac{q^{(n_1-k-s)(n_2-k-s)}(q;q)_{n_1+k+1}(q;q)_{n_2-k}}{(q;q)_s (q;q)_{s+2k+1}(q;q)_{n_1-k-s}(q;q)_{n_2-k-s}},\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
S_r(n_1,\ldots,n_{m};j,q)
&=\sum_{l=0}^{n_1} q^{(n_1-l)(n_2-l)}{n_1\brack l}{n_2+n_3+1\brack n_2-l} S_r(l,n_3,\ldots,n_{m};j,q),\ m\geqslant 3,\end{aligned}$$ and so on.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:q-ballot\]
=================================
Let $\Phi_n(q)$ be the $n$-th [*cyclotomic polynomial*]{} in $q$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_n(q):=\prod_{\substack{1\leqslant k\leqslant n\\ \gcd(n,k)=1}}(q-\zeta^k),\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta$ is a $n$-th primitive root of unity. Let $\lfloor x\rfloor$ denote the greatest integer not exceeding $x$. We will need the following result (see, for example, [@KW (10)] or [@CH; @GZ06]).
\[prop:factor\] The $q$-binomial coefficient ${m\brack k}$ can be written as $${m\brack k}=\prod_{d}\Phi_d(q),$$ where $d$ ranges over all positive integers such that $\lfloor k/d\rfloor+\lfloor (m-k)/d\rfloor<\lfloor m/d\rfloor$.
We now suppose that $r+s\equiv 1\pmod 2$ and $0\leqslant j\leqslant s$. Letting $m=s$ and $n_1=\cdots=n_s=n$ in , one sees that $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{j(k^2+k)-(r+s)k} [2k+1]^{r+s}{2n+1\brack n-k}^s\equiv 0\mod [2n+1]{2n\brack n}.
$$ Noticing that $$\begin{aligned}
[2k+1]{2n+1\brack n-k}q^{n-k}=[2n+1]\left({2n\brack n-k}-{2n\brack n-k-1}\right)\equiv 0 \mod [2n+1], \label{eq:div-qballot}\end{aligned}$$ we immediately get $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^{n}q^{j(k^2+k)-rk}[2k+1]^r\left({2n\brack n-k}-{2n\brack n-k-1}\right)^s \equiv 0\mod \frac{{2n\brack n}}{\gcd\left({2n\brack n},[2n+1]^{s-1}\right)}.
$$ But, by Proposition \[prop:factor\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\gcd\left({2n\brack n},[2n+1]\right)=1. \label{eq:gcd-bino}\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of . Similarly, we can prove .
[*Remark.*]{} In general, for any positive integer $n$, we cannot expect $\gcd({2n\choose n},2n+1)=1$. This means that sometimes the $q$-analogue of a mathematical problem will be easier than the original one, although in most cases the former will be much more difficult.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:mn-qq\]
==============================
We first give the following result, which is a generalization of .
\[lem:gcd-2m2n\] For all $m,n\in\Z$, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\gcd\left(\frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!},[2m+1]\right)=1. \label{eq:gcd-2m2n}\end{aligned}$$
It is well known that $$q^n-1=\prod_{d|n}\Phi_d(q),$$ and so $$[n]!=(q-1)^{-n}\prod_{k=1}^{n}(q^k-1)=(q-1)^{-n}\prod_{d=1}^{n}\Phi_d(q)^{\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!}
=\prod_{d=1}^{\max\{2m,2n\}}\Phi_d(q)^{\lfloor\frac{2m}{d}\rfloor+\lfloor\frac{2n}{d}\rfloor-\lfloor\frac{m+n}{d}\rfloor-\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\rfloor-\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor}.\end{aligned}$$
For any irreducible factor $\Phi_d(q)$ of $[2m+1]$, we have $2m+1\equiv 0 \pmod d$. It follows that $d$ is odd and $m\equiv \frac{d-1}{2}\pmod{d}$. Suppose that $n\equiv a\pmod{d}$ with $0\leqslant a\leqslant d-1$. We consider the following two cases. If $a\leqslant \frac{d-1}{2}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\lfloor\frac{2m}{d}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{2n}{d}\right\rfloor
-\left\lfloor\frac{m+n}{d}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\right\rfloor \notag\\[5pt]
&\quad=\frac{2m-d+1}{d}+\frac{2n-2a}{d}-\frac{m+n-\frac{d-1}{2}-a}{d}-\frac{m-\frac{d-1}{2}}{d}-\frac{n-a}{d} \notag\\[5pt]
&\quad=0. \label{eq:fraction}\end{aligned}$$ If $a\geqslant \frac{d+1}{2}$, then the left-hand side of is equal to $$\frac{2m-d+1}{d}+\frac{2n-2a+d}{d}-\frac{m+n+\frac{d+1}{2}-a}{d}-\frac{m-\frac{d-1}{2}}{d}-\frac{n-a}{d}=0.$$ This means that $\Phi_d(q)$ is not a factor of $\frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!}$, and so the formula holds. [$\Box$]{}
It is clear that Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\] can be restated as follows.
\[thm:req-odd\] Let $n_1,\ldots,n_m\in\Z$ and $j,r\in\N$ with $j\leqslant m$. Then the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
[n_1]!\prod_{i=1}^m\frac{[n_i+n_{i+1}+1]!}{[2n_i+1]!}
\sum_{k=0}^{n_1} q^{j(k^2+k)-(2r+1)k} [2k+1]^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^m {2n_i+1\brack n_i-k}, \\[5pt]
[n_1]!\prod_{i=1}^m\frac{[n_i+n_{i+1}+1]!}{[2n_i+1]!}
\sum_{k=0}^{n_1} (-1)^k q^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-2rk} [2k+1]^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^m {2n_i+1\brack n_i-k}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{m+1}=-1$, are Laurent polynomials in $q$ with integer coefficients.
[*Proof of Theorem \[thm:mn-qq\].*]{} Letting $n_1=\cdots= n_s=m$ and $n_{s+1}=\cdots=n_{s+t}=n$ in Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&[m+n+1]\sum_{k=0}^m q^{j(k^2+k)-(r+s+t)k} [2k+1]^{r+s+t}{2m+1\brack m-k}^s{2n+1\brack n-k}^t \notag\\[5pt]
&\quad \equiv 0 \mod \frac{[2m+1]![2n+1]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!}. \label{eq:big-sum-mn}\end{aligned}$$ By and the definition of $q$-ballot numbers $A_{n,k}(q)$, we deduce from that $$\begin{aligned}
&[m+n+1]\sum_{k=0}^m q^{j(k^2+k)-rk} [2k+1]^{r}A_{m,k}(q)^s A_{n,k}(q)^t \\[5pt]
&\quad\equiv 0 \mod \frac{\frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!}}{\gcd(\frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!},[2m+1]^{s-1}[2n+1]^{t-1})}.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem:gcd-2m2n\], we have $$\gcd\left(\frac{[2m]![2n]!}{[m+n]![m]![n]!},[2m+1]^{s-1}[2n+1]^{t-1}\right)=1.$$ This completes the proof. [$\Box$]{}
Letting $m=n+1$ or $m=2n$ in Theorem \[thm:mn-qq\], we get the following result, which in the $q=1$ case confirms a conjecture of Guo and Zeng [@GZ2011 Conjecture 6.10]. Note that $\frac{1}{[n+1]}{2n\brack n}$ is the famous [*$q$-Catalan numbers*]{} (see [@FH]).
\[cor:n+4and4n\] Let $n,s,t\in\Z$ and $j,r\in \N$ with $r+s+t\equiv 1\pmod 2$ and $j\leqslant s+t$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^n \tau_k [2k+1]^{r}A_{n+1,k}(q)^s A_{n,k}(q)^t
&\equiv 0 \mod \frac{1}{[n+1]}{2n\brack n}, \\[5pt]
\sum_{k=0}^n \tau_k [2k+1]^{r}A_{2n,k}(q)^s A_{n,k}(q)^t
&\equiv 0 \mod \frac{1}{[3n+1]}{4n\brack n},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_k=q^{j(k^2+k)-rk}$ or $\tau_k=(-1)^kq^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-(r-1)k}$.
Some consequences and conjectures
=================================
In this section, we will give some consequences of Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\]. Most of these results are $q$-analogues of the corresponding results listed in [@GZ2011 Section 6]. Note that there are exactly similar consequences of Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-second\]. We shall also confirm some conjectures in [@GZ2011 Section 6]. For convenience, we let $\varepsilon_k=q^{j(k^2+k)-(2r+1)k}$ or $\varepsilon_k=(-1)^kq^{{k\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)-2rk}$ throughout this section.
Letting $n_{2i-1}=m$ and $n_{2i}=n$ for $i=1,\ldots,a$ in Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\] and observing the symmetry of $m$ and $n$, we obtain
\[cor:mnrs\] Let $a,m,n\in\Z$ and $j,r\in\N$ with $j\leqslant 2a$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{m}\varepsilon_k[2k+1]^{2r+1} {m+n+1\brack m-k}^a {m+n+1\brack n-k}^a
&\equiv 0\mod [m+n+1]{m+n\brack m}.\end{aligned}$$
Letting $n_{3i-2}=l$, $n_{3i-1}=m$ and $n_{3i}=n$ for $i=1,\ldots,a$ in Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\], we get
Let $a,l,m,n\in\Z$ and $j,r\in\N$ with $j\leqslant 3a$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{m}\varepsilon_k[2k+1]^{2r+1} {l+m+1\brack l-k}^a {m+n+1\brack m-k}^a {n+l+1\brack n-k}^a
\equiv 0\mod [m+n+1]{m+n\brack m}.\end{aligned}$$
Taking $m=2a+b$ and letting $n_i=n$ if $i=1,3,\ldots,2a-1$ and $n_i=n-1$ otherwise in Theorem \[thm:fatorodd-first\], we get
Let $a,n\in\Z$ and $b,j,r\in\N$ with $j\leqslant 2a+b$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\varepsilon_k[2k+1]^{2r+1} {2n\brack n-k}^a {2n\brack n-k-1}^a {2n-1\brack n-k-1}^b
\equiv 0\mod [n]{2n\brack n}.\end{aligned}$$
By Theorem \[thm:req-odd\] it is easily seen that, for all $a_1,\ldots,a_m\in\Z$, $$\begin{aligned}
[n_1]!\prod_{i=1}^m\frac{[n_i+n_{i+1}+1]!}{[2n_i+1]!}
\sum_{k=0}^{n_1} \varepsilon_k [2k+1]^{2r+1}\prod_{i=1}^m {2n_i+1\brack n_i-k}^{a_i}\quad(n_{m+1}=-1) \label{eq:req-power}\end{aligned}$$ is a Laurent polynomial in $q$ with integer coefficients. For $m=3$, letting $(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ be $(n,n+2,n+1)$, $(n,3n,2n)$, $(2n,n,3n)$, $(2n,n,4n)$, or $(3n,2n,4n)$, we immediately get the following three conclusions.
\[cor:n1n2n3\] Let $a,b,c,n\in\Z$ and $j,r\in \N$ with $j\leqslant a+b+c$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^n \varepsilon_k [2k+1]^{2r+1} {2n+1\brack n-k}^a {2n+3\brack n-k+1}^b {2n+5\brack n-k+2}^c
&\equiv 0 \mod [2n+5]{2n+1\brack n}. \label{eq:n1n2n3}\end{aligned}$$
\[cor:qfactor-246n\] Let $a,b,c,n\in\Z$ and $j,r\in \N$ with $j\leqslant a+b+c$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^n \varepsilon_k [2k+1]^{2r+1} {6n+1\brack 3n-k}^a {4n+1\brack 2n-k}^b {2n+1\brack n-k}^c
&\equiv 0 \mod [2n+1]{6n+1\brack n}, \\
\sum_{k=0}^n \varepsilon_k [2k+1]^{2r+1} {6n+1\brack 3n-k}^a {4n+1\brack 2n-k}^b {2n+1\brack n-k}^c
&\equiv 0 \mod [2n+1]{6n+1\brack 3n}.\end{aligned}$$
\[cor:qfactor-248n\] Let $a,b,c,n\in\Z$ and $j,r\in \N$ with $j\leqslant a+b+c$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
[3n+1]\sum_{k=0}^n \varepsilon_k [2k+1]^{2r+1} {8n+1\brack 4n-k}^a {4n+1\brack 2n-k}^b {2n+1\brack n-k}^c
&\equiv 0 \mod [2n+1][4n+1]{8n+1\brack 3n}, \\
\sum_{k=0}^n \varepsilon_k [2k+1]^{2r+1} {8n+1\brack 4n-k}^a {6n+1\brack 3n-k}^b {4n+1\brack 2n-k}^c
&\equiv 0 \mod [4n+1]{8n+1\brack 3n},\end{aligned}$$
We have the following conjectural generalization of Corollaries \[cor:qfactor-246n\] and \[cor:qfactor-248n\].
Let $n,r,s,t\in\Z$ with $r+s+t\equiv 1\pmod 2$ and $j\in\N$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
[4n+1]\sum_{k=0}^n \eta_k A_{3n,k}(q)^r A_{2n,k}(q)^s A_{n,k}(q)^t
&\equiv 0 \mod \frac{1}{[6n+1]}{6n+1\brack n}, \\
[4n+1]\sum_{k=0}^n \eta_k A_{3n,k}(q)^r A_{2n,k}(q)^s A_{n,k}(q)^t
&\equiv 0 \mod \frac{1}{[6n+1]}{6n+1\brack 3n}, \\
[8n+1]\sum_{k=0}^n \eta_k A_{4n,k}(q)^r A_{2n,k}(q)^s A_{n,k}(q)^t
&\equiv 0 \mod{ {8n+1\brack 3n}}, \\
[6n+1][8n+1]\sum_{k=0}^n \eta_k A_{4n,k}(q)^r A_{3n,k}(q)^s A_{2n,k}(q)^t
&\equiv 0 \mod{ {8n+1\brack 3n} },\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_k=q^{j(k^2+k)}$ or $\eta_k=(-1)^kq^{{k+1\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)}$.
For general $m{\geqslant}2$, in taking $(n_1,\ldots,n_{m})$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
(n,n+2,\ldots,n+m-1,n+m-2,n+m-4,\ldots,n+1),&\text{if $m$ is odd,}\\[5pt]
(n+1,n+3,\ldots,n+m-1,n+m-2,n+m-4,\ldots,n),&\text{if $m$ is even,}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ we are led to the following generalization of .
\[cor:final\] Let $m{\geqslant}2$, and let $n,a_1,\ldots,a_m\in\Z$ and $j,r\in\N$ with $j\leqslant a_1+\cdots+a_m$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^n \varepsilon_k [2k+1]^{2r+1} \prod_{i=1}^m {2n+2i-1\brack n+i-k-1}^{a_i}
&\equiv 0 \mod [2n+2m-1]{2n+1\brack n}.\end{aligned}$$
We have the following challenging conjecture related to Corollary \[cor:final\].
\[conj:final\] Let $n,r_1,\ldots,r_m\in\Z$ with $r_1+\cdots+r_m\equiv 1\pmod 2$ and $j\in\N$, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^n \eta_k \prod_{i=1}^m A_{n+i-1,k}(q)^{r_i}
&\equiv 0 \mod \frac{1}{[n+1]}{2n\brack n},\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_k=q^{j(k^2+k)}$ or $\eta_k=(-1)^kq^{{k+1\choose 2}+j(k^2+k)}$.
Note that, for $m=1$ and $0\leqslant j\leqslant r_1$, Conjecture \[conj:final\] is true by Theorem \[thm:q-ballot\]. For $m=2$ and $0\leqslant j\leqslant r_1+r_2$, Conjecture \[conj:final\] is also true by the first congruence in Corollary \[cor:n+4and4n\]. Note that the $q=1$ case of Conjecture \[conj:final\] has been checked by Guo and Zeng [@GZ2011] for $n=2$, or $m{\leqslant}6$ and $n=4,9,10,11,3280,7651,7652$.
We end the paper with the following conjecture.
Theorems [\[thm:fatorodd-first\]]{} and [\[thm:fatorodd-second\]]{} hold for all $j\in\N$.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The first author was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 11371144), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (grant BK20161304), and the Qing Lan Project of Education Committee of Jiangsu Province.
[99]{}
G.E. Andrews, The Theory of Partitions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
N.J. Calkin, Factors of sums of powers of binomial coefficients, Acta Arith. 86 (1998), 17–26.
W.Y.C. Chen and Q.-H. Hou, Factors of the Gaussian coefficients, Discrete Math. 306 (2006), 1446–1449.
J. Fürlinger and J. Hofbauer, $q$-Catalan numbers, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A 2 (1985), 248–264.
G. Gasper and M. Rahman, Basic Hypergeometric Series, Second Edition, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 96, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
V.J.W. Guo, F. Jouhet, and J. Zeng, Factors of alternating sums of products of binomial and $q$-binomial coefficients, Acta Arith. 127 (2007), 17–31.
V.J.W. Guo and S.-D. Wang, Factors of sums involving $q$-binomial coefficients and powers of $q$-integers, preprint, arXiv:1701.07016.
V. J. W. Guo and J. Zeng, A short proof of the $q$-Dixon identity, Discrete Math. 296 (2005), 259–261.
V.J.W. Guo and J. Zeng, Factors of binomial sums from the Catalan triangle, J. Number Theory 130 (2010), 172–186.
V.J.W. Guo and J. Zeng, Factors of sums and alternating sums involving binomial coefficients and powers of integers, Int. J. Number Theory 7 (2011), 1959–1976.
V.J.W. Guo and J. Zeng, Some arithmetic properties of the $q$-Euler numbers and $q$-Salié, numbers, European J. Combin. 27 (2006), 884–895.
D. Knuth and H. Wilf, The power of a prime that divides a generalized binomial coefficient, J. Reine Angew. Math. 396 (1989), 212–219.
P.J. Miana and N. Romero, Moments of combinatorial and Catalan numbers, J. Number Theory 130 (2010) 1876–1887.
H. Pan and Z.-W. Sun, Some $q$-congruences related to $3$-adic valuations, Adv. Appl. Math. 49 (2012), 263–270.
L.-L. Shi and H. Pan, A $q$-analogue of Wolstenholme’s harmonic series congruence, Amer. Math. Monthly 114 (2007), 529–531.
R. Tauraso, $q$-analogs of some congruences involving Catalan numbers, Adv. Appl. Math. 48 (2012), 603–614.
R. Tauraso, Some $q$-analogs of congruences for central binomial sums, Colloq. Math. 133 (2013), 133–143.
S.O. Warnaar and W. Zudilin, A $q$-rious positivity, Aequationes Math. 81 (2011), 177–183.
[^1]: Corresponding author
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The merger of binary neutron stars, or of a neutron star and a stellar-mass black hole, can result in the formation of a massive rotating torus around a spinning black hole. In addition to providing collimating media for gamma-ray burst jets, unbound outflows from these disks are an important source of mass ejection and rapid neutron capture (r-process) nucleosynthesis. We present the first three-dimensional general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations of neutrino-cooled accretion disks in neutron star mergers, including a realistic equation of state valid at low densities and temperatures, self-consistent evolution of the electron fraction, and neutrino cooling through an approximate leakage scheme. After initial magnetic field amplification by magnetic winding, we witness the vigorous onset of turbulence driven by the magneto-rotational instability (MRI). The disk quickly reaches a balance between heating from MRI-driven turbulence and neutrino cooling, which regulates the midplane electron fraction to a low equilibrium value $Y_\text{e} \approx 0.1$. Over the 380 ms duration of the simulation, we find that a fraction $\approx 20\%$ of the initial torus mass is unbound in powerful outflows with velocities $v \approx
0.03-0.1\,c$ and electron fractions $Y_\text{e} \approx
0.1-0.25$. Post-processing the outflows through a nuclear reaction network shows the production of a robust second and third peak r-process. Though broadly consistent with the results of previous axisymmetric hydrodynamical simulations, extrapolation of our results to late times suggests that the total ejecta mass from GRMHD disks is significantly higher. Our results provide strong evidence that post-merger disk outflows are an important site for the r-process.
author:
- 'Daniel M. Siegel'
- 'Brian D. Metzger'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Three-dimensional GRMHD simulations of the remnant accretion disks from neutron star mergers: outflows and r-process nucleosynthesis'
---
*Introduction.—*Approximately half of the elements heavier than iron are synthesized by the capture of neutrons onto lighter seed nuclei in a dense neutron-rich environment in which the timescale for neutron capture is shorter than the $\beta-$decay timescale [@Burbidge+57; @Cameron57]. This ‘rapid neutron-capture process’ (r-process) occurs along a nuclear path far on the neutron-rich side of the valley of stable isotopes. Despite this realization 70 years ago, the identity of the astrophysical sites giving rise to the r-process remains an enduring mystery .
Among the promising r-process sites are the mergers of compact binaries consisting of two neutron stars (NS-NS, BNS; ) or of a NS and stellar-mass black hole (NS-BH; ). These violent events produce several sources of neutron-rich ejecta, which contribute to their total r-process yields [@Rosswog2015; @Fernandez2016a]. Historically, most work has focused on matter ejected during the merger process itself, either by tidal forces or due to shock and compression-induced heating at the interface between merging bodies [@Rosswog2005; @Oechslin2007; @Bauswein2013a; @Hotokezaka2013b; @Kyutoku2015; @Kastaun2015a; @Radice2016]. While there is broad agreement that a portion of this “dynamical ejecta" is sufficiently neutron-rich to create the heaviest r-process elements, its quantity is sensitive to the properties of the merging binary and the NS equation of state (EOS).
NS mergers are also accompanied by the formation of a massive accretion disk surrounding the central compact object (e.g., [@Ruffert1997; @Shibata2006a]). Soon after forming, the neutrino luminosity of the disk is high [@Popham1999], driving a small quantity of mass from the disk surface in a neutrino-driven wind [@Surman+08; @Metzger+08b; @Dessart+09; @Perego+14; @Richers+15; @Martin+15].
On longer timescales of hundreds of milliseconds, the disk expands radially due to the outwards transport of angular momentum. One-dimensional models of this spreading evolution using an $\alpha$-prescription for the effective turbulent viscosity [@Metzger+08b; @Metzger+09a] showed that, as the disk accretion rate drops, the midplane transitions from a neutrino-cooled state to a radiatively-inefficient one [@Lee+09; @Beloborodov08]. Powerful outflows were predicted following this transition, once heating from turbulent dissipation and nuclear recombination (chiefly alpha-particle formation) are no longer balanced by neutrino cooling.
These initial models were followed by two-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the disk evolution in a pseudo-Newtonian gravitational potential, which also adopted an $\alpha$-viscosity prescription. [@Fernandez2013] and [@Fernandez2015a] employed an approximate leakage scheme to account for neutrino cooling, and a ‘light bulb’ irradiation model for the neutrino heating, while [@Just2015a] used an energy-dependent two-moment closure scheme for the transport of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos. These works found unbound outflows with electron fractions in the range $Y_\text{e} \sim 0.2-0.4$ [@Fernandez2013; @Just2015a], sufficient to produce the entire mass range of r-process elements [@Just2015a; @Wu2016; @Lippuner2017a]. The total fraction of the original disk mass unbound in outflows ranged from $\sim\!5\%$ for a non-spinning BH, to $\sim\!30\%$ for high BH spin $\chi_{\rm BH} \simeq 0.95$ [@Just2015a; @Fernandez2015a].
Previous simulations of the remnant disk employ a parameterized hydrodynamical viscosity in place of a self-consistent physical mechanism for angular momentum transport as mediated by the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) . [@Shibata2007a] performed two-dimensional general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations of the disk evolution lasting 60 ms; however, they were not focused on nucleosynthesis and their restriction to 2D precluded a study of the saturated MRI due to the anti-dynamo theorem. In this Letter, we present the first fully three-dimensional GRMHD simulations of the remnant accretion disk evolution and its outflows over a timescale of $\approx\!400$ ms following the merger.
----------------- -------------------- ----------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------
$M_\mathrm{BH}$ $\chi_\mathrm{BH}$ $M_\mathrm{t0}$ $R_{\mathrm{in},0}$ $R_{\mathrm{out},0}$ $R_0$ $s_0$ $Y_{\mathrm{e}0}$ $p_b/p_\mathrm{f}$
$[M_\odot]$ $[M_\odot]$ $[M_\mathrm{BH}]$ $[M_\mathrm{BH}]$ $[\mathrm{km}]$ $[k_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{b}]$
$3.00$ $0.8$ $0.03$ $4$ $24$ $30$ 8 $0.1$ $ <5\times 10^{-3}$
----------------- -------------------- ----------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------
: Initial configuration: BH mass and dimensionless spin, torus mass, inner and outer torus radius, radius at maximum density, specific entropy, electron fraction, and maximum magnetic-to-fluid pressure ratio.[]{data-label="tab:BH_torus"}
*Numerical setup and initial conditions.—*Simulations are performed in ideal GRMHD with a fixed background spacetime using the open-source `EinsteinToolkit`[^1] [@Loeffler2012] with the GRMHD code `GRHydro` [@Moesta2014a]. GRMHD is implemented using a finite-volume scheme with piecewise parabolic reconstruction [@Colella1984], the HLLE Riemann solver [@Harten1983; @Einfeldt1988], and constrained transport [@Toth2000] for maintaining the magnetic field divergence-free. We have implemented a new framework for the recovery of primitive variables in `GRHydro` that provides support for any 3-parameter EOS, as well as a recovery scheme based on three-dimensional root finding according to [@Cerda-Duran2008], which shows better and faster convergence properties than two-dimensional schemes; its ability to recover strongly magnetized regions is important for evolving low-density, magnetized disk winds.
Thermodynamic properties of matter are described by the Helmholtz EOS [@Timmes1999; @Timmes2000], which includes contributions to the Helmholtz free energy from nuclei (treated as ideal gas) with Coulomb corrections, electrons and positrons with an arbitrary degree of relativity and degeneracy, and photons in local thermodynamic equilibrium. We consider free neutrons, protons, and alpha particles, whose abundances are calculated assuming nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE). We add dissociation energies to the Helmholtz EOS as in [@Fernandez2013] to account for the energy release from alpha-particle formation, as well as the additional terms to the thermodynamic derivatives arising from compositional changes.
Neutrino cooling is described by a leakage scheme newly implemented into `GRHydro`. Leakage schemes are widely used in both core-collapse supernovae and compact-binary merger simulations (e.g., [@vanRiper1981; @Ruffert1996b; @Rosswog2003b; @Sekiguchi2011; @Ott2013; @Perego2016]). Our implementation follows closely [@Radice2016], which is based on [@Galeazzi2013] and employs the formalism by [@Ruffert1996b]. We calculate optical depths following the procedure by [@Neilsen2014], which is well suited for the aspherical geometry of an accretion disk. We neglect neutrino absorption, which is expected to appreciably change the outflow dynamics only for significantly more massive accretion disks ([@Fernandez2013]; see also Fig. \[fig:snapshots1\]).
Initial data consists of an equilibrium torus of constant specific angular momentum and specific entropy around a Kerr BH [@Stergioulas2011c; @Friedman2013] (Tab. \[tab:BH\_torus\]). We compute a torus solution in horizon-penetrating Kerr-Schild coordinates, which we use in our simulation. The BH mass and spin correspond to a typical NS merger remnant. BHs promptly formed in BNS mergers show spins $\chi_\mathrm{BH}\approx 0.8$ [@Kiuchi2009; @Rezzolla2010; @Bernuzzi2014], and are unlikely to be significantly larger [@Kastaun2013], whereas BHs formed by delayed collapse typically show spins $\chi_\mathrm{BH}\lesssim 0.7$ [@Sekiguchi2016]. Furthermore, $\chi_\mathrm{BH}\sim 0.8$ also represents a typical BH spin for BH–NS mergers required to tidally disrupt the NS and form a sufficiently massive torus [@Foucart2012]. The initial torus mass also corresponds to typical NS merger scenarios (e.g., [@Hotokezaka2011; @Foucart2017]). We set up a weak initial magnetic seed field inside the torus with vector potential components $A^r=A^\theta = 0$ and $A^\phi =
A_b\, \mathrm{max}\{p-p_\mathrm{cut},0\}$. Here, $p$ denotes the fluid pressure, $p_\mathrm{cut}=1.3\times 10^{-2}p_\mathrm{max}$, where $p_\mathrm{max}$ is the pressure at maximum density in the torus, and $A_b$ sets the initial field strength, which we adjust such that the maximum magnetic-to-fluid pressure ratio in the torus is $<5\times
10^{-3}$; this results in a maximum magnetic field strength of $\approx\!3.3\times 10^{14}\,\mathrm{G}$. The torus is initially embedded in a uniform, tenuous atmosphere with $\rho\approx 37\,\text{g}\,\text{cm}^{-3}$, $T =
10^5\,\text{K}$, and $Y_\mathrm{e}=1$. This density and temperature are sufficiently low to neither impact the dynamics nor the composition of the disk outflows.
Simulations are performed in full 3D without employing symmetries. The grid setup consists of a Cartesian grid hierarchy of 8 refinement levels, extending from the center of the BH to $1.53\times
10^9\,\mathrm{cm}$ in every coordinate direction. The finest refinement level corresponds to a spatial domain with a resolution of $856\,\mathrm{m}$ and a diameter of $240\,\mathrm{km}$, which entirely contains the initial accretion torus.
![Snapshots of rest-mass density, number of grid points per fastest-growing MRI mode, and contours of optical depth to electron neutrino number emission $\tau_{\nu_\text{e}}=0.5,0.1,10^{-2},10^{-3},10^{-4}$ at $t=20\,\mathrm{ms}$, when the disk has settled into a quasi-stationary state (the BH interior is masked). []{data-label="fig:snapshots1"}](2panel_data_qcols-rho-lambdaMRI_qcont-optd_0_nue_t19_7.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
![Snapshots of electron fraction, normalized electron chemical potential, and contours of rest-mass density $\rho=[10^{7},10^{8},10^{9},10^{10},10^{11}]\,\text{g}\,\text{cm}^{-3}$ at $t=43\,\mathrm{ms}$, when the disk has fully self-regulated itself to mild electron degeneracy (the BH interior is masked).[]{data-label="fig:snapshots2"}](2panel_data_qcols-Y_e-etae_qcont-rho_t42_8.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
![Evolution of the density-averaged ratio of electromagnetic energy to internal energy in the disk.[]{data-label="fig:energy_ratio"}](eEM_eint_ratio_tot_avg_from2Dxz_reflvls67_output0-19_densav.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
{width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"} {width="24.00000%"}
![Top: Final elemental abundances from individual unbound tracer particles (gray lines) and their mean (blue line), compared to observed solar system abundances [@Arnould2007], scaled to match the mean at $A=130$. Bottom: Comparison of the mean abundances to observed abundances in metal-poor halo stars [@Sneden2003; @Roederer2012a; @Roederer2012b] in terms of $\log\epsilon = \log Y_Z/Y_1 + 12$, scaled such that $\sum (\log Y_Z/Y_{Z,\mathrm{CS22892-052}})^2$ is minimized between $55\le Z \le 75$.[]{data-label="fig:nucleosynthesis"}](final_abundances_ri120km-ti20ms_npart2088.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Top: Final elemental abundances from individual unbound tracer particles (gray lines) and their mean (blue line), compared to observed solar system abundances [@Arnould2007], scaled to match the mean at $A=130$. Bottom: Comparison of the mean abundances to observed abundances in metal-poor halo stars [@Sneden2003; @Roederer2012a; @Roederer2012b] in terms of $\log\epsilon = \log Y_Z/Y_1 + 12$, scaled such that $\sum (\log Y_Z/Y_{Z,\mathrm{CS22892-052}})^2$ is minimized between $55\le Z \le 75$.[]{data-label="fig:nucleosynthesis"}](final_abundances_Z_metalpoorstars_ri120km-ti20ms_npart2088.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
--------------- -------------- -------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------- ---------------------
simulation outflow type
$M_\mathrm{t,in}$ $\bar{Y}_{\mathrm{e}}$ $\bar{s}$ $\bar{t}_\mathrm{exp}$ $\bar{Y}_{\mathrm{e}}$ $\bar{s}$ $\bar{t}_\mathrm{exp}$ $\bar{Y}_{\mathrm{e}}$ $\bar{s}$ $\bar{t}_\mathrm{exp}$ $M_\mathrm{pol}$ $M_\mathrm{out}$
$[10^{-2}M_\odot]$ $[k_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{b}]$ $[\mathrm{ms}]$ $[k_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{b}]$ $[\mathrm{ms}]$ $[k_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{b}]$ $[\mathrm{ms}]$ $[M_\mathrm{eq}]$ $[M_\mathrm{t,in}]$
this work unbound 2.02 0.18 31 24 0.19 39 18 0.18 32 23 0.22 0.16
this work total 2.02 0.17 28 26 0.19 43 18 0.17 30 25 0.15 0.23
F15 t-a80 total 3.00 0.22 21 35 0.31 38 9.4 - - - 0.01 0.17
J15 M3A8m03a2 total 3.00 - - - - - - 0.27 30 - - 0.23
J15 M3A8m03a5 total 3.00 - - - - - - 0.25 33 - - 0.24
--------------- -------------- -------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------- ---------------------
*Results.—*The initial torus is evolved from $t=0$ to $t=381\,\text{ms}$, after which an appreciable fraction of the initial torus mass has been unbound in powerful outflows. After an initial transient phase of about $20\,\text{ms}$ due to the onset of turbulence created by the MRI, the disk settles into a quasi-stationary state for the rest of the simulation. During this early relaxation, $\approx\!33\%$ of the initial torus mass is either accreted onto the BH or ejected via outflows, leaving an effective initial torus of $\approx\!0.02\,M_\odot$ (Tab. \[tab:results\]). We exclude matter ejected or accreted during this phase from all further analysis.
Figure \[fig:snapshots1\] shows snapshots of several quantities at the beginning of the quasi-stationary evolution phase. Until the end of the simulation, the disk and outflows remain qualitatively similar as depicted here. In particular, the disk remains optically thin with respect to neutrinos, which have typical energies of a few MeV (Fig. \[fig:snapshots1\], left, upper panel). Neutrino cooling mainly acts in regions closely to the disk midplane, as neutrino emission tracks density. Matter in the disk is heated as it gradually falls into the BH potential due to angular momentum transport via MHD turbulence mediated by the MRI. We check that the MRI is well resolved by monitoring the wavelength of the fastest-growing MRI mode, $\lambda_\text{MRI}$, which is typically resolved by 10 or more grid points (cf. Fig. \[fig:snapshots1\], left); $\lambda_\mathrm{MRI}$ is estimated by $\lambda_\mathrm{MRI}=(2\pi/\Omega) (b / \sqrt{4\pi\rho h
+ b^2})$ [@Kiuchi2015a], where $\Omega$ is the angular frequency, $\rho$ the rest-mass density, $h$ the specific enthalpy, and $b=\sqrt{b^\mu b_\mu}$ the comoving magnetic field strength. Very close to the BH resolving the MRI becomes challenging with current computational resources and $\lambda_\mathrm{MRI}$ is not resolved by $>10$ grid points at all times and spatial points. At the beginning of the simulation, after initial amplification by magnetic winding, the onset of the MRI further amplifies the weak initial seed magnetic field in the disk over a few rotational periods (resulting in a total amplification of roughly two orders of magnitude for the maximum field strength), before the disk settles into a saturated MRI state. Triggering the MRI both in the poloidal and toroidal components entirely without magnetic winding (for the same initial seed field strength) would require higher resolution and would thus be challenging with current computational resources; this simulation only represents a first attempt in this direction. We note that the resulting typical magnetic field strengths of up to $\sim\!10^{15}$ G close to the BH and the midplane, and typical magnetic-to-fluid pressure ratios of $\sim\!10^{-3}-10^{-1}$, are similar to values found in early BNS post-merger accretion systems [@Ciolfi2017a; @Kiuchi2015a]. Figure \[fig:energy\_ratio\] shows the evolution of the (density-averaged) ratio of electromagnetic energy to internal energy of the disk, $\langle e_\mathrm{EM}/e_\mathrm{int}\rangle_D = \langle n_\mu n_\nu
T^{\mu\nu}_\mathrm{EM}/\epsilon\rho W\rangle_D$, where $n^\mu$ denotes the unit normal to the spatial hypersurfaces of the spacetime foliation, $T^{\mu\nu}_\mathrm{EM}$ the stress-energy tensor of the electromagnetic field, $\epsilon$ the specific internal energy, $W$ the Lorentz factor, and $\langle
\cdot\rangle_D\equiv \int \cdot D \mathrm{d}^3x / \int
D \mathrm{d}^3x$, with $D=\sqrt{\gamma}\rho W$ the conserved rest-mass density and $\gamma$ the determinant of the spatial metric. This ratio stays roughly constant for $t>20\,\mathrm{ms}$ (in a time-averaged sense) and thus indicates that a steady turbulent state of the disk is indeed achieved.
Optically thin neutrino cooling in the midplane is balanced by MHD-driven heating, and the disk regulates itself to a mildly degenerate state with low $Y_\text{e}$ [@Beloborodov03]. The latter results from a negative feedback process: higher electron degeneracy $\mu_\text{e}/k_\text{B}T$ results in less electrons (lower $Y_\text{e}$) and positrons, causing less neutrino emission, i.e., a lower cooling rate, therefore higher temperatures, and thus lower degeneracy; the resulting state is independent of the initial conditions. Figure \[fig:snapshots2\] shows the disk once it has fully self-regulated itself into this mildly degenerate state ($\mu_\text{e}/k_\text{B}T \sim 1$). The inner disk remains neutron rich ($Y_\text{e}\approx 0.1$) over the course of the simulation up to radii $r\lesssim\!60\,\text{km}$ ($\lesssim\!14$ gravitational radii), consistent with previous one-dimensional models of neutrino-cooled disks [@Chen2007; @Metzger+09a].
Above the disk midplane powerful thermal outflows are generated. These are the result of a heating-cooling imbalance: in regions of lower density, viscous heating from MHD driven turbulence and energy release from recombination of free nucleons into alpha particles exceeds cooling by neutrino emission, and the weak interactions essentially ‘freeze-out’ (although further mixing can still change $Y_\text{e}$). In the polar funnel these outflows possess high-$Y_\text{e}$ ($>0.2$) and high specific-entropy ($s\gtrsim\!100\,k_\text{B}/\text{b}$), while the denser equatorially-directed outflows have lower specific entropy ($\sim\!10\,k_\text{B}/\text{b}$) and lower $Y_\text{e}$.
Thermodynamic properties of the outflow are recorded by $10^4$ passive tracer particles that are advected with the fluid. We place these tracer particles of equal mass in the initial setup with a probability proportional to the conserved rest-mass density $D=\sqrt{\gamma}\rho W$. Tab. \[tab:results\] and Fig. \[fig:histograms\] characterize the outflow properties relevant to the r-process, including $Y_\text{e}$, $s$, and the expansion timescale $t_\text{exp}=r/v$, where $v$ denotes the three-velocity (e.g., [@Lippuner2015]). These quantities are evaluated for each tracer particle at the last time $t=t_{5\text{GK}}$ when the temperature of the particle drops below 5GK. At 5GK, NSE breaks down and full nuclear reaction network calculations are required to track nuclear abundances. We distinguish between total outflow, defined as all tracer particles that have reached $r\ge
10^{3}\,\text{km}$ by the end of the simulation, and unbound outflow, defined as those that are additionally unbound according to the Bernoulli criterion $-h u_t > 1$, where $u_t$ is the time-component of the four-velocity.
By the end of the simulation, $\approx\! (16-23)\%$ of the initial disk mass has been ejected into unbound outflows with $v\approx
(0.03-0.1)c$. With the disk still launching outflows by the end of the simulation, our GRMHD setup potentially unbinds significantly more mass compared to two-dimensional, non-MHD, Newtonian simulations with similar disk parameters (Tab. \[tab:results\]; [@Fernandez2015a; @Just2015a]). Polar outflows show higher $Y_\text{e}$ and specific entropy, and smaller $t_\text{exp}$ than equatorial outflows, consistent with [@Fernandez2015a], while we find a factor $\sim\!20$ higher mass in polar outflows. Our $Y_\text{e}$ distribution shows a smaller mean and does not extend as high as in [@Fernandez2015a; @Just2015a]. This may indicate that neutrino absorption (not included here) plays a dominant role in setting the high-$Y_\text{e}$ tail of the distribution. Indeed, a preliminary re-analysis including effects of neutrino absorption as in [@Roberts2017a] shows the ejecta achieves a high-$Y_\text{e}$ tail extending up to $\gtrsim\!0.3$; however, our finding of a sizable quantity of low-$Y_\text{e}$ ejecta, capable of a full (2nd and 3rd peak) r-process, remains robust. Alternatively, previously employed pseudo-Newtonian potentials and $\alpha$-disks may not accurately capture the heating/cooling interplay which also controls the evolution of $Y_\text{e}$.
Full nuclear reaction network calculations with SkyNet [@Lippuner2015] were performed on the tracer particles in a post-processing step, starting at $t=t_\text{10GK}$. Figure \[fig:nucleosynthesis\] shows that the solar abundances [@Arnould2007] are well reproduced throughout the mass number ($A$) range from the 2nd r-process peak ($A\sim 130$) to the rare-earth peak ($A\sim 165$) to the 3rd r-process peak ($A\sim 195$). There is also excellent agreement with observed abundances in metal-poor stars [@Sneden2003; @Roederer2012a; @Roederer2012b]. We find an overproduction at $A=132$ as observed in [@Wu2016; @Lippuner2017a]. Below the 2nd r-process peak, we recover the trends of the observed solar abundance pattern, but overall underproduce these nuclei, which is consistent with the absence of a significant high-$Y_\text{e}$ tail $Y_\text{e}>\!0.25$ (Fig. \[fig:histograms\]); however, a preliminary re-analysis including effects of neutrino absorption as in [@Roberts2017a] indicates that the entire range of r-process nuclides can be obtained.
*Conclusion.—*We have shown that neutrino-cooled accretion disks in 3D GRMHD quickly self-regulate themselves into a state of moderate electron degeneracy (low $Y_\text{e}$) where heating from MRI-driven turbulence is balanced by neutrino cooling. The outflows launched self-consistently as a result of this state tend to unbind more mass with a lower average $Y_\text{e}$ than previous axisymmetric Newtonian simulations employing an $\alpha$-viscosity. The nucleosynthesis yields show that these outflows are sufficiently neutron rich to trigger a strong r-process and are well able to reproduce observed solar abundances and observed r-process abundances in metal poor stars from the 2nd to the 3rd r-process peak. Significant contributions to abundances below the 2nd r-process peak can also come from BNS mergers leading to an accretion disk around a metastable hot neutron star, which, due to its strong neutrino emission, may raise $Y_\text{e}$ in part of the outflow material [@Metzger2014c; @Wu2016; @Lippuner2017a].
*Note added.*—Following the submission of this paper, a BNS merger was detected by Advanced LIGO and Virgo [@LIGO+17DISCOVERY]. The properties of the infrared kilonova emission observed from this event (inferred total ejecta mass $\approx 0.05M_{\odot}$ and mean velocity $v \approx 0.1\,c$; e.g. [@Cowperthwaite+17]) are consistent with the lanthanide-rich matter predicted in this work from disk outflows from a torus of initial mass $\approx 0.1M_{\odot}$.
We thank A. Beloborodov, R. Fernández, R. Haas, W. Kastaun, J. Lippuner, P. Moesta, C. Ott, and D. Radice for valuable discussions throughout the course of this work. Resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center; the work presented here consumed a total allocation worth $\approx\!5.7\,\text{MCPUh}$. Support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship Award Number PF6-170159 issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the National Aeronautics Space Administration under contract NAS8-03060. BDM and DMS acknowledge support from NASA ATP grant NNX16AB30G and NSF grant AST-1410950.
[^1]: <http://einsteintoolkit.org>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Of the many probes of reionization, the 21 cm line and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are among the most effective. We examine how the cross-correlation of the 21 cm brightness and the CMB Doppler fluctuations on large angular scales can be used to study this epoch. We employ a new model of the growth of large scale fluctuations of the ionized fraction as reionization proceeds. We take into account the peculiar velocity field of baryons and show that its effect on the cross correlation can be interpreted as a mixing of Fourier modes. We find that the cross-correlation signal is strongly peaked toward the end of reionization and that the sign of the correlation should be positive because of the inhomogeneity inherent to reionization. The signal peaks at degree scales ($\ell\sim100$) and comes almost entirely from large physical scales ($k\sim10^{-2}$ Mpc). Since many of the foregrounds and noise that plague low frequency radio observations will not correlate with CMB measurements, the cross correlation might appear to provide a robust diagnostic of the cosmological origin of the 21 cm radiation around the epoch of reionization. Unfortunately, we show that these signals are actually only weakly correlated and that cosmic variance dominates the error budget of any attempted detection. We conclude that the detection of a cross-correlation peak at degree-size angular scales is unlikely even with ideal experiments.'
author:
- |
Peter J. Adshead[^1] & Steven R. Furlanetto\
Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Yale University, PO Box 208121, New Haven, CT 06520-8121
bibliography:
- 'pap.bib'
title: 'Reionization and the large-scale 21 cm-cosmic microwave background cross correlation'
---
cosmology: theory – cosmic microwave background – diffuse radiation
Introduction
============
During some epoch between recombination ($z\sim1100$) and today, the intergalactic medium (IGM) underwent a transformation from almost completely neutral to almost completely ionized. When and how the IGM was ionized remains one of the most exciting open questions in cosmology [@Barkana:2000fd; @Furlanetto:2006jb]. The timing and duration of this epoch of reionization contains a wealth of information about the first cosmic structures, information which is expected to help explain how the primordial density perturbations observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) evolved into the complex structures we observe in the low redshift universe today.
Currently there are only weak observational constraints on the epoch of reionization. The absence of a Gunn-Peterson trough in the spectra of $z<6$ quasars indicates that reionization was complete by $z\sim6$ [@fan02; @white03; @fan06], while integral constraints on the total optical depth from WMAP imply reionization began at $z\geq10$ [@page06; @Spergel:2006hy]. A variety of other methods have been proposed, but none impose strong constraints (for recent summaries, see @Fan:2006dp and @Furlanetto:2006jb).
The 21 cm hyperfine spin-flip transition of HI is the most exciting prospective tracer of the cosmic gas before and during reionization. This signal does not require the existence of bright background sources, which may be rare at high redshifts, making the entire epoch of reionization available [@scott90; @madau97; @Furlanetto:2006jb]. It is a line transition, so that observations at a given frequency select out a unique slice of the high $z$ universe. Furthermore, fluctuations in the brightness of the 21 cm signal are caused by density (and ionization) inhomogeneities on all scales, making it a direct tracer of the underlying matter distribution [@Zaldarriaga:2003du]. Thus the spectral and angular variations of the 21 cm brightness allow us to reconstruct a 3D map of reionization. The epoch of reionization spans the formation of the first luminous sources, which then ionized the surrounding gas [@Barkana:2000fd]. Thus a 3D map of the evolution of the neutral fraction and density field would provide an unprecedented view of this epoch of structure formation.
Ionization of the neutral IGM creates free electrons off of which CMB photons may be scattered. This Thomson scattering process has several effects [@hu94; @dodelson95]. Photons from multiple lines of sight are blended together, damping the primary CMB anisotropies. The scattered photons also gain some of the peculiar momentum of the free electrons, generating a secondary anisotropy (most recently examined by @Giannantonio:2007za). Finally, the polarization dependence of Thomson scattering generates a new large scale polarization from the anisotropic CMB photon field [@zalda97-reion].
Taken by itself, the CMB temperature provides only an integral constraint on the column density of ionized electrons, because the net damping is nearly independent of the location of the electrons. The induced polarization contains somewhat more information about the history of reionization, but it is difficult to extract even in a cosmic variance-limited survey [@holder03; @mortonson07]. Cross correlating with the 21 cm signal should allow more information to be extracted from both measurements. The cross correlation signal arises from the velocity field of ionized baryons, which sources the Doppler anisotropies in the CMB and also traces the linear overdensity of neutral hydrogen, the source of the 21 cm brightness. @Alvarez:2005sa showed that combining the two measurements could in principle allow the extraction of the global reionization history, which is otherwise difficult to measure (e.g., @shaver99 [@Furlanetto:2006tf]). One reason is that the signal from the 21 cm radiation will be dominated by foregrounds and detector noise which makes extracting useful information difficult. Although many of these same foregrounds appear in the CMB, they are much smaller and more easily removed (and of course the thermal noise is uncorrelated). Cross-correlation with the CMB could therefore dramatically improve our confidence in the cosmological origin of the 21 cm signal.
This work is an improved calculation of results presented by @Alvarez:2005sa. In particular, we include the corrections to the 21 cm brightness due to redshift space distortions caused by the peculiar velocity field of neutral hydrogen (as in @Bharadwaj:2004nr). We employ a more physically motivated reionization history together with a new model of the growth of the ionized contrast as reionization proceeds. We also re-examine the prospects for detecting the large scale cross-correlation. Unfortunately, we find that it will be extremely difficult because of cosmic variance. Throughout this work, we will confine the discussion to large angular scales ($\sim$degree) where the details of the the ionized bubbles that appear during reionization [@Furlanetto:2004nh] largely average out. On smaller scales, these arcminute structures will also induce interesting cross-correlations (e.g., @Cooray:2004ei [@Salvaterra:2005js; @Slosar:2007sy]), but the simple models based on linear theory used here will not suffice to describe them. Also, note that we will assume gaussian fluctuations throughout, as appropriate for linear matter fluctuations on the large scales we study. Only on smaller scales will higher-order correlations become important [@Cooray:2004ei].
This paper is organized as follows. In §2 expressions for the 21 cm brightness, CMB Doppler brightness, and the cross-correlation signals are derived. Equation (\[21-Dopp\]) is the main result. Section 3 details the reionization model, and §4 presents calculations of the observability of our predictions for future radio telescopes. Finally, we conclude in §5.
Throughout our work the following Fourier convention is used $$f(\hat{{\bf n}}, \eta) = \int\frac{{{\rm d}}^{3}{\bf
k}}{(2\pi)^{3}}f_{{\bf k}} e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot\hat{{\bf
n}}(\eta_{0}-\eta)}.$$
The cosmological parameters are set at $\Omega_{0}=0.24$, $\Omega_{b} = 0.042$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.76$, $h=0.73$, $\sigma_{8} = 0.8$ and $n=0.96$, consistent with the WMAP year three data [@Spergel:2006hy], and we use the matter power spectrum of @Eisenstein:1997jh. We work in natural units where $c=1$, so that in a flat geometry the conformal time, $$\eta_{0}-\eta(z) = \int_{0}^{z}\frac{{{\rm d}}z'}{H(z')},$$ equals the comoving distance, $r(z) = \eta_{0}-\eta(z)$. Throughout $H(z)$ denotes the Hubble parameter. We will also use the expansion of the plane wave, $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-i {\bf k}\cdot {\bf x}} & = &
\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}(-i)^{\ell}(2\ell
+1)j_{\ell}(kx)\mathcal{P}_{\ell}(\hat{{\bf k}}\cdot \hat{{\bf x}})\\
& = & 4\pi \sum_{\ell, m}(-i)^{\ell}j_{\ell}(kx)Y_{\ell m}(\hat{{\bf
k}})Y_{\ell m}^{*}(\hat{{\bf x}}) \label{plwvexp},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal P}_\ell$ is the Legendre polynomial of order $\ell$.
21 cm and CMB doppler Temperature Anisotropy
============================================
21 cm Temperature Anisotropy
----------------------------
As long as the spin or excitation temperature, $T_{s}$, of the 21 cm transition in a region of the intergalactic medium (IGM) differs from the CMB temperature that region will appear in either emission ($T_{s} > T_{cmb}$) or absorption ($T_{s}< T_{cmb}$) when viewed against the CMB. Variations in the density of neutral hydrogen would appear as fluctuations in the sky brightness of this transition [@scott90; @madau97; @Furlanetto:2006jb].
The optical depth of the IGM in the hyperfine transition is [@field58] $$\tau_{21} = \frac{3 c^{3}\hbar A_{10} n_{H}}{16
{k_{\rm B}}\nu_{0}^{2}T_{s}(1+z)(dv_{r}/dr)}{x_{\rm HI}},$$ where $A_{10}=2.85 \times 10^{-15}$ s$^{-1}$ is the spontaneous emission coeffiecient, ${k_{\rm B}}$ is the Boltzmann constant, $n_H$ is the number density of hydrogen, and ${x_{\rm HI}}$ is the neutral fraction. $dv_{r}/dr$ is the gradient of the radial velocity along the line of sight, $v_{r}$ being the physical velocity and $r$ the comoving distance. This factor accounts for the bulk motion of the hydrogen, which causes a Doppler shift from the intrinsic line frequency, $\nu_{0} = 1420.2$ MHz.
Peculiar velocities induce a small perturbation in the gradient of the proper velocity away from the Hubble flow $$\frac{{{\rm d}}v_{r}}{{{\rm d}}r} = a(z)H(z) + \frac{\partial
v}{\partial r},$$ where $v$ is the radial peculiar velocity and $a(z)$ is the scale factor. To first order in the density perturbations the optical depth in the hyperfine transition is then $$\label{tau21}
\tau_{\rm 21} \approx 8.6 \times
10^{-3}{x_{\rm HI}}\left(1+\delta_{b}(\hat{{\bf n}}, \eta) -\frac{1}{a(z)
H(z)}\frac{\partial v_{r}}{\partial
r}\right)\left[\frac{T_{cmb}(z)}{T_{s}}\right]\left(
\frac{\Omega_{b}h^{2}}{0.02}\right)\left[\left(\frac{0.15}{\Omega_{m}h^{2}}
\right)\left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)\right]^{1/2},$$ where $T_{cmb}(z)=2.725(1+z)$ K and we have assumed that the universe is matter-dominated at the redshifts of interest. In arriving at this expression we have neglected a number of terms, such as the effect of the CMB dipole in the gas frame and the local effects of gravitational redshifting, which also contribute to the 21 cm optical depth. However, these additional terms contribute less than $1\%$ to the anisotropy on the scales of interest, and equation (\[tau21\]) suffices for our purposes [@Lewis:2007kz].
Following @Zaldarriaga:2003du, we define $T_{21}(\hat{{\bf
n}}, z)$ to be the observed brightness temperature increment between this patch and the CMB at an observed frequency $\nu$ corresponding to a redshift $1+z = \nu_{0}/\nu$ in a direction $\hat{{\bf n}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{ 21}( z) & \approx & \frac{1}{1+z}(T_{s}-T_{cmb})\tau_{ 21},\end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed that $\tau_{21}$ is small.
We now write the observed differential brightness temperature of the 21 cm emission line at $\lambda = 21$ cm$(1+z)$ in the direction $\hat{{\bf n}}$ as $$T_{21}(\hat{{\bf n}}, z) =
T_{0}(z)\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta'W[\eta(z)-\eta']\psi_{21}(\hat{{\bf
n}}, \eta'),$$ where $W[\eta(z)-\eta']$ is a normalized ($\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{{\rm d}}x W[x]=1$) spectral response of an instrument which is centered at $\eta(z)-\eta' = 0$. $T_{0}(z)$ is a normalization factor given by $$T_{0}(z)\simeq
23~\textrm{mK}~\left(\frac{\Omega_{b}h^{2}}{0.02}\right)\left[\left(\frac{0.15}{\Omega_{m}h^{2}}\right)
\left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)\right]^{1/2},$$ and $$\label{psi}
\psi_{21}(\hat{{\bf n}}, \eta)\equiv {x_{\rm HI}}(\hat{{\bf n}},
\eta)\left[1+\delta_{b}(\hat{{\bf n}}, \eta)-\frac{1}{a(\eta)
H(\eta)}\frac{\partial v_{r}}{\partial
r}\right]\left[1-\frac{T_{cmb}(\eta)}{T_{s}(\hat{{\bf n}},
\eta)}\right].$$ We assume that the spectral resolution of the instrument is much smaller than the features of the target signal in redshift space. We thus set $W[x]=\delta^{D}(x)$, to obtain $$\label{window}
T_{21}(\hat{{\bf n}},z)=T_{0}(z)\psi_{21}[\hat{{\bf n}},
\eta(z)].$$ On very small scales, this is a poor approximation because the finite bandwidth averages over many oscillations, damping the signal. However, for our regime of interest at $\ell\sim100$ this is expected to be an excellent approximation [@Zaldarriaga:2003du].
During most of reionization, we expect $T_{s}\gg T_{cmb}$ [@ciardi03-21cm; @Furlanetto:2006tf], so we neglect the $T_{cmb}/T_{s}$ term in equation (\[psi\]). By writing the ionized fraction contrast $$\delta_{i}\equiv \frac{x_{i}-\bar{x}_{i}}{\bar{x}_{i}},$$ where $x_{i}$ is the ionized fraction and the overbar denotes an average quantity, to first order in the density perturbations, equation (\[psi\]) can be written $$\label{psi22}
\psi_{21}(\hat{n}, \eta) = {\bar{x}_{\rm HI}}\left(1+\delta_{b}(\hat{n},
\eta)-\frac{1}{a(z) H(z)}\frac{\partial v_{r}}{\partial
r}\right)-\bar{x}_{i}\delta_{i}(\hat{n}, \eta).$$ It is important to note here that this is not necessarily a well-defined perturbation expansion. At any given point in space, the ionized fraction is either zero or unity, so that averaged over sufficiently small scales (of order the characteristic size of the HII regions), $\delta_{i}$ itself will be at least of order unity. However, we will only examine large scales ($\gg 10 {\mbox{ Mpc}})$ which average over many of these highly ionized regions, so equation (\[psi22\]) is acceptable.
Working in Fourier space, the baryon velocity field is related to the density contrast via the continuity equation, ${\bf v}_{{\bf
k}}=-i{\bf k}/k^{2}\dot\delta_{b,{\bf k}}(\eta)$, where the overdot denotes a derivative with respect to conformal time. At late times on the scales of interest, the perturbations scale as the linear growth factor $D_{1}$, so $ \dot{\delta}_{b,{\bf
k}}(\eta)=\delta_{b,{\bf k}}a(\eta)H(\eta)f$, where $f\equiv
{{\rm d}}\ln D_{1}/{{\rm d}}\ln a$ is the dimensionless linear growth rate or redshift space distortion factor [@Kaiser:1987qv]. Equation (\[psi22\]) becomes $$\label{alt2}
\psi(\hat{{\bf n}},
\eta(z))=\int\frac{{{\rm d}}^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[{\bar{x}_{\rm HI}}(z)\delta_{{\bf k}}(z)
\left(1-\frac{f}{k^{2}}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial
\eta^{2}}\right)
-\bar{x}_{i}(z)\delta_{i{\bf k}}(z)\right]e^{i k
\mu\eta}.$$ The multipoles of the spherical harmonic expansion are then $$\label{21-multipoles}
a_{\ell m}^{21}(z) =
4\pi(-i)^{\ell}T_{0}(z)\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left\{{\bar{x}_{\rm HI}}(z)\delta_{{\bf
k}}(z)\right.\left.J_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))]
-\bar{x}_{i}(z)\delta_{i {\bf
k}}(z)j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))]\right\} Y_{\ell m}^{*}(\hat{{\bf
k}}).\nonumber$$ where [@Bharadwaj:2004nr; @Barkana:2004zy], $$\label{bharad}
J_{\ell}(x)\nonumber
=-f\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{4\ell^{2}-1}j_{\ell-2}\left[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))\right]
+
\left(f\frac{(2\ell^{2}+2\ell-1)}{4\ell^{2}+4\ell-3}+1\right)j_{\ell}\left[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))\right]\\
-f\frac{(\ell+2)(\ell+1)}{(2\ell+1)(2\ell+3)}j_{\ell+2}\left[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))\right],$$ although we also include the redshift space distortion factor $f$. This is well approximated by $f = \Omega_{m}^{0.6}$, which for the redshifts of interest is approximately one. Neglecting the peculiar velocity perturbations amounts to taking $J_{\ell}(x) \rightarrow
j_{\ell}(x)$.
To this point, our calculation is similar to that of @Alvarez:2005sa, except that we have incorporated the velocity correction in a different manner. They differentiated the plane wave before expanding in spherical coordinates. This left a factor $(1+\mu^2)$, where $\mu = \hat{\bf n}\cdot{\bf k}/|{\bf k}|$ is the angle between the line of sight direction $\hat{{\bf n}}$ and the photon propagation vector ${\bf k}$. On the other hand, we expand the plane wave into a spherical basis before taking the derivative. Both approaches are mathematically equivalent, but the advantage of ours will become apparent when calculating the cross-correlation.
The CMB Doppler Signal
----------------------
In Fourier space, the secondary CMB temperature anisotropy from the Doppler effect is given by the line of sight integral $$\label{Doppler}
T_{D}(\hat{n}, {\bf k}) = -T_{cmb}\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta
(-\dot{\tau})\mu\,v_{b {\bf k}}~ e^{i k\mu(\eta-\eta_{0})}e^{-\tau}=
-T_{cmb}\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta(-\dot\tau) e^{-\tau}\frac{v_{b
{\bf k}}}{i k}\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}\left[e^{i
k\mu(\eta-\eta_{0})}\right].$$ We define $\tau(\eta) =
\int_{\eta}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta~\sigma_{T}n_{e}a$ so that $\dot{\tau} = -\sigma_{T}n_{e}a$. Note that with this definition $(-\dot\tau)>0$.
As above, the baryon velocity field is related to the density contrast via the continuity equation. Thus in real space, assuming an observer positioned at the present day ($\eta = \eta_{0}$), we have $$\label{Doppler1}
T_{D}(\hat{n})=T_{cmb}\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta\dot D(-\dot\tau)
e^{-\tau}\int\frac{{{\rm d}}^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{\delta_{k}}{k^{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}e^{-i
k\mu(\eta_{0}-\eta)}.$$ Expanding in spherical coordinates, the multipole moments are $$\label{Doppler2}
a_{\ell,m}^{D}=4\pi
T_{cmb}(-i)^{\ell}\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta\dot{D}(-\dot\tau)
e^{-\tau}\int\frac{{{\rm d}}^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{\delta_{k}}{k^{2}}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial
\eta}j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta)]\right]Y_{\ell,m}^{*}(\hat{{\bf k}}).$$
Doppler-21 cm Cross Correlation
-------------------------------
We now calculate the cross correlation power spectrum, $C_{\ell}^{21-D} = \langle a_{\ell m}^{21}a_{\ell m}^{D*}\rangle$. We define the 3D power spectrum, $ \langle\delta_{{\bf k}}(z)
\delta_{{\bf k}'}(z)\rangle =(2\pi)^{3} \delta^{D}({\bf k}-{\bf
k}')P_{\delta\delta}(k, z)$ and the cross-correlation power spectrum between the ionized fraction and density, $\langle\delta_{{\bf k}}(z)\delta_{i, {\bf k}'}(z)\rangle =
(2\pi)^{3}\delta^{D}({\bf k}-{\bf k}')P_{\delta i}(k, z)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle a_{\ell m}^{21}(z)a_{\ell m}^{D*}\rangle & = & \nonumber
- T_{0}(z)T_{cmb}\frac{2 D_{1}(z)}{\pi}\int {{\rm d}}k\left[\bar{x}_{HI}(z)
P_{\delta\delta}(k)J_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))]\right.\\
&{}&-\left.
\bar{x}_{i}(z)P_{\delta i}(k)j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))\right]
\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta'\dot
D_{1}(-\dot\tau) e^{-\tau}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta'}j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta')].\end{aligned}$$ We perform an integration by parts, and neglect the surface term since at early times $\tau \approx \infty$ and at late times $\dot\tau(0)$, the scattering rate, is essentially zero. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{21-Dopp}\nonumber
\langle a_{\ell m}^{21}(z)a_{\ell m}^{D*}\rangle & = &
-T_{0}(z)T_{cmb}\frac{2 D_{1}(z)}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta'
\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta'}\left[\dot
D_{1}(-\dot\tau) e^{-\tau}\right]\int {{\rm d}}k j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta')]\\
&{}&\times\left\{ {\bar{x}_{\rm HI}}(z)
P_{\delta\delta}(k)J_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))]-\bar{x}_{e}(z)
P_{i\delta}(k)j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))]\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Compared to the expression of @Alvarez:2005sa, we have the factor $J_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))]$ instead of $4/3j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))]$. To obtain equation (\[21-Dopp\]), we have simply required the orthogonality of the spherical harmonics to evaluate $\int {{\rm d}}\Omega
Y_{\ell}(\mu, \phi)Y^{*}_{\ell'}(\mu,\phi)$. However, if the factor $\mu^2$ is included instead, as in @Alvarez:2005sa, then one must evaluate $\int {{\rm d}}\Omega \mathcal{P}_{2}(\mu) Y_{\ell}(\mu,
\phi)Y^{*}_{\ell'}(\mu,\phi)$, where $\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mu)$ is the second Legendre polynomial. @Alvarez:2005sa approximated this integral with its value for $\ell=0$, introducing the factor $4/3$.
Ignoring the velocity corrections to the 21 cm signal for a moment \[this amounts to taking $J_{\ell}(x) \rightarrow j_{\ell}(x)$\], and using the Limber approximation (proved in appendix A): $$\label{limber}
\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}k^2{}{{\rm d}}k \frac{P(k)}{k^{2}}j_{\ell}(kr)j_{\ell}(kr')\approx
P\left(k=\frac{\ell}{r}\right)\frac{\delta(r-r')}{\ell^{2}},$$ valid for $\ell \gg 1$, yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{limberapp}
\frac{\ell^{2}C_{\ell}^{21-D}}{2\pi} = T_{0}(z)T_{cmb}
\frac{D_{1}(z)}{2\pi} \frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}\left(\dot
D_{1}\dot\tau e^{-\tau}\right)\left[\bar{x}_{HI}(z)
P_{\delta\delta}\left(\frac{\ell}{r(z)}\right)-\bar{x}_{i}
(z)P_{i\delta}\left(\frac{\ell}{r(z)}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ This form is identical to equation (17) of @Alvarez:2005sa, except without their factor of $4/3$. It follows from equation (\[limberapp\]) that the cross correlation power spectrum should roughly trace the shape of the underlying matter power spectrum (at least for uniform reionization, or for $\delta_i \propto \delta$ as below). The matter power spectrum has a broad peak on the scale of the horizon size at matter-radiation equality, $k_{eq}\simeq
0.009{\mbox{ Mpc}}^{-1}(\Omega_{m}h^{2}/0.128)$. Using the fact the the conformal time is on the order of $10^{4}{\mbox{ Mpc}}$ for large $z$, equation (\[limberapp\]) implies that the cross correlation power spectrum will have a peak at degrees scales or $\ell\sim kr \sim 100$. For the rest of the paper we take $\ell_{peak} = 100$.
Equation (\[limberapp\]) implies another important fact: there is a one-to-one correspondence between $k$ and $\ell$, so each multipole samples only one scale. In the exact case this is only approximately true; the right hand side of equation (\[limber\]) is not a true delta function but has some finite width, which means that modes are mixed. The peculiar velocity corrections further mix the modes as seen through the appearance of $j_{\ell+2}(kx)$ and $j_{\ell-2}(kx)$ in equation (\[bharad\]). These redshift space distortions boost the signal by about 20% at $\ell_{peak}$.
To obtain a numerical result we need a sensible model for the reionization history. On the scales of interest, density perturbations grow linearly. We therefore use a growth factor normalized so that $D_{1}(z_{ N})=1$, or $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{D}_{1}&=&
-H(z)\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}z}\left(\frac{1+z_{N}}{1+z}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that only hydrogen is ionized, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
-\dot{\tau} &=&
\frac{\sigma_{T}\rho_{b0}}{m_{p}}(1-Y_{p})(1+z)^{2}\bar{x}_{i}(z)\\
&=&0.0525H_{0}\Omega_{b}h(1+z)^{2}\bar{x}_{i}(z),\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_{p}=0.24$ is the helium mass abundance. Taking $e^{-\tau}\approx 1$, since $\tau \sim 0.1 $ [@Spergel:2006hy], then gives [@Alvarez:2005sa]: $$\label{avalrez}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}\left[\dot{D}(-\dot{\tau})e^{-\tau}\right]=-0.0525H_{0}\Omega_{b}h
(1+z_{N})H(z)\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}z}\left[\bar{x}_{i}(z)H(z)\right].$$ The combination $(1+z_{N})^{2}P(k,z_{N})$ leaves equations (\[21-Dopp\]) and (\[limberapp\]) independent of the epoch of normalization $z_{N}$ [@Hu:1995fq].
As noted above, the shape of the cross correlation power spectrum for fixed $z$ is determined entirely by the underlying matter power spectrum. For fixed $\ell$ its variation with redshift is determined primarily by the quantity $\partial/\partial\eta(\dot D\dot\tau
e^{-\tau})$, which from equation (\[avalrez\]) depends on ${{\rm d}}/{{\rm d}}z\left[\bar{x}_{i}(z) H(z)\right]$. This implies another important fact: the cross-correlation vanishes when ${{\rm d}}/{{\rm d}}z\left[\bar{x}_{i}(z) H(z)\right]$ is constant and will be the largest where $\left[\bar{x}_{i}(z) H(z)\right]$ has the greatest rate of change. Models with faster rates of reionization and reionization occuring at higher redshifts will lead to larger cross-correlations (see below). This behavior comes directly from the CMB Doppler signal; unless the ionized fraction is changing, the line of sight integral in equation (\[Doppler1\]) suffers severe cancelation due to the oscillatory nature of the Bessel functions. Furthermore, this means that if dilution from the Hubble expansion is faster than the reionization rate, then the CMB will be on average blueshifted by reionization (and vice versa). During reionization $\bar{x}_{i}$ will almost definitely be increasing very rapidly, so redshifting will be the dominant effect.
To get an idea of how the velocity corrections affect the signal we chose a simple parametrization of the neutral fraction to compare with previous results [@Furlanetto:2004ha; @Alvarez:2005sa]; $$\label{model}
{\bar{x}_{\rm HI}}(z)=\frac{1}{1+\exp[-(z-z_{r})/\Delta z]},$$ Figure \[Transfer\] shows the cross-correlation at $z=15$ for homogeneous reionization ($P_{\delta i}=0$) using equation (\[model\]) with $\Delta z = 1$ and $z_{r}=15$. The three curves show the Limber approximation of equation (\[limber\]), the exact result, and the anisotropy ignoring velocity corrections (i.e., $J_l
\rightarrow j_l$), from top to bottom. Note how the Limber approximation works extremely well at $\ell \gg 100$ but overestimates the signal by $\sim 10\%$ near $\ell_{peak}$ and fares considerably worse at small $\ell$. Velocities boost the signal on large angular scale by tens of percent but become unimportant on small scales. Note that the result of @Alvarez:2005sa corresponds to 4/3 times the lower curve, which at $\ell\sim 100$ is not a bad approximation but gets worse as $\ell$ increases.
\
The Cross-Correlation Coefficient
---------------------------------
We will find later on that it is convenient to re-cast many of our results in terms of the cross-correlation coefficient $r$, $$C_{\ell}^{21-D} = r\sqrt{C_{\ell}^{21}C_{\ell}^{CMB}},$$ where $C_\ell^{21}$ is the angular power spectrum of the 21 cm signal and $C_\ell^{CMB}$ is the angular power spectrum of the CMB; in particular, we are interested in the Doppler contribution to the latter, $C_\ell^{DD}$. The *maximal* cross-correlation coefficient will be $r_{\rm max}=\sqrt{C_\ell^{DD}/C_\ell^{CMB}}$, because the 21 cm signal is (nearly) uncorrelated with the primordial CMB anisotropy and other secondaries.
We can estimate the intrinsic 21 cm signal with a little bit of work from equation (\[21-multipoles\]). Neglecting redshift space distortions, which give about a $30\%$ correction at $\ell = 100$, and using the results above, we have [@Zaldarriaga:2003du] $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\ell}^{21}(z)= (4\pi)^2 T_{0}(z)^{2} \int k^2 \frac{{{\rm d}}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}j_{\ell}\left[k(\eta_{0}-\eta(z))\right]^{2}[{\bar{x}_{\rm HI}}^2
P(k, z) + \bar{x}_i^2 P_{ii}(k,z) - 2 {\bar{x}_{\rm HI}}\bar{x}_i P_{\delta
i}(k,z)], \label{cl21}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{ii}$ is the power spectrum of $\delta_i$.
We can estimate the CMB power from the Doppler signal from equation (\[Doppler2\]), $$\langle a_{\ell,m}^{D}a_{\ell,m}^{D~*}\rangle =
T_{cmb}^{2}\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta\frac{\partial}{\partial
\eta}\left[\dot{D}(-\dot\tau)
e^{-\tau}\right]\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta'\frac{\partial}{\partial
\eta'}\left[\dot{D}(-\dot\tau)
e^{-\tau}\right]
\frac{2}{\pi}\int {{\rm d}}k P(k)j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta)]j_{\ell}[k(\eta_{0}-\eta')],$$ where we have used the orthogonality of the spherical harmonics and integrated by parts twice. Using the Limber approximation (eq. \[limberapp\]), we obtain $$\label{dopplerani}
\frac{\ell^{2}C_{\ell}^{DD}}{2\pi} = \frac{T_{cmb}^{2}}{2\pi\ell^{2}}\int_{0}^{\eta_{0}}{{\rm d}}\eta\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
\eta}\left[\dot{D}(-\dot\tau)
e^{-\tau}\right]\right)^{2}P\left(\frac{\ell}{r(\eta)}\right)(\eta_{0}-\eta)^{2}.$$ Note that the amplitude of this expression is primarily determined by the factor $\partial/\partial\eta(\dot D\dot\tau e^{-\tau})$, which as we saw above depends on ${{\rm d}}/{{\rm d}}z\left[\bar{x}_{i}(z) H(z)\right]$; the Doppler signal will be largest for models of reionization which occur at high redshifts and which proceed quickly.
The Reionization History
========================
The prescription of equation (\[model\]) is not a well-motivated model of reionization. The quantity of interest for the cross-correlation, the rate at which the ionized fraction is changing, is completely determined by the free parameter $\Delta z$, so the form has no predictive power. Moreover, as soon as the ionized fraction reaches 1/2, the rate of reionization begins to slow, so the *shape* of the signal is prescribed “by hand" rather than following from physically-motivated arguments (e.g., recombinations). Our next task is therefore to estimate the signal on more physically-satisfying grounds.
However, in this paper we do not aim to present a complete model of reionization. Instead we will use a simple model that encapsulates many of the basic features in the global evolution. We begin by assuming that a galaxy of mass $m_{\rm gal}$ can ionize a mass $\zeta m_{\rm gal}$, where $\zeta$ is the ionizing efficiency: a measure of the number of ionizing photons produced per baryon inside galaxies. This amounts to the assumption of an “inside-out" reionization scenario wherein the gas is first ionized by galaxies within overdense regions. This is consistent with numerical simulations, at least when the sources resemble star forming galaxies [@McQuinn:2005ce]. We then associate the reionization rate with the star formation rate [@Furlanetto:2006tf]; $$\label{ion}
\frac{{{\rm d}}\bar{x}_{i}}{{{\rm d}}t} = \zeta \frac{{{\rm d}}f_{\rm
coll}}{{{\rm d}}t} -
\alpha_{A}C(z,\bar{x}_{i})\bar{x}_{i}(z)\bar{n}_{e}(z),$$ where $f_{\rm coll}$ is the mass bound to halos above some mass threshold $m_{\rm min}$. In this work we take the minimum mass to correspond to a virial temperature of $10^4$ K [@Barkana:2000fd] and use the @Press:1973iz mass function for simplicity. The second term on the right acts as a sink describing recombinations. $\alpha_{A} = 4.2 \times 10^{-12}$ cm$^3$s$^{-1}$ is the case-A recombination coefficient at $10^4$ K, $C\equiv \langle n^2_e\rangle/\langle n_e\rangle^2$ is the clumping factor for ionized gas, and $\bar{n}_{e}$ is the average electron density in ionized regions.
The physics underlying the ionization efficiency is highly uncertain and depends on poorly understood intra-galactic dynamics, so in this work we take it as a free parameter. In principle $\zeta$ and $m_{\rm min}$ could vary with redshift due to feedback mechanisms. In most cases, feedback decreases $\zeta$, and hence the reionization rate. Thus in models that include feedback, we expect the cross-correlation to be smaller and the peak to occur earlier in the ionization history (e.g. @Furlanetto:2004nt). For example, if the photoheating that accompanies reionization suppressed star formation in small galaxies, $\zeta$ would decrease significantly once $\bar{x}_i \ga 0.5$, stretching reionization over a longer time interval (possibly enough to create an inflection point in the history; see below). In extreme cases, where recombinations dominate early in reionization, there could even be a turnover in $\bar{x}_i$ [@cen03; @wyithe03-letter], which would strongly affect the cross-correlation [@Alvarez:2005sa].
The clumping factor, $C$, can in principle be computed with numerical simulations that incorporate radiative transfer. However, this requires fully resolving small scale structure in the IGM as well as tracking its evolution through reionization. Furthermore, $C$ depends on how the IGM was ionized; whether low density gas was ionized first or if many photons were consumed ionizing dense blobs when $\bar{x}_{i}$ was small [@Furlanetto:2005xx]. This means that $C$ must be recomputed for each different set of model parameters. Simulations have unfortunately not yet reached these goals. We instead use a simple analytic model [@Miralda-Escude:1998qs] in which voids are ionized first.[^2] This model perhaps underestimates the mean recombination rate, and so reionization probably proceeds a little slower that the model predicts. This means that our models will overestimate the signal and will predict a peak that is slightly later. This optimistic assumption about the speed of reionization means that our conclusions about the difficulty in observability of the signal should be robust to uncertainties in the history of reionization.
The left panel of Figure \[Profiles2\] shows the ionized fraction as a function of redshift for three scenarios, with reionization finishing by $z=15$, $z=10$ and $z=7$. They have CMB optical depths of $\tau = 0.17$, $0.10$, and $0.06$ respectively.
We are now in a position to calculate the cross correlation under the assumption that reionization is uniform ($\delta_{i}=0$ everywhere). In this case $P_{\delta i}(k) = 0$ and only the first term in equation (\[21-Dopp\]) contributes. The right panel of Figure \[Profiles2\] shows $\ell^2C_{\ell}^{21-D}/2\pi$ for the reionization models described above. We show its value as a function of redshift at $\ell_{\rm peak}$; the shape of the angular spectrum is only weakly-dependent on redshift. Each curve corresponds to the matching reionization history on the left. The signal is negative (implying an anti-correlation) and peaks where the ionized fraction is changing the fastest. The signal decreases toward lower redshifts for three reasons. First and most importantly, the Hubble expansion dilutes the electron densities and hence decreases the scattering rate of CMB photons. Second, $\dot{f}_{\rm coll}/f_{\rm coll}$ decreases with cosmic time (though only gently), so the relative ionization rate decreases somewhat in scenarios with late reionization. Finally, the clumping factor $C$ also increases with cosmic time, slowing the tail end of reionization most severely when $z_r$ is small.
@Alvarez:2005sa also used a physically-motivated model for the ionization history that included both galaxy collapse and recombinations. The major difference with our model is that they prescribed $\bar{x}_i(z)$ to have a particular functional form that matches smoothly onto $\bar{x}_i=1$ (something that we achieve with a dynamically evolving clumping factor). Comparing their Fig. 3 with the $z=15$ curve in our Figure \[Profiles2\], we predict a larger signal that peaks later in the reionization history. This follows directly from the different reionization histories: the functional form prescribed by @Alvarez:2005sa has an inflection point where $\bar{x}_{i}=1/2$, which causes their estimate to peak slightly earlier. As noted above, such a feature could arise in our model from feedback. Our amplitude is also larger because $\dot{f}_{\rm coll}/{f_{\rm coll}}$ is large throughout that epoch; again, the smooth functional form prescribed by @Alvarez:2005sa suppressed this dependence but may be more realistic in the presence of strong feedback.
Inhomogeneous Reionization
--------------------------
Reionization is expected to be inhomogeneous for two reasons: the clumpiness of the IGM and the clustering of the discrete ionizing sources. The density-ionization cross correlation $P_{\delta i}$ is a measure of this inhomogeneity. Given that little is known about the epoch of reionization and that many of the parameters describing the evolution are completely unconstrained, it is difficult to construct detailed models for this correlation. We will therefore rely on the simplest approach that we can.
To calculate this correlation we need a model of how the perturbations to the ionized contrast $\delta_{i}$ grow through reionization. Ideally we want to relate these to the underlying matter overdensity $\delta$ so that we can express $P_{\delta i}$ in terms of $P_{\delta\delta}$. One potential problem is that, on small scales, fully ionized bubbles can have $\delta_i \gg 1$. Fortunately, on large scales these bubbles average out so that linear theory will suffice in the regime of interest.
As before, we assume reionization proceeds “inside-out" so that a galaxy of mass $m_{\rm gal}$ can ionize a bubble of mass $\zeta
m_{\rm gal}$ around it. It follows that, for an isolated large region of overdensity $\delta$ [@Furlanetto:2004nh], $$\label{ionize}
x_{i}(\delta) = \bar{x}_{i}(1+\delta_{i}) = \zeta f_{\rm
coll}(\delta),$$ where $f_{\rm coll}(\delta)$ is the conditional collapsed fraction in our region. Note that the assumption of an *isolated* region is key here. It is adequate on the large, $\ga 100$ Mpc scales we are interested in because ionizing photons are never able to travel such large distances during reionization [@Furlanetto:2004nh]. A model like that above fails if applied on $\sim 10 {\mbox{ Mpc}}$ scales, because photons from sources outside the region become relevant. Expanding this to linear order, we have $f_{\rm coll}(\delta) =
f_{\rm coll}(1+\bar{b} \delta)$. Here $\bar{b}$ is the mean galaxy bias (averaged over all galaxies; @Mo:1995cs). For an individual galaxy of mass $m$, the @Press:1973iz mass function yields $$b(m) =
\left[1+\frac{\delta_{c}}{\sigma(m)^2D_{1}(z)}-\frac{1}{\delta_{c}(z)D_{1}(z)}\right],$$ where $\delta_c$ is the critical density for spherical collapse and $\sigma^2(m)$ is the fractional variance of the density field when smoothed on spheres of mass $m$. The average over all galaxies is $$\bar{b} =\frac{1}{{f_{\rm coll}}} \int {{\rm d}}m~\frac{m}{\bar{\rho}} n(m)b(m).$$ Note that the same expression follows from the reionization model of @Furlanetto:2004nh by integrating over the galaxy population of each ionized bubble in a large-scale region of overdensity $\delta$. We show the mean bias as a function of redshift in the upper left panel of Figure \[fig: bias, fsat, crosscor\].
In this model, we therefore have $\delta_{i} = \bar{b} \delta$. Before proceeding further, we must address two more potential problems with our approach. The condition that the ionized fraction everywhere be less than unity implies $$\begin{aligned}
1\geq x_{i} & = & \bar{x}_{i}(1+\bar{b} \delta),\end{aligned}$$ which can be written $$\bar{b} \delta\leq\frac{1-\bar{x}_{i}}{\bar{x}_{i}}.$$ On the scales of interest we can estimate $\delta\sim\sigma(R)$. $\ell=100$ corresponds to $R\sim 200$ Mpc, where $\sigma(200{\mbox{ Mpc}},
z=10)\sim 0.004$. We are interested in the epoch in which $\bar{x}_{i}\sim0.5$; so $\bar{b}$ can be as large as $\sim 360$ and our approximations will still remain valid.
This prescription poses one final problem: as reionization proceeds, the ionized contrast grows monotonically with the bias, irrespective of the ionized fraction. This ignores two subtleties of reionization. First, even on these large scales the ionized features will eventually grow large enough that the regions are no longer independent (i.e., low-density voids will eventually be ionized by their neighbors). Moreover, @Furlanetto:2005xx have shown that recombinations become important for larger bubbles. They imprint a maximum size $R_{\rm max}$ on reionized regions; any extra photons produced in these bubbles are canceled out by recombinations. Although this process is difficult to model in detail (especially given the weak constraints on structure in the IGM at high redshift), we can approximately account for these effects by modifying $\delta_i$ to $$\label{deltax}
\delta_i = \bar{b} \delta (1 - f_{\rm sat}),$$ where $f_{\rm sat}$ is the fraction of the volume in the “saturated" bubbles (with $R>R_{\rm max}$). As $\bar{x}_i$ approaches unity, so must $f_{\rm sat}$, so the effective bias $\bar{b}(1-f_{\rm sat})$ eventually goes to zero. In other words, we subtract off photons produced inside regions where recombinations dominate, because they are consumed before helping to ionize new material. Unfortunately $R_{\rm max}$ depends sensitively on the distribution of high-redshift Lyman-limit systems, whose origins are uncertain. There is thus no particularly good model for $R_{\rm
max}$ or $f_{\rm sat}$. However, the curves in Fig. 10 of @Furlanetto:2005xx are reasonably well-described by $$f_{\rm sat}(\bar{x}_{i}) = \exp\left[\frac{|\bar{x}_{i}-1|}{\Delta
\bar{x}_{i}}\right],$$ where $\Delta\bar{x}_{i}$ is a parameter which encodes the effects of the recombining bubbles (which increases as $R_{\rm max}$ decreases, because the saturation limit is reached earlier for smaller bubbles). The upper right panel of Fig. \[fig: bias, fsat, crosscor\] shows $f_{\rm sat}$ for $\Delta \bar{x}_{i} = 0.2$, $0.1$, and $0.05$. These values of $\Delta \bar{x}_{i}$ are chosen to roughly match the results of @Furlanetto:2005xx and correspond to $z=6$, $z=9$, and $z=12$ respectively (with recombinations setting in earlier at lower redshifts because the clumpiness $C$ increases with time).
Finally, the density-ionization cross correlation power spectrum is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dens-ion}
P_{i\delta}(k,z) = \nonumber
\langle\delta_{i{\bf k}}(z)\delta_{{\bf k}'}(z)\rangle & = &
\bar{b}(z)(1-f_{\rm
sat})\langle\delta_{{\bf k}}(z)\delta_{{\bf k}'}(z)\rangle \\
& = & \bar{b}(z)(1-f_{\rm sat})P(k, z).\end{aligned}$$ Current simulations do not have large enough box sizes to test this approximation on the $\ga 100$ Mpc scales of interest. However, on the largest scales that we can compare ($k\sim0.1$ Mpc$^{-1}$), our result is $\sim 10\%$ larger than that obtained from “semi-numerical" simulations of the reionization process, at least early in reionization [@Mesinger:2007pd]. As reionization proceeds, the simulations show that the amplitude on this scale gets even larger; this is because the characteristic size of ionized bubbles reaches $k\sim0.1$ Mpc$^{-1}$ about midway through the process. We do not expect such an amplification to occur at the scales relevant to the cross-correlation so long as the bubbles do not reach such large sizes.
The lower panels of Figure \[fig: bias, fsat, crosscor\] show the variation in redshift space of the cross-correlation signal, with the left panel showing the individual contributions of the homogeneous and inhomogeneous terms and the right panel showing the sum. For reference, $z= 7$, 10 and 15 correspond to $\nu=$177.5, 129.1 and 88.8 MHz respectively.
The bottom left panel of Figure \[fig: bias, fsat, crosscor\] shows that the positively correlated inhomogeneous part of the signal strongly dominates over the anti-correlated homogeneous part. This is because the inhomogeneous component is so strongly biased (upper left panel). Its amplitude increases rapidly with redshift for two reasons: the quantity ${{\rm d}}/{{\rm d}}z[H(z)\bar{x}_{i}(z)]$ is larger for earlier reionization and the galaxy bias grows large at higher redshifts (see the upper left panel of Fig. \[fig: bias, fsat, crosscor\]). Our amplitudes are somewhat larger than those of @Alvarez:2005sa because our reionization models allow larger ${{\rm d}}\bar{x}_i/{{\rm d}}z$ and because our cosmology yields larger bias factors at high redshift.
In the lower right panel we explore the effects of varying the rate at which bubbles saturate by varying the parameter $\Delta
\bar{x}_{i}$. If saturation sets in earlier the peak amplitude of the signal decreases, and the peak also moves earlier in reionization. However, in all of these cases $f_{\rm sat}$ has little effect except in a brief redshift interval. This is simply because $\bar{x}_i$ increases from $\sim 0.5$ to $\sim 1$ so quickly. We find, therefore, that measuring the peak amplitude of the cross correlation does not precisely yield the rate at which reionization is occurring (or, in our simple model, roughly the rate at which gas collapses onto galaxies); rather, it provides the rate at which photons are able to escape from the environs of their source galaxy. Late in reionization, the overall amplitude will be suppressed by the recombining bubbles that host most of the ionizing sources. Recovering $\bar{x}_i(z)$ will require carefully modeling this effect.
When inhomogeneous reionization is included, our models robustly predict a positive correlation between the CMB and 21 cm signals (see also @Alvarez:2005sa). This follows from the strong clustering of the first galaxies and reflects our assumption of “inside-out" reionization. An anti-correlated signal would imply that low-density gas is ionized at least as quickly as high-density gas; thus the overall sign of the correlation would provide a clean test of these contrasting approaches to reionization.
\
Foregrounds and Observability
=============================
There are two unavoidable sources of noise in any attempt to measure cosmic signals: the intrinsic noise associated with the detector and the error associated with sample variance (especially at low multipoles). The latter results from having only one sky and only $2\ell+1$ independent samples at each $\ell$: $$\Delta C_{\ell}^{sv} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{(2\ell+1)f_{\rm
sky}}}C_{\ell},$$ where $f_{\rm sky}$ is the fraction of sky being observed. For a single 21 cm observing field this is given by $f_{sky}=d\Omega/4\pi
\approx \lambda^2/(A_{d}4\pi)$, approximated by the diffraction limit of the telescope, where $A_{d}$ is the area of a single dish and $\lambda = 21(1+z)$ cm.
While the cosmic variance contribution is purely geometric, the detector noise depends on the details of the observation. For 21 cm experiments, the RMS detector noise fluctuation per visibility of an antennae pair observing for a time $t_{0}$ in one frequency channel is [@McQuinn:2005hk] $$\Delta V^{N} = \frac{\lambda^{2}T_{\rm sys}}{A_{d}\sqrt{\Delta \nu
t_{0}}},$$ where $T_{\rm sys}(\nu)$ is the total system temperature. An irreducible limit on $T_{\rm sys}$ is provided by the radio sky itself, so $T_{\rm sys}\geq T_{\rm sky}$. In fact, at the low frequencies relevant to the redshifted 21 cm sky, the noise is strongly dominated by synchrotron electrons from fast electrons in the Milky Way, so to a good approximation $T_{\rm sys}\approx T_{\rm
sky}$. A good rule of thumb for the sky temperature of high latitude, “quiet" portions of the sky is [@Furlanetto:2006jb] $$T_{\rm sky} \sim 180\left(\frac{\nu}{180\textrm{MHz}}\right)^{-2.6}
\textrm{K}.$$ It follows that the detector noise in the auto-correlation for a single baseline is $$C_{1b}^{N} = \left(\frac{\lambda^{2}T_{\rm
sys}}{A_{d}}\right)^{2}\frac{1}{\Delta \nu t_{0}}.$$ The time spent observing each visibility is $$t_{{\bf u}} = \frac{A_{d}t_{0}}{\lambda^{2}}n({\bf u}),$$ where $u = \ell/2\pi$ and $n(\bf u)$ is the average number of baselines that can observe the mode ${\bf u}$ at any instant, normalized so that its integral over the ${\bf u}$ plane equals the total number of baselines in the interferometer [@McQuinn:2005hk]. The covariance matrix for an interferometer is then $$C^{21,N}({\bf u}) = \left(\frac{\lambda^{2}T_{\rm
sys}}{A_{d}}\right)^{2}\frac{1}{\Delta \nu t_{\bf u}}.$$ The total error on the autocorrelation is a combination of sample variance and detector noise $$\Delta C_{\ell}^{21} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{(2\ell+1)f_{\rm sky}}}\left\{
\left[ \left(\frac{\lambda^{2}}{A_{d}}\right)^{3}\frac{T_{\rm
sys}^2}{\Delta \nu t_{0}n(\bf
u)}\right]^{2}+\left(C_{\ell}^{21}\right)^{2}\right\}^{1/2}.$$ We estimate $C_\ell^{21}$ using equation (\[cl21\]) and the inhomogeneous reionization model described above; note that $P_{ii}(k)=\bar{b}^2 (1-f_{\rm sat})^2 P(k)$ on these large scales. Figure \[errors\] shows the intrinsic 21 cm signal for our fiducial reionization models as well as the thermal detector noise, $\ell^{2}C_{\ell}^{21,N}$ for two planned experiments, the Mileura Widefield Array-Low Frequency Demonstrator (MWA) and the Square Kilometer Array (SKA). We have assumed a frequency window of $\Delta\nu = 1{\mbox{ MHz}}$, 1000 hours of observing time, and $\ell =
100$. The area of a single dish is taken to be the minimum baseline: $(4~\rm m)^{2}$ for MWA and $(16~\rm m)^{2}$ for the SKA, and we assume a filled core outside of which the density of antennae falls like $r^{-2}$. The total effective areas are $1$ km$^2$ for the SKA and $\sim 7 \times 10^{-3}$ km$^2$ for the MWA.
The 21 cm signal falls sharply early in reionization because of the prefactor on the power spectrum, $[{\bar{x}_{\rm HI}}(z)-\bar{b}(1-f_{\rm
sat})\bar{x}_{i}(z)]^{2}$. These two terms cancel at a point early in reionization when the increased total density matches the decreased ionized fraction; at later times, the inhomogeneous term dominates and the signal increases again. Obviously, except when reionization occurs at $z=15$ the intrinsic 21 cm signal significantly dominates the thermal noise. Thus any measurement of the cross-correlation is sample variance limited. Note the difference with typical 21 cm experiments, which are usually dominated by thermal noise: in this case, we are interested in such large scales that the 21 cm telescopes can measure the modes in detail at least neglecting foreground contamination). We neglect the 21 cm detector noise for the remainder of the paper.
\
For the CMB, experiments like *WMAP* are already nearly signal-variance limited on scales near $\ell_{peak}$. Thus we neglect the thermal noise term entirely for the CMB.
One of the general advantages of cross correlation is that any uncorrelated noise (such as the thermal noise in each detector) will vanish. Unfortunately, many of the strong foregrounds for 21 cm observations also appear at CMB frequencies (such as the Galactic synchrotron radiation and radio point sources). However, we will assume optimistically that cleaning of the separate maps will effectively remove this contamination [@Zaldarriaga:2003du; @morales04; @santos03; @morales05_foregrounds; @McQuinn:2005hk]; in reality, foregrounds could make the signal even more difficult to detect than estimated here.
We can then estimate the 1-$\sigma$ error for the cross-power spectrum from $$\label{noise}
(\Delta C_{\ell}^{21-D})^{2}\approx \frac{1}{(2\ell+1)f_{\rm
sky}\Delta\ell}\left[(C_{\ell}^{21-D})^{2}+ C_{\ell}^{CMB}
C_{\ell}^{21}\right], $$ where $\Delta\ell$ is the size of the bins over which the power spectrum is averaged ($\ell-\Delta\ell/2<\ell<\ell+\Delta\ell/2$). In terms of the cross-correlation coefficient, the expected fractional error (eq. \[noise\]) can be written:[^3] $$\frac{\Delta C_{\ell}^{21-D}}{C_{\ell}^{21-D}} =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2\ell+1) f_{\rm sky}\Delta
\ell}}\frac{\sqrt{1+r^{2}}}{r}.$$ This result has a simple physical interpretation. The first factor on the right hand side is the fractional error from cosmic variance for any autocorrelation. If the two signals are weakly correlated, $r \ll 1$, only a portion of each intrinsic signal is useful for the measurement and the cosmic variance limit increases accordingly. This can be recast as a constraint on the minimum correlation coefficient $r$ observable with a given signal-to-noise on the cross-power: $$\label{correlation}
r > \left[ \left(\frac{\Delta
C_{\ell}^{21-D}}{C_{\ell}^{21-D}}\right)^{2}(2\ell+1)f_{\rm
sky}\Delta\ell- 1\right]^{-1/2}.$$
Thus the observability of our signal will depend on the cross-correlation coefficient. We can estimate its value by comparing equation (\[dopplerani\]) for our reionization models to the total primordial CMB anisotropies. For the models in Figure \[Profiles2\], we find $\ell^{2}C^{DD}_{\ell}/2\pi =
19.8~\mu$K$^{2}$, $2.4~\mu$K$^{2}$, and $0.4~\mu$K$^{2}$ for the $z=15$, $z=10$, and $z=7$ cases respectively. The primary anisotropy is $\approx (40~\mu\rm K)^2$ at $\ell = 100$, so even if the Doppler component of the CMB is completely correlated with the $21$ cm signal (see below), we must still have $r<0.11$, $0.04$ and $0.015$ for the $z=15$, $10$ and $7$ cases, respectively. One can already see that the prospects for detecting the cross-correlation are dim: the CMB at $\ell \approx 100$ is well-fit by the primary anisotropies alone, ignoring the Dopper terms from reionization, and has been observed to nearly the cosmic variance limit [@Spergel:2006hy]. The fractional cosmic variance errors for $C_\ell^{21-D}$ will be larger than those on the CMB by a factor $1/r$.
For a concrete (though optimistic) estimate, let us assume that we have $f_{\rm sky}=1/2$ and sum over all multipoles. Thus we forsake any shape information in order to test the null hypothesis, that is, whether or not correlation can be distinguished from no correlation. For this calculation, we assume for simplicity that the correlation coefficient between the Doppler anisotropy and the 21 cm brightness, $r_{21-D} = r \sqrt{C_\ell^{CMB}/C_\ell^{21-D}}$, is independent of scale and we choose the observed frequency to correspond to the peak of the cross-correlation. We can then find the total signal to noise ratio from (compare eq. 51 of @Slosar:2007sy) $$SNR^{2} = \sum_{\ell}\left(\frac{C_{\ell}^{21-D}}{\Delta
C_{\ell}^{21-D}}\right)^{2} \approx r_{21-D}^{2}\sum_{\ell}(2\ell+1)f_{\rm
sky}\frac{C^{DD}_{\ell}}{C^{cmb}_{\ell}},$$ since $C^{DD}_{\ell}/C^{cmb}_{\ell}$ is small. We find signal to noise ratios of $SNR \sim 2\,r_{21-D}$, $5\,r_{21-D}$, and $14\,r_{21-D}$ for reionization ending at $z=7,\,10,$ and $15$, respectively. If the 21 cm signal and the Doppler signal were perfectly correlated, then we could conceivably detect the correlation in all these scenarios. However, in reality the correlation coefficient between the 21 cm signal and the Doppler signal is $r_{21-D} \sim 0.3$. Thus it is unlikely that we can detect the cross-correlation if reionization ends at $z \la 12$. For reionization at higher redshifts, a detection is possible provided we can view $\ga 50\%$ of the sky.
Of course, the above estimate assumes a single frequency band for the 21 cm map; increasing the frequency coverage will provide more samples and improve the total signal-to-noise (though at the cost of losing any information about the signal’s evolution with redshift). However, $\ell \sim 100$ corresponds to $200 {\mbox{ Mpc}}$. Demanding that each 21 cm frequency slice be statistically independent then requires that the slices be $\sim 10 {\mbox{ MHz}}$ thick, which corresponds to $\Delta z \sim 1$. Thus there are in fact relatively few independent slices available, unless reionization is considerably more extended than in our simple models (in which case each individual slice would have a smaller signal anyway).
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
In this work we have calculated the large scale cross correlation between the CMB temperature anisotropy and the 21 cm background, improving the calculation of @Alvarez:2005sa. The signal is expected to come from large angular scales ($\ell\sim100$) corresponding to $\sim 200$ Mpc at redshifts $z\sim10$. On these scales linear theory is still valid, which greatly simplifies the analysis. We have also presented a new model for the evolution of the ionized contrast as reionization proceeds that includes the effects of recombinations in limiting the apparent bias of reionized regions.
The cross correlation arises from the connection between linear overdensities and the baryon velocity field via the continuity equation in linear theory. Fluctuations in the underlying density field source brightness fluctuations in the 21 cm background, while the baryon velocity field Doppler scatters the CMB. The evolving ionized fraction, which is analogous to the evolving gravitational potentials in the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, reduces the line of sight cancelation that is usually associated with Doppler contributions to secondary anisotropies. Moreover, the redshift information contained in the 21 cm signal (as a binning in frequency) allows us to reconstruct 3D information about the cross correlation.
Our calculations include improvements to the approach originally presented by @Alvarez:2005sa. The key differences are the treatment of the bulk velocity corrections to the 21 cm signal, the reionization model, and the ionized fraction-density cross-correlation.
@Alvarez:2005sa chose a particular functional form $\ln
[1-\bar{x}_{i}] = -\zeta_{0}(z)f_{\rm coll}(z)$ for the reionization history. Although it is driven by the same mechanism as ours early in reionization (the time evolution of ${f_{\rm coll}}$), this form demands that the reionization history slow when $\bar{x}_i > 0.5$. Although such a delay can be loosely attributed to either feedback or recombinations, there is in fact no requirement that they set in so early, or that they slow the subsequent evolution so dramatically.
Our model, on the other hand, explicitly relates the collapsed fraction to the ionized fraction, to which we add the effects of recombinations (which limit the bubble sizes and mediate the source bias). Following @Furlanetto:2005xx, we assume that ionized bubbles grow until they reach a size $R_{\rm max}$, where recombinations prevent subsequent growth. Any more ionizing photons produced in these bubbles are canceled out by recombinations. As reionization proceeds more and more bubbles saturate and no longer contribute to the global evolution of the ionized fraction. As this process unfolds, more of the collapsed matter enters these saturated bubbles, so the ionized contrast between over- and underdense regions begins to get smaller, eventually shrinking to zero as all regions become ionized.
These differences change the amplitude and evolution of the signal but not its qualitative behavior. Like @Alvarez:2005sa, in the case of homogeneous reionization we find an anti-correlation between the 21 cm signal and the CMB. In this case an overdensity simultaneously increases the brightness of the 21 cm background and cools the CMB through Thomson scattering across regions where $x_{i}$ is increasing. The contribution from the homogeneous term decreases with redshift due to dilution of the matter density through Hubble expansion.
The result is markedly different when inhomogeneous reionization is included: the 21 cm and CMB signals become strongly correlated. Ionized clumps still scatter and cool the CMB photons through the $x_{i}$ gradient. However, these regions also cause a significant *negative* fluctuation in the 21 cm brightness due to the large deficit of neutral hydrogen. This term is strongly boosted by the galaxy bias and dominates over the anti-correlated homogeneous reionization contribution.
Of course, this positive correlation rests on our assumption that reionization proceeds inside-out. If instead low density gas is ionized first, the inhomogeneous component would become anti-correlated: the underdense regions would blueshift the CMB photons while decreasing the 21 cm brightness both through a decreased matter density and ionized fraction.
Unfortunately, we have shown above that the 21 cm and CMB signals are too weakly correlated for the cross-correlation to be easily detectable. Like @Alvarez:2005sa, we find that thermal noise will not pose a significant problem because the correlation only appears on large scales, where 21 cm telescopes are sample variance-limited. However, when we include cosmic variance of the 21 cm signal, the prospects for detection look dim. The cross-correlation coefficient between the total CMB signal and the 21 cm background is only $r \la 0.03$: it is small because the Doppler contribution makes up $\la 1\%$ of the total CMB anisotropy, and only $\sim 30\%$ of that correlates with the 21 cm background. Experiments targeting this signal will require extremely large fields of view, and even then will be unable to recover the signal at high signal-to-noise or to trace its angular power spectrum. Prospects are actually best for early reionization, because then the CMB Doppler term is increased by the denser gas during reionization. (Note also that we have ignored foreground contamination in the 21 cm signal, which must be cleaned and will further degrade the detectability.)
Although it is possible that our models under-predict the cross-correlation signal, our predictions for the detectability is robust. We have shown that the signal to noise ratio is limited primarily by the smallness of the Doppler signal. The size of the Doppler contributions is determined entirely by the rate of reionization and the epoch at which reionization occurs. Our models already provide relatively fast reionization, so the signal can probably only be increased in this fashion by a factor of $\sim 2$, which does not change our conclusions. Furthermore, while detection of the cross-correlation at $\ell\sim100$ is limited by the cosmic variance of the 21 cm and CMB signals, it does not help to move to higher multipoles where there are more modes available. On the one hand, moving to higher $\ell$ may increase the effective bias, $\bar{b}(z)$, and thus the cross-correlation, as the scale approaches the characteristic bubble size. However, this aspect would only boost the 21 cm signal (which does not help much because it also increases the cosmic variance) and not the Doppler signal. In fact, as shown by @Giannantonio:2007za the Doppler signal, and hence the ratio $C_{\ell}^{DD}/C_{\ell}^{CMB}$, begins to sharply decrease after $\ell\sim100$: any gains made in sampling more modes are immediately lost.
We thank M. Zaldarriaga and M. Alvarez for helpful comments on the manuscript and A. Mesinger for sharing simulation data with us.
Integral Approximation
======================
Consider the integral representation of the 3D Dirac delta function, $$(2\pi)^{3}\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')=\int {{\rm d}}^{3}k \exp[i {\bf
k}\cdot({\bf r}-{\bf r}')].$$ Expanding the plane wave in spherical coordinates, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(2\pi)^{3}\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')& = & (4\pi)^{2} \int {{\rm d}}^{3}k
\sum_{\ell, m}(-i)^{\ell}j_{\ell}(kr)Y_{\ell m}(\hat{{\bf
k}})Y_{\ell m}^{*}(\hat{{\bf r}}) \sum_{\ell',
m'}(i)^{\ell'}j_{\ell'}(kr')Y_{\ell'
m'}^{*}(\hat{{\bf k}})Y_{\ell' m'}(\hat{{\bf r}'}) \\
& = & \label{a2}(4\pi)^{2}\sum_{\ell,m}\int k^{2}{{\rm d}}k
j_{\ell}(kr) j_{\ell}(kr')Y_{\ell m}(\hat{\bf r})Y_{\ell
m}^{*}(\hat{\bf r}'),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the orthogonality of the spherical harmonics. Now in spherical coordinates we can express the Dirac delta function as $$\delta({\bf r}-{\bf r}')= \delta(\Omega,
\Omega')\frac{\delta(r-r')}{r^{2}},$$ so that multiplying equation (\[a2\]) by $Y_{\ell m}(\hat{\bf r}')$ and integrating over $d\Omega '$ yields $$\label{app bess ident}
\int_{0}^{\infty}k^{2}{{\rm d}}k j_{\ell}(kr)j_{\ell}(kr')=
\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\delta(r-r')}{r^{2}}.$$ In this paper we encounter an integral similar to the left hand side of equation (\[app bess ident\]), but with another smooth function of $k$, $P(k)/k^2$, in the integrand. The spherical Bessel functions $j_{\ell}(kx)$ are very small for $kx<\ell$ and start to oscillate for $kx \sim \ell$. As can be seen from (\[app bess ident\]), the Bessel functions are out of phase for any separation of the points $r$ and $r'$. The integral will thus only receive contributions from a region around the first peak, which occurs at $k \sim \ell/x$. We then make the approximation $P(k)\approx P(k=\ell/r)$ (e.g., @Zaldarriaga:2003du), and pull it out of the integral to obtain the approximation used in the main body of the paper: $$\label{alverez approx}
\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}k^2{}{{\rm d}}k \frac{P(k)}{k^{2}}j_{\ell}(kr)j_{\ell}(kr')\approx
P\left(k=\frac{\ell}{r}\right)\frac{\delta(r-r')}{\ell^{2}}.$$
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: This may at first seem to conflict with our assumption that ionization begins in dense environments. In fact, the ionizing photons will begin in large-scale overdense regions, but within the resulting ionized bubbles they will tend to ionize the low-density gas first. As a result, the @Miralda-Escude:1998qs model underpredicts the recombination rate by a factor of a few early in reionization [@Furlanetto:2005xx], but that has little effect on our results.
[^3]: Note that our definition of the cross-correlation coefficient $r$ ignores the noise terms.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Graham and Pollak showed that the vertices of any graph $G$ can be addressed with $N$-tuples of three symbols, such that the distance between any two vertices may be easily determined from their addresses. An addressing is optimal if its length $N$ is minimum possible.
In this paper, we determine an addressing of length $k(n-k)$ for the Johnson graphs $J(n,k)$ and we show that our addressing is optimal when $k=1$ or when $k=2, n=4,5,6$, but not when $n=6$ and $k=3$. We study the addressing problem as well as a variation of it in which the alphabet used has more than three symbols, for other graphs such as complete multipartite graphs and odd cycles. We also present computations describing the distribution of the minimum length of addressings for connected graphs with up to $10$ vertices. Motivated by these computations we settle a problem of Graham, showing that most graphs on $n$ vertices have an addressing of length at most $n-(2-o(1))\log_2 n$.
author:
- |
Noga Alon[^1], Sebastian M. Cioabă[^2], Brandon D. Gilbert[^3],\
Jack H. Koolen[^4] and Brendan D. McKay[^5]
title: 'Addressing Johnson graphs, complete multipartite graphs, odd cycles and random graphs'
---
Introduction
============
Let $r\geq 2$ be an integer. A $(0,1,\dots,r-1,*)$-addressing of a graph $G=(V,E)$ is a function $f:V\rightarrow \{0,1,\dots,r-1,*\}^N$ for some natural number $N$ such that for any two vertices $x,y\in V$, the distance between $x$ and $y$ in the graph $G$ equals the number of positions $j$ such that the $j$-th entries of $f(u)$ and $f(v)$ are distinct and neither equals $*$. Let $N_r(G)$ denote the minimum $N$ for which such an addressing is possible. Addressings of length $N_r(G)$ will be called optimal. The distance multigraph $\mathcal{D}(G)$ of the graph $G$ is the multigraph whose vertex set is $V$, where the number of edges between $x,y\in V$ equals the distance in $G$ between $x$ and $y$. It is not too hard to see that $N_r(G)$ equals the minimum number of complete multipartite graphs whose edges partition the edge multiset of the distance multigraph of $G$, where each complete multipartite graph in the partition must have between $2$ and $r$ color classes.
For $r=2$, Graham and Pollak [@GP1] conjectured that $N_2(G)\leq n-1$ for any connected graph $G$ with $n$ vertices. This conjecture, also known as [*the squashed cube conjecture*]{}, was proved by Winkler [@W]. Graham and Pollak [@GP1] proved the following result (which they attributed to Witsenhausen): $$\label{lowerboundN2}
N_2(G)\geq \max(n_+(D),n_{-}(D)),$$ where $D$ is the $|V|\times |V|$ matrix whose entry $(x,y)$ is the distance in $G$ between $x$ and $y$, and $n_+(D)$ and $n_{-}(D)$ denote the number of positive and negative eigenvalues of $D$, respectively. Following Kratzke, Reznick and West [@KRW], an addressing of $G$ of length $\max(n_+(D),n_{-}(D))$ will be called eigensharp. Note that eigensharp addressings are optimal. Graham and Pollak [@GP1] proved that complete graphs, trees and odd cycles of order $n$ have eigensharp addressings of length $n-1$ and even cycles have eigensharp addressings of length $n/2$. Elzinga, Gregory and Vander Meulen [@EGVM] proved that the Petersen graph does not have an eigensharp addressing and found an optimal addressing of it of length $6$ (one more than the lower bound ). Cioabă, Elzinga, Markiewitz, Vander Meulen and Vanderwoerd [@CEMVV] gave two proofs showing that the Hamming graphs have eigensharp addressings and started the investigation of optimal addressings for the Johnson graphs. The Johnson graph $J(n,k)$ has as vertices all the $k$-subsets of the set $\{1,\dots,n\}$ and two $k$-subsets $S$ and $T$ are adjacent if and only if $|S\cap T|=k-1$. In this paper, we prove that $N_2(J(n,k))\leq k(n-k)$ by constructing an explicit addressing of $J(n,k)$ with $(0,1,*)$-words of length $k(n-k)$. We answer a question from [@CEMVV] and show that $N_2(J(n,2))=2(n-2)$ for $n=5,6$. In the case of $n=6$ and $k=3$, using the computer, we prove that $N_2(J(6,3))=8$ which is smaller than our general bound above. The best known lower bound is $N_2(J(n,k))\geq n$ (see [@CEMVV Theorem 5.3]).
For $r\geq 3$, Watanabe, Ishii and Sawa [@WIS] studied $(0,1,\dots,r-1,*)$-addressings and proved that $N_r(G)\geq \max(n_{+}(D)/(r-1),n_{-}(D)/(r-1))$. Note that the stronger result $N_r(G)\geq \max(n_{+}(D),n_{-}(D)/(r-1))$ follows from the work of Gregory and Vander Meulen [@GVM Theorem 4.1] (see also [@Sawa]). In [@WIS], the first three authors prove that the Petersen graph can be optimally addressed with $(0,1,2,*)$-words of length $4$ and show that $N_r(C_n)=n/2$ for any $n$ even and any $r\geq 3$. For odd cycles, they prove that $N_3(C_{2n+1})=n+1$ for $n\in \{2,3,4\}$ and ask whether this statement is true for larger values of $n$. In this paper, we determine that this is true for $n=5$ and $N_3(C_{11})=6$, but fails for $n\in \{6,7,8,9\}$, where $N_{3}(C_{13})=8, N_{3}(C_{15})=9$, $N_{3}(C_{17})=10$ and $N_3(C_{19})=11$.
For $a,m\geq 1$, let $K(a;m)$ denote the complete $m$-partite graph where each color class has exactly $a$ vertices. The problem of computing $N_2(K(2;m))$ has been investigated by Hoffman [@H] and Zaks [@Z]. Using the some small length addressings found by computer for $K(3;3), K(4;4)$ and $K(5;5)$ and a simple combinatorial blow-up argument, we obtain the upper bounds below for any $s\geq 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
6s\leq N_2(K(3;3s)&\leq 8s-1\\
12s\leq N_2(K(4;4s))&\leq 15s-1\\
20s\leq N_2(K(5;5s))&\leq 24s-1.\end{aligned}$$ The lower bounds follow from and unfortunately are quite far from our upper bounds.
We conclude our paper with an investigation of the typical value of $N_2(G)$ for connected graphs $G$ on $n$ vertices. We start with computations describing the distribution of $N_2(G)$ when $G$ ranges over all connected graphs with $n\leq 10$ vertices. These computations led us to believe that for any fixed integer $c\geq 1$, almost all connected graphs $G$ of order $n$ must have $N_2(G)\leq n-c$, contradicting a suggested conjecture of Ron Graham from [@Graham page 148], where he writes that it is natural to guess that $N_2(G) =n-1$ for almost all graphs on $n$ vertices. Motivated by these computations we have been able to prove our conjecture, showing that in fact $N_2(G) \leq n-(2-o(1))\log_2 n$ for almost all graphs on $n$ vertices.
Johnson graphs
==============
For any natural number $m$, we use $[m]$ to denote the set $\{1,\dots,m\}$. Let $n\geq k\geq 1$ be two integers. The Johnson graph $J(n,k)$ has as vertices all the $k$-subsets of the set $[n]$ and two $k$-subsets $S$ and $T$ are adjacent if and only if $|S\cap T|=k-1$. When $k=1$, the Johnson graph $J(n,1)$ is the complete graph $K_n$. When $n=2$, the Johnson graph $J(n,2)$ is the line graph of $K_n$, also known as the triangular graph. Note that the distance between $S$ and $T$ in $J(n,k)$ equals $\frac{|S\Delta T|}{2}=|S\setminus T|=|T\setminus S|$ [@BCN p. 255].
To describe our $\{0,1,*\}$-addressing of $J(n,k)$, we need the following function. Let ${[n]\choose k}$ denote the family of all $k$-subsets of $[n]$ and let $\mathcal{P}(X)$ denote the power-set of a set $X$. Define $f:{[n]\choose k}\rightarrow \mathcal{P}(([n]\setminus [k])\times [k])$ as follows. If $S=[k]$, then $f(S)=\emptyset$. If $S\neq [k]$, then let $A=S\setminus [k]=\{x_1,\dots,x_t\}$, with $t\geq 1$ and $n\geq x_1>\dots >x_t\geq k+1$ and let $B=[k]\setminus S=\{y_1,\dots,y_t\}$ with $1\leq y_1<\dots <y_t\leq k$. Define $$\label{fS}
f(S)=\{(x_1,y_1),\dots,(x_t,y_t)\}.$$ For example, if $n=12, k=5$ and $S=\{1,4,6,8,12\}$, then $A=\{12,8,6\}, B=\{2,3,5\}$ and $f(S)=\{(12,2),(8,3), (6,5)\}$.
Our $(0,1,*)$-addressing $a(S,(x,y))$ of each vertex $S$ of $J(n,k)$ with words of length $k(n-k)$ (indexed by the ordered pairs of the form $(x,y)$ with $x\in [n]\setminus [k]$ and $y\in [k]$) is done by the following procedure:
1. If $(x,y) \in f(S)$, then $a(S,(x,y))=1$, else
2. if $\texttt{max}(S) < x$, then $a(S,(x,y))=0$, else
3. if $(\exists z)\big((z < y) \land ((x,z) \in f(S))\big)$, then $a(S,(x,y))=*$, else
4. if $y \in S$, then $a(S,(x,y))=0$, else
5. if $(\exists z)\big((z < x) \land ((z,y) \in f(S))\big)$, $a(S,(x,y))=0$, else
6. $a(S,(x,y))=*$.
We give below three examples of this addressing in the cases of $J(4,1)$, $J(5,2)$, and $J(6,3)$. The superscripts in the tables below indicate the rule used for generating that symbol. Since the symbol $1$ can only be generated in step 1, we omit that superscript.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
subset & $(2,1)$ & $(3,1)$ & $(4,1)$ & address \\
\hline
$\{1\}$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ & 000\\
\hline
$\{2\}$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ & 100\\
\hline
$\{3\}$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^2$ & *10\\
\hline
$\{4\}$ &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ & **1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
subset & $(3,1)$ & $(3,2)$ & $(4,1)$ & $(4,2)$ & $(5,1)$ & $(5,2)$ & address\\
\hline
\{1,2\} &$0^2$ &$0^2$& $0^2$&$0^2$ &$0^2$ & $0^2$ & 000000 \\
\hline
\{1,3\} &$0^4$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ & $0^2$& 010000 \\
\hline
\{2,3\} &$1$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ & $0^2$& 1*0000 \\
\hline
\{1,4\} &$0^4$ &$*^6$ &$0^4$ &$1$ &$0^2$ & $0^2$ & 0*0100\\
\hline
\{2,4\} &$*^6$ &$0^4$&$1$&$*^3$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ & *01*00 \\
\hline
\{3,4\} &$*^6$ &$1$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ & $0^2$ & *11*00\\
\hline
\{1,5\} & $0^4$ & $*^6$ & $0^4$ & $*^6$ &$0^4$ & $1$&0*0*01 \\
\hline
\{2,5\} &$*^6$ & $0^4$ & $*^6$ & $0^4$ &$1$ & $*^3$ & *0*01*\\
\hline
\{3,5\} &$*^6$ &$1$ & $*^6$ &$0^5$ &$1$ & $*^3$ & *1*01* \\
\hline
\{4,5\} & $*^6$ &$*^6$ & $*^6$ & $1$ &$1$ & $*^3$ & ***11* \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
subset & $(4,1)$ & $(5,1)$ & $(6,1)$ & $(4,2)$ & $(5,2)$ & $(6,2)$ & $(4,3)$ & $(5,3)$ & $(6,3)$ & address\\\hline
\{1,2,3\} &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &000000000\\\hline
\{1,2,4\} &$0^4$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$0^4$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &000000100\\\hline
\{1,3,4\} &$0^4$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &000100*00\\\hline
\{2,3,4\} &$1$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &$0^2$ &100*00*00\\\hline
\{1,2,5\} &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^2$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^2$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &000000*10\\\hline
\{1,3,5\} &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^2$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &000*100*0\\\hline
\{2,3,5\} &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &*100*00*0\\\hline
\{1,4,5\} &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^2$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &000*101*0\\\hline
\{2,4,5\} &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &*100*01*0\\\hline
\{3,4,5\} &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^2$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &$*^3$ &$*^3$ &$0^2$ &*101*0**0\\\hline
\{1,2,6\} &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &000000**1\\\hline
\{1,3,6\} &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &000**100*\\\hline
\{2,3,6\} &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &**100*00*\\\hline
\{1,4,6\} &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$1$ &$0^5$ &$*^3$ &000**110*\\\hline
\{2,4,6\} &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &$1$ &$0^5$ &$*^3$ &**100*10*\\\hline
\{3,4,6\} &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$1$ &$0^5$ &$*^3$ &$*^3$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &**110**0*\\\hline
\{1,5,6\} &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &000**1*1*\\\hline
\{2,5,6\} &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$0^4$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &**100**1*\\\hline
\{3,5,6\} &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &$0^4$ &$*^3$ &$*^3$ &**1*1*0**\\\hline
\{4,5,6\} &$*^6$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$*^6$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &$1$ &$*^3$ &$*^3$ &**1*1*1**\\\hline
\end{tabular}$$
We give two examples below where the order of our algorithm is significant to the output.
$J(4,2)$
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
subset & entry & step 1 & step 2 & step 3 & step 4 & step 5 \\ \hline
$\{2,3\}$ & $(3,2)$ & Fails & Fails & Succeeds & Succeeds & Fails\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
$J(5,3)$
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
subset & entry & step 1 & step 2 & step 3 & step 4 & step 5 \\ \hline
$\{3,4,5\}$ & $(5,2)$ & Fails & Fails & Succeeds & Fails & Succeeds\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
For $S,T\in {[n]\choose k}$, a pair $(x,y)\in ([n]\setminus [k])\times [k]$ is called $(S,T)$-good if $$\{a(S,(x,y)),a(T,(x,y))\}=\{0,1\}.$$ Let $c(S,T)$ denote the number of $(S,T)$-good pairs. Our goal is to prove the following result which implies that our procedure on page 2 gives a valid $(0,1,*)$-addressing of $J(n,k)$.
For any $S,T\in {[n]\choose k}, c(S,T)=\frac{|S\Delta T|}{2}=|S\setminus T|=|T\setminus S|$.
If $S=T$, then the statement is obvious. If $S\neq T$, then the proof follows from Lemma \[vert1comp\], Lemma \[xmaxymin\] and the last sentence of the first paragraph in this section.
The following results gives a characterization of the $(S,T)$-good pairs and we will use it later in this section.
\[goodpair\] Let $S\neq T\in {[n]\choose k}$ and $(x,y)\in ([n]\setminus [k])\times [k]$. Then $$a(S,(x,y))=1 \text{ and } a(T,(x,y))=0$$ if and only if the following three conditions are satisfied: $$\label{cond1}
(x,y)\in f(S)\setminus f(T)$$ and $$\label{cond2}
\lnot [(\exists z)\big((x<z) \land ((z,y) \in f(T)) \big)]$$ and $$\label{cond3}
\lnot [(\exists z)\big((z<y) \land ((x,z) \in f(T)) \big)]$$
Assume that the conditions , and are true. From , we deduce immediately that $a(S,(x,y))=1$ and $a(T,(x,y))\neq 1$. Thus, $a(T,(x,y))$ is $0$ or $*$. When evaluating $a(T,(x,y))$, the first step fails since $(x,y)\notin f(T)$. If $\max(T)<x$, then step 2 succeeds, we get $a(T,(x,y))=0$ and we are done. Otherwise, assume that $\max(T)\geq x$. Step $3$ of evaluating $a(T,(x,y))$ fails because is satisfied. If $y\in T$, then step 4 succeeds, $a(T,(x,y))=0$ and we are done. Otherwise, assume that $y\notin T$. There exists $z\in T\setminus [k]$ such that $(z,y)\in f(T)$. By condition , we must have that $z\leq x$. Note that if $z=x$, then we would have that $(x,y)=(z,y)\in f(T)$, contradiction with $(x,y)\in f(S)\setminus f(T)$. Thus, $z<x$. But now step 5 is satisfied and $a(T,(x,y))=0$. Thus, $a(S,(x,y))=1$ and $a(T,(x,y))=0$.
Assume that $a(S,(x,y))=1$ and $a(T,(x,y))=0$. From the definition on the previous page, we deduce that $(x,y)\in f(S)\setminus f(T)$. Thus, is true.
Assume that is not true. Thus, there exists $z_0$ such that $x<z_0$ and $(z_0,y)\in f(T)$. This implies that $y\notin T$. When evaluating $a(T,(x,y))$, step 1 obviously fails. Also, since $\max(T)\geq z_0>x$, step 2 fails as well. Because $a(T,(x,y))=0$, step 3 must also fail. Because $y\in T$, then step 4 must fail. Thus, in order to have $a(T,(x,y))=0$, step 5 must succeed and therefore, there is $z_1<x$ such that $(z_1,y)\in f(T)$. Now $(z_0,y)\in f(T), (z_1,y)\in f(T)$ and $z_0>x>z_1$ provide a contradiction which shows that is true.
Assume that is not true. Thus, there exists $z_0$ such that $z_0<y$ and $(x,z_0)\in f(T)$. Hence, $x\in T$ and $z_0\notin T$. When evaluating $a(T,(x,y))$, step 1 obviously fails. Also, because $x\in T$, we must have that $\max(T)\geq x$ and step 2 fails. The existence of $z_0$ with the above properties implies that step 3 succeeds and $a(T,(x,y))=*$, contradiction with $a(T,(x,y))=0$. Thus, is true and our proof is complete.
For $S\in {[n]\choose k}$, let $h(S)$ denote the graph with vertex set $[n]$ whose edges are the pairs in $f(S)$. When $S=[k]$, the graph $h(S)$ has no edges and when $S\neq [k]$, $h(S)$ is a matching. For $S\neq T\in {[n]\choose k}$, let $h(S,T)$ denote the multigraph obtained as union of the graphs $h(S)$ and $h(T)$. The non-trivial components of $h(S,T)$ must be cycles or paths. We prove later in this section (Lemma \[cycle2\]) that the only cycle components possible are cycles of length $2$, but first we will show that the distance in $J(n,k)$ between $S$ and $T$ equals the number of path components in $h(S,T)$.
\[vert1comp\] The set of vertices of degree one in $h(S,T)$ equals $S\Delta T$. Consequently, the number of path components in $h(S,T)$ equals $\frac{|S\Delta T|}{2}=|S\setminus T|=|T\setminus S|$.
First, we show that $x\in [n]\setminus [k]$ has degree $1$ in $h(S,T)$ if and only if $x\in (S\Delta T)\setminus [k]$.
Assume that $x$ has degree $1$ in $h(S,T)$. Without loss of generality, there exists $y\in [k]$ such $(x,y)\in f(S)\setminus f(T)$. This implies that $x\in S$. Also, we deduce that $x\notin T$, as otherwise there would exist $z$ such that $(x,z)$ is an edge in $h(S,T)$ implying that the degree of $x$ is 2, contradiction. Hence, $x\in S\setminus T\subseteq S\Delta T$.
Assume that $x\in (S\Delta T)\setminus [k]$. This means that $x\in [n]\setminus [k]$ and without loss of generality, assume that $x\in S$ and $x\notin T$. Because $x\in S$, there exists $y\in [k]$ such that $(x,y)$ is an edge in $h(S)$. The edge $(x,y)$ is the only edge involving $x$ in $h(S)$. Because $x\notin T$, it means that there is no $z$ such that $(x,z)\in f(T)$. Hence, $x$ is not contained in any edges of $h(T)$. Thus, $x$ has degree $1$ in $h(S,T)$.
Secondly, we show that $y\in [k]$ has degree $1$ in $h(S,T)$ if and only if $y\in (S\Delta T)\cap [k]$.
Assume that $y$ has degree $1$ in $h(S,T)$. Without loss of generality, there exists $x\in [n]\setminus [k]$ such that $(x,y)\in f(S)\setminus f(T)$. This implies that $y\notin S$. Also, $y\in T$, as otherwise there would exist $z\in T$ such that $(z,y)$ is an edge in $h(S,T)$ implying that the degree of $y$ is $2$, contradiction. Hence, $y\in T\setminus S\subseteq S\Delta T$.
Assume that $y\in (S\Delta T)\cap [k]$. Without loss of generality, assume that $y\notin S$ and $y\in T$. Because $y\notin S$, there exists $z\in S$ such that $(z,y)$ is an edge in $h(S)$. This edge is the only edge involving $y$ in $h(S)$. Because $y\in T$, it means that there is no edge involving $y$ in $h(T)$. Hence, $y$ has degree $1$ in $h(S,T)$. This finishes our proof.
Our goal for the remaining part of this section will be to prove that each path component of $h(S,T)$ contains exactly one good $(S,T)$-pair and that any other component of $h(S,T)$ (isolated vertex or cycle) contains no good $(S,T)$-pairs.
For the remaining part of this section, let $S\neq T\in {[n]\choose k}$. Let $C$ be a non-trivial component of $h(S,T)$. Define the following: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{max}(C)&=\max(C\cap ([n]\setminus [k])) \\
y_{max}(C)&=\max(C\cap [k])\\
x_{min}(C)&=\min(C\cap ([n]\setminus [k]))\\
y_{min}(C)&=\min(C\cap [k]).\end{aligned}$$
\[xmaxymin1\] Given any non-trivial component $C$ in $h(S,T)$, at least one of the following statements is true:
- The vertex $x_{max}(C)$ has degree one.
- The vertex $y_{min}(C)$ has degree one.
- The edge $(x_{max}(C),y_{min}(C))$ is contained in both $f(S)$ and $f(T)$.
Assume that each claim above is false. If $x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C)$ are adjacent, then since $(x_{max}(C),y_{min}(C)\notin f(S)\cap f(T)$, assume that $(x_{max}(C),y_{min}(C))\in f(S)\setminus f(T)$. Because both $x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C)$ have degree two, there exists $x_0$ and $y_0$ such that $(x_{max}(C),y_0)\in f(T)$ and $(x_0,y_{min}(C))\in f(T)$. Because $x_{max}(C)>x_0$, the definition of $f(T)$ implies that $y_0<y_{min}(C)$, contradiction. If $x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C)$ are not adjacent (a case that we will see later in Lemma \[xmaxyminadj\], never happens), then we can derive a contradiction in a similar manner.
\[xminymax1\] Given any non-trivial component $C$ in $h(S,T)$, at least one of the following is true:
- The vertex $x_{min}(C)$ has degree one.
- The vertex $y_{max}(C)$ has degree one.
- The edge $(x_{min}(C),y_{max}(C))$ is contained in both $f(S)$ and $f(T)$.
The proof is similar to Lemma \[xmaxymin1\] and will be omitted.
A consequence of Lemma \[xmaxymin1\] is that the only cycle components of $h(S,T)$ are cycles of length $2$ (double edges joining a pair of vertices).
\[cycle2\] The graph $h(S,T)$ does not contain cycles with more than $2$ vertices.
If $C$ is a cycle component of $h(S,T)$, then each vertex has a degree two. Thus by Lemma \[xmaxymin1\], $x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C)$ must be doubly adjacent and each only adjacent to one another, and thus must be all the vertices of the cycle.
This limits the cases of components in $h(S,T)$ to just paths, isolated vertices, and doubly adjacent pairs of vertices. The following lemma uses Lemma \[goodpair\] to give the first restriction on $(S,T)$-good pairs showing that the only possible good $(S,T)$-pairs are edges involving a vertex of degree one.
No edge $(x,y)$ in $h(S,T)$ with both vertices of degree two is $(S,T)$-good.
Let $(x,y)$ be an edge with both vertices $x$ and $y$ having degree two. Assume that $(x,y) \in f(S)$. Thus there must exist $y_0$ such that $(x,y_0) \in f(T)$. If $y_0=y$, then $\eqref{cond1}$ is not satisfied. If $y_0 < y$, then $\eqref{cond3}$ is not satisfied. If $y<y_0$, then there must also exist $x_0$ such that $(x_0,y) \in f(T)$. Because $y<y_0$, it must be that $x<x_0$ and $\eqref{cond2}$ is not satisfied. Thus, $(x,y)$ is not $(S,T)$-good.
\[xmaxyminadj\] For any non-trivial component $C$ of $h(S,T)$, $x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C)$ are adjacent.
We prove this result by contradiction. If $x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C)$ are not adjacent, then assume that $(x_{max}(C),y_0) \in f(S)$ for some $y_0$. It must be that $y_0<y_{min}(C)$, and thus no edge from $f(S)$ could contain $y_{min}$(C). Thus, there is only one edge containing $y_{min}(C)$, say $(x_0,y_{min}) \in f(T)$. As well, by how $f(T)$ is constructed, there are no edges from $f(T)$ that contain $x_{max}(C)$. However, this would result in $x_{min}(C) \leq x_0 < x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C) < y_0 \leq y_{max}(C)$. Since both $x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C)$ have degree one, in this path component neither $x_{min}(C)$ nor $y_{max}(C)$ can have degree one and by Lemma \[xmaxymin1\], they are doubly adjacent, which can not happen in a path component. This contradiction disproves the assumption and proves the lemma.
\[xminymaxadj\] For any non-trivial component $C$ of $h(S,T)$, $x_{min}(C)$ and $y_{max}(C)$ are adjacent.
The proof is similar to the one of the previous lemma and will be omitted.
\[xmaxymin\] For any path component $C$ in $h(S,T)$, the only edge that is $(S,T)$-good is $(x_{max}(C),y_{min}(C))$.
By Lemma \[xmaxyminadj\], $x_{max}(C)$ and $y_{min}(C)$ are adjacent and without loss of generality, suppose that $(x_{max}(C),y_{min}(C))\in f(S)$. Because $C$ is a path, $(x_{max}(C),y_{min}(C))\notin f(T)$ and is satisfied. Because there is no $x_0$ in $C$ such that $x_{max}(C)< x_0$, is satisfied. Also, there is no $y_0$ in $C$ such that $y_0<y_{min}(C)$ and thus is satisfied. Hence, $(x_{max}(C),y_{min}(C))$ is $(S,T)$-good.
If the component $C$ is a single edge, then we are done. If $C$ has two or more edges, then the only other edge with a degree one vertex is $(x_{min}(C),y_{max}(C))$ as shown by Lemma \[xminymax1\] and Lemma \[xminymaxadj\]. Because $C$ is not a single edge, one of $x_{min}(C)$ or $y_{max}(C)$ has degree one and the other has degree two. If $x_{min}(C)$ has a degree of two, there exists $y_0$ such that $(x_{min}(C),y_0)$ is an edge and $(x_{min}(C),y_{max}(C))$ does not satisfy $\eqref{cond2}$ as $y_0<y_{max}(C)$. Otherwise, if $y_{max}(C)$ has a degree of two, there is $x_0$ such that $(x_0,y_{max}(C))$ is an edge. In this case, $(x_{min}(C),y_{max}(C))$ does not satisfy $\eqref{cond3}$, as $x_{min}(C)<x_0$. Hence, $(x_{min}(C),y_{max}(C))$ is not $(S,T)$-good if $C$ has two or more edges.
An improved addressing
----------------------
Given that $N_2(J(n,k))=k(n-k)$ for $k=1,n\geq 1$ and for $k=2,n\in \{3,4,5,6\}$, it might be tempting to conjecture that $N_2(J(n,k))=k(n-k)$ for any integers $n\geq 2k\geq 4$. However, this fails for $n=6$ and $k=3$ where we found that $N_2(J(6,3))=8$. Under the obvious symmetries, there are exactly 246 equivalence classes of addressings of length 8, one of which we show below. We leave determining $N_2(J(n,k))$ for other values of $n$ and $k$ as an open problem.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
subset & address \\\hline
$\{1, 2, 3\}$ & 0000**** \\
$\{1, 2, 4\}$ & 0001**** \\
$\{1, 3, 4\}$ & 01**0000 \\
$\{2, 3, 4\}$ & 010*010* \\
$\{1, 2, 5\}$ & 010*10*1 \\
$\{1, 3, 5\}$ & 01*010*0 \\
$\{2, 3, 5\}$ & 010011** \\
$\{1, 4, 5\}$ & 01*110*0 \\
$\{2, 4, 5\}$ & 010111** \\
$\{3, 4, 5\}$ & 011**10* \\
$\{1, 2, 6\}$ & *10*0011 \\
$\{1, 3, 6\}$ & *1*00010 \\
$\{2, 3, 6\}$ & *100011* \\
$\{1, 4, 6\}$ & *1*10010 \\
$\{2, 4, 6\}$ & *101011* \\
$\{3, 4, 6\}$ & 11**0*00 \\
$\{1, 5, 6\}$ & *11**011 \\
$\{2, 5, 6\}$ & 110*1**1 \\
$\{3, 5, 6\}$ & *110*11* \\
$\{4, 5, 6\}$ & *111*11* \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$
Odd cycles
==========
Watanabe, Ishii and Sawa [@WIS] studied the optimal $(0,1,2,*)$-addressings of various graphs. They observed the following pattern for odd cycles $N_3(C_5)=3, N_3(C_7)=4, N_3(C_9)=5$ and asked the natural question whether $N_3(C_{2n+1})=n+1$ for $n\geq 5$ ?
By computation, we have confirmed these results as well as showing that $N_3(C_{11})=6$. However, the pattern does not continue further and we have computed $N_3(C_{13})=8$, $N_3(C_{15})=9$, $N_3(C_{17})=10$ and $N_3(C_{19})=11$. The first four of these values were verified by two independent programs. Examples of minimal addressings are below. It would be nice to determine $N_3(C_{2n+1})$ in general. $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $C_5$ & $C_7$ & $C_9$ & $C_{11}$ & $C_{13}$ & $C_{15}$ & $C_{17}$ & $C_{19}$ \\
\hline
1 &000 & 0000 & 00000 & 000000 & 00000000 & 000000000 & 0000000000 & 00000000000 \\
2 & 001 & 0001 & 00001 & 00002* & 00000001& 000000001 & 0000000001 & 00000000001 \\
3 &011 & 0101 & 01001 & 000011 & 00000101 & 000002*01 & 000002*001 & 0200000*001\\
4 & 11* & 0111 & 012*1 & 010011 & 00100101& 000001101 & 0000011001 & 01000001001\\
5 & 2*0 & 111* & 01111 & 012*11 & 0012*101& 001001101& 0010011001 & 010000*1101\\
6 & & *210 & 1111* & 011111& 00111101& 0012*1101 & 0012*11001 & 110*00*1101\\
7 & & 20*0 & *2110& 11111* &00111111 & 001111101 & 0011111001 & 210100*1101\\
8 & & & 201*0& 11110* &0111111* & 001111111 & 00111112*1 & 21*100*1111\\
9 & & & 200*0&*21100 &1*111*10& 01111111* & 0011111111 & 211100*1121\\
10 & & & & 201*00 &**211010 & 01111111* & 011111111* & 21110111*21\\
11 & & & & 200*00 &2*01*010 & 1*1110*10 & 1*1111*110 & 2111*111*22\\
12 & & & & & 2*00*010 & **2110010 &1*1110*110 & 2111111**20\\
13 & & & & & 020000*0 & 2*01*0010 & **21100110 & 2011111**20\\
14 & & & & & & 2*00*0010 & 2*01*00110 & 20112**0220\\
15 & & & & & & 0200000*0 & 2*00*00110 & 201*2100020\\
16 & & & & & & & 02000001*0 & 001*2100020\\
17 & & & & & & & 02000000*0 & 00*022*0020\\
18 & & & & & & & & 00*022*0000\\
19 & & & & & & & & 000020*0000\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
Complete multipartite graphs
============================
The problem of finding optimal addressings for the complete multipartite graphs is non trivial. Graham and Pollak [@GP1] proved that $N_2(T)=|V(T)|-1$ for any tree $T$. This implies that $N_2(K_{1,n})=n$ for any $n\geq 1$. The optimal lengths of $\{0,1,*\}$-addressings of all other complete bipartite graphs were obtained by several authors.
\[N2Kmn\] If $m,n\geq 2$, then $$N_2(K_{m,n})=
\begin{cases}
m+n-1 \text{ if } (m,n)=(2,3), (2,4), (2,6), (3,3), (3,4), (3,5), (3,6), (4,4), (4,5) \\
m+n-2 \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
We now determine $N_2(K_{a,b,c})$ for several values of $a, b, c$.
For any integer $a\geq 1, N_2(K_{a,1,1})=a+1$.
It is not too hard to see that the eigenvalues of the distance matrix of $K_{a,1,1}$ are $-2$ with multiplicity $a-1$, $-1$ with multiplicity $1$ and $\frac{2a+1\pm \sqrt{(2a+1)^2+8}}{2}$, each with multiplicity $1$. Therefore, the number of negative eigenvalues of this matrix is $a+1$. Inequality and Winkler’s result [@W] imply that $N_2(K_{a,1,1})=a+1$.
For other values of $a,b,c$, we will use the following simple lemmas and Theorem \[N2Kmn\]
\[23part\] If $a,b,c\geq 1$ are integers, then $N_2(K_{a,b,c})\geq N_2(K_{a+b,c})-1$.
Adding one column containing exactly $a$ $0$s and $b$ $1$s (corresponding to the partite sets of sizes $a$ and $b$ respectively in $K_{a,b,c}$) to an optimal addressing of $K_{a,b,c}$ will yield an addressing of $K_{a+b,c}$.
\[plus3\] For any integers $a,b,c\geq 1$, $N_2(K_{a+3,b,c})\leq N_2(K_{a,b,c})+3$.
Take an optimal addressing $f$ for $K_{a,b,c}$ and make three copies (call them $x, y$ and $z$) of a given vertex $v$ in the $A$ color class. Give the vertices in the new graph $K_{a+3,b,c}$ the following addresses: $$g(u)=\begin{cases}
f(v)000 & \text{ if } u=v\\
f(v)011 & \text{ if } u=x\\
f(v)101 & \text{ if } u=y\\
f(v)110 & \text{ if } u=z\\
f(u)*** & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ It can be checked easily that the function $g$ is a valid addressing of $K_{a+3,b,c}$. This proves our assertion.
Using these lemmas we now prove the following result.
For any integers $a,b\geq 2$, $N_2(K_{a,b,1})=a+b-1$.
Combining Lemma \[23part\] with Graham and Pollak’s result involving addressings of stars, we deduce that $$N_2(K_{a,b,1})\geq N_2(K_{a+b,1})-1=a+b-1$$ for any $a,b\geq 1$.
To prove the upper bound, we use strong induction on $a+b$. By computer, we have found the following optimal addressings of several complete $3$-partite graphs. This takes care of our base case for the induction. $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{2,2,1}$ & $N_2=3$\\
\hline
A1 & 000\\
A2 & 110\\
B1 & 100\\
B2 & 010\\
C1 & **1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{3,2,1}$ & $N_2=4$\\
\hline
A1 & 0000\\
A2 & 0011\\
A3 & 11**\\
B1 & 0*01\\
B2 & 0*10\\
C1 & 10**\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{4,2,1}$ & $N_2=5$\\
\hline
A1 & 00000\\
A2 & 00011\\
A3 & 011**\\
A4 & 110**\\
B1 & *0*01\\
B2 & *0*10\\
C1 & 010**\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$ $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{3,3,1}$ & $N_2=5$\\
\hline
A1 & 0000*\\
A2 & 0011*\\
A3 & 11**0\\
B1 & 0*010\\
B2 & 0*100\\
B3 & 1***1\\
C1 & 10**0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{4,3,1}$ & $N_2=6$\\
\hline
A1 & 00000*\\
A2 & 00011*\\
A3 & 011**0\\
A4 & 101**0\\
B1 & **0010\\
B2 & **0100\\
B3 & **1**1\\
C1 & 001**0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{4,4,1}$ & $N_2=7$\\
\hline
A1 & 000001*\\
A2 & 000010*\\
A3 & 01**000\\
A4 & 1***001\\
B1 & 0001***\\
B2 & 0010***\\
B3 & 0100**1\\
B4 & 1*00**0\\
C1 & 000000*\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
Let $a,b\geq 2$ such that $a\geq 5$ and $b\geq 2$. By induction hypothesis, $N_2(K_{a-3,b,1})=(a-3)+b-1$. Lemma \[plus3\] gives us that $N_2(K_{a,b,c})\leq N_2(K_{a-3,b,c})+3=a+b-1$ which finishes our proof.
By computer, we have found the following addressings of several other complete $3$-partite graphs. Theorem \[N2Kmn\] and Lemma \[23part\] imply that each addressing below is optimal. $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{3,2,2}$ & $N_2=5$\\
\hline
A1 & 00000\\
A2 & 00011\\
A3 & 11***\\
B1 & 010**\\
B2 & *01**\\
C1 & *0001\\
C2 & *0010 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{3,3,2}$ & $N_2=6$\\
\hline
A1 & 000000\\
A2 & 000011\\
A3 & 11****\\
B1 & 0100**\\
B2 & *001**\\
B3 &*010**\\
C1 & *00001\\
C2 & *00010 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{4,2,2}$ &$N_2=6$\\
\hline
A1 & 000000\\
A2 & 000011\\
A3 & 011***\\
A4 & 101***\\
B1 & 0010**\\
B2 & **01**\\
C1 & **0001\\
C2 & **0010 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{3,3,3}$ & $N_2=7$\\
\hline
A1 & *000000\\
A2 & *110000\\
A3 & ***1100\\
B1 & 0**1000\\
B2 & 1****10\\
B3 & 1****01\\
C1 & 1**1000\\
C2 & 0100***\\
C3 & 0010***\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{4,3,2}$ & $N_2=7$\\
\hline
A1 & 0000000\\
A2 & 0000011\\
A3 & 011****\\
A4 & 101****\\
B1 & 00100**\\
B2 & **001**\\
B3 & **010**\\
C1 & **00001\\
C2 & **00010\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$K_{5,2,2}$ & $N_2=7$\\
\hline
A1 & 0000000\\
A2 & 0000011\\
A3 & 0000101\\
A4 & 0000110\\
A5 & 0011***\\
B1 & 0001***\\
B2 & 0010***\\
C1 & 01*****\\
C2 & 10*****\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
For $a,m\geq 1$, let $K(a;m)$ denote the complete $m$-partite graph where each color class has exactly $a$ vertices. Thus, $K(1;m)$ is the complete graph on $m$ vertices and $K(a;2)$ is the complete bipartite graph $K_{a,a}$. Determining $N_2(K(2;m))$ is still an open problem and the best results are due to Hoffman [@H] (lower bound below) and Zaks [@Z] (upper bound): $$m+\lfloor \sqrt{2m}\rfloor-1\leq N_2(K(2;m))\leq \begin{cases}
(3m-2)/2, \text{ if $m$ is even}\\
(3m-1)/2, \text{ if $m$ is odd}.
\end{cases}$$
The following lemma will be used in this section to give upper bounds for $N(K(a;m))$.
\[multipartite\] Let $a,m,s\geq 1$ be integers. If $N_2(K(a;m))\leq t$, then $$N_2(K(a;ms))\leq st+s-1.$$
Partition the vertex set of $K(a;ms)$ into $s$ copies of $K(a;m)$. Address these $s$ graphs first using words of length $st$. Then we need to address the remaining edges. This is in essence blow-up version of the complete graph $K_s$ and we need $s-1$ coordinates for this part of the addressing. Thus, $N_2(K(a;ms))\leq st+s-1$.
If we take $a=m=2$, then it is easy to see that $N_2(K(2;2))=2$. Applying the previous lemma, we get that $N_2(K(2;2s))\leq 2s+s-1=3s-1$ which is the upper bound of Zaks above for $m$ even.
The tables in the Appendix show that $N_2(K(4;4))\leq 14$ and $N_2(K(5;5))\leq 23$. Applying Lemma \[multipartite\], we obtain the following upper bounds for $N_2(K(a;as))$ when $a\in \{3,4,5\}$. The lower bounds below are obtained by applying the eigenvalue bound . The gaps between these bounds are quite large and it would be nice to close them.
Let $s\geq 1$ be an integer. Then $$\begin{aligned}
6s \leq N_2(K(3;3s))&\leq 8s-1\\
12s\leq N_2(K(4;4s))&\leq 15s-1\\
20s\leq N_2(K(5;5s))&\leq 24s-1.\end{aligned}$$
Random Graphs: computations and asymptotics
===========================================
In [@Graham], Graham uses $r(G)$ for $N_2(G)$ and writes that
[*It is not known how $r(G)$ behaves for random graphs, but it is natural to guess that $r(G)=|G|-1$ for almost all large graphs $G$.*]{}
For $3\leq n\leq 9$, we have computed the distribution of $N_2(G)$ for all connected graphs $G$ on $n$ vertices. Let $\mathcal{F}_n$ denote the family of connected graphs on $n$ vertices. Our results are summarized below. Because every partition the distance multigraph of a connected graph $G$ is a biclique covering of $K_n$, note that $N_2(G)\geq \lceil \log_2 n\rceil$ (see [@HHM]). $$\label{compute9n}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & $|\mathcal{F}_n|$ & $n-1$ & $n-2$ & $n-3$ & $n-4$ & $n-5$\\
\hline
2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
3 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
4 & 6 & 5 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
5 & 21 & 17 & 4 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
6 & 112 & 67 & 42 & 3 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
7 & 853 & 316 & 498 & 38 & 1 & 0 \\
\hline
8 & 11117 & 1852 & 7765 & 1469 & 30 & 1 \\
\hline
9& 261080 & 12940 & 159229 & 87094 & 1811& 6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
The computational difficulty of determining $N_2(G)$ increases rapidly as the order of $G$ or the number of coordinates in addresses becomes greater. Our method relies on two symmetry groups, one the symmetries of the address space and one the automorphisms of $G$.
The set $\{0,1,*\}^\ell$ is acted on by a group $A_\ell$ of order $2^\ell \,\ell!$, generated by the $\ell!$ permutations of the coordinates and the $\ell$ elements of order 2 that complement one coordinate. It is easily checked that $A_\ell$ preserves distances. Consequently, we can restrict our search to addressings that are lexicographically minimal under $A_\ell$. Fully implementing this restriction would carry too much overhead, so we limited the pruning to the first three vertices. For example, we can assume that the first vertex has an address consisting of some number of $0$s followed by some number of $*$s.
After the first three addresses were selected with full pruning by $A_\ell$, we made lists for each other vertex $v$ of all the addresses which are the correct distance from each of the first three addresses. These were then used in a backtrack search which processes the vertices in increasing order of their number of available addresses. Addresses were stored in one machine word in a format that allows distances to be calculated in a few machine instructions. The counts in Table \[compute9n\] required about 16 hours of cpu time in total.
Much larger graphs $G$ can only be processed in reasonable time if their automorphism group ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)$ is large. For any address $\alpha$, let ${\operatorname{wt}}(\alpha)$ be the number of $0$s and $1$s in $\alpha$. Note that ${\operatorname{wt}}(\alpha)$ is preserved by $A_\ell$, which implies that, if an addressing of length $\ell$ exists, there is some addressing $f^*$ of length $\ell$ which is simultaneously lexicographically minimal under $A_\ell$ and such that $({\operatorname{wt}}(f^*(v_1)),\ldots,{\operatorname{wt}}(f^*(v_n)))$ is lexicographically minimal under ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)$. We partially implemented the latter restriction as follows: the first vertex $v_1$ has the smallest value of ${\operatorname{wt}}(f^*)$ in its orbit under ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)$, the second vertex $v_2$ has the smallest value of ${\operatorname{wt}}(f^*)$ in its orbit under the stabilizer ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)_{v_1}$, and the third vertex has the smallest value of ${\operatorname{wt}}(f^*)$ in its orbit under the two-vertex stabilizer ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)_{v_1,v_2}$. It is likely that this strategy can be improved significantly.
The large number of connected graphs of order 10 (11716571) and the longer time per graph would make it a major operation to do all of those. We ran a random sample of 1/1000 of the connected graphs of order 10 (i.e., 11717 graphs) and obtained this distribution: $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N_2$ & 9 & 8 & 7 & 6 & 5 \\
\hline
\# graphs & 86 & 4105 & 7160 & 363 & 3\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$ These results led us to believe that for any fixed integer $c\geq 1$, almost all connected graphs $G$ of order $n$ have $N_2(G)\leq n-c$. Indeed, we have been able to prove the following stronger result which confirms this belief and refutes Graham’s guess. We conclude the paper with the statement and its proof.
\[t51\] For almost all graphs $G$ on $n$ vertices, $N_2(G) \leq n-(2 -o(1)) \log_2 n$, where the $o(1)$ term tends to zero as $n$ tends to infinity.
Let $G=G(n,0.5)$ be the Erdős-Rényi binomial random graph on a set $V=\{1,2,, \ldots ,n\}$ of $n$ labelled vertices. We have to prove that with high probability (whp, for short), that is, with probability that tends to $1$ as $n$ tends to infinity, $N_2(G)$ is at most $n-(2-o(1)) \log_2 n$. Let $k=k(n)$ be the largest $k$ so that $${n \choose k} 2^{-{k \choose 2}} \geq 4k^4.$$ It is easy to check that $k=(2-o(1)) \log_2 n$, and it is not too difficult to prove that whp $G(n,0.5)$ contains every graph on $k$ vertices as an induced subgraph. This is proved, for example, in [@Al2], Theorem 3.1. (We note that we need a much weaker result, as we only need to contain one specific graph on $k$ vertices, as will be clear from the argument below. This can be proved by a second moment calculation, without using the large deviation techniques applied in [@Al2]. This, however, only effects the $o(1)$-term in our estimate, and it is therefore shorter to refer to a proven written result without having to include the second moment computation in the alternative possible proof.)
By Theorem 1.1 in [@Al1] there is a biclique covering of the complete graph $K_k$ on a set $U$ of $k$ vertices by at most $\lceil 2 \sqrt k \rceil$ bicliques, so that each edge is covered once or twice. Fix such a covering, and let $H$ be the graph on $U$ in which two vertices $u,v \in U$ are adjacent if the pair $\{u,v\}$ is covered once in the covering above, and are not adjacent if this pair is covered twice. Since our random graph $G$ contains, whp, an induced copy of all graphs on $k$ vertices, it contains an induced copy of $H$. Let $W \subset V$ be the set of vertices of such a copy. In addition, whp, the diameter of $G$ is $2$, in fact, every two vertices have at least $(1/4-o(1))n$ common neighbors. Therefore, whp, the distances in $G$ between any pair of vertices in $W$ are realized precisely by the (at most) $\lceil 2 \sqrt k \rceil$ bicliques we have chosen. To these bicliques we add now one complete bipartite graph with vertex classes $W$ and $V-W$. In addition, for each vertex $z$ in $V-W$ add a star centered in $z$ whose leaves are all vertices of $W$ that are not adjacent in $G$ to $z$, all vertices in $V-W$ that are not adjacent to $z$, and all vertices in $V-W$ which are smaller than $z$ and are adjacent to it in $G$. It is easy to check that these bicliques realize all distances in $G$, i.e., they partition the distance multigraph of $G$. The number of these bicliques is at most $n-k+\lceil 2 \sqrt k \rceil +1
=n-(2-o(1)) \log _2 n$. This completes the proof, and the paper.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Noga Alon was supported by ISF grant No. 281/17, GIF grant No. G-1347-304.6/2016 and the Simons Foundation. Sebastian M. Cioabă was supported by NSF grants DMS-160078 and CIF-1815922. The research of Brandon D. Gilbert was supported by the University of Delaware Undergraduate Summer Scholar Program. Jack H. Koolen was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11471009 and 11671376) and by ’Anhui Initiative in Quantum Information Technologies’ (Grant No. AHY150200).
[99]{}
N. Alon, Neighborly families of boxes and bipartite coverings, in: The Mathematics of Paul Erdös, R. L. Graham and J. Neśetŕil, eds., Springer Verlag, Vol II, Berlin (1997), 27–31.
N. Alon, Asymptotically optimal induced universal graphs, [*Geometric and Functional Analysis*]{} [**27**]{} (2017), 1–32.
A.E. Brouwer, A. Cohen and A. Neumaier, [*Distance-Regular Graphs*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989. xviii+495 pp.
S.M. Cioabă, R.J. Elzinga, M. Markiewitz, K. Vander Meulen and T. Vanderwoerd, Addressing graph products and distance-regular graphs, [*Discrete Appl. Math.*]{} [**229**]{} (2017), 46–54.
R. Elzinga, D.A. Gregory and K. Vander Meulen, Addressing the Petersen graph, [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**286**]{} (2004), 241–244.
H. Fujii and M. Sawa, An addressing scheme on complete bipartite graphs, [*Ars Combin.*]{} [**86**]{} (2008), 363–369.
R.L. Graham, Isometric embeddings of graphs, [*Selected topics in graph theory, 3, 133–150, Academic Press, San Diego, CA*]{}, 1988.
R.L. Graham and H.O. Pollak, On the addressing problem for loop switching, [*Bell Syst. Tech. J.*]{} [**50.8**]{} (1971) 2495–2519.
D.A. Gregory and K. Vander Meulen, Sharp bounds for decompositions of graphs into complete $r$-partite subgraphs, [*J. Graph Theory*]{} [**21**]{} (1996), no. 4, 393–400.
F. Harary, D. Hsu and Z. Miller, The biparticity of a graph, [*J. Graph Theory*]{} [**1**]{} (1977), no. 2, 131–133.
A.J. Hoffman, On a problem of Zaks, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**93**]{} (2001), 271–277.
T. Kratzke, B. Reznick and D. West, Eigensharp graphs: decompositions into complete bipartite subgraphs, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**308**]{} (1988), 637–653.
M. Sawa, On a symmetric representation of Hermitian matrices and its applications to graph theory, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. B*]{} [**116**]{} (2016) 484–503.
S. Watanabe, K. Ishii, M. Sawa, A $q$-analogue of the addressing problem of graphs by Graham and Pollak, [*SIAM J. Discrete Math.*]{} [**26.2**]{} (2012) 527–536.
P. Winkler, Proof of the squashed cube conjecture, [*Combinatorica*]{} [**3.1**]{} (1983) 135–139.
J. Zaks, Nearly-neighborly families of tetrahedra and the decomposition of some multigraphs, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**48**]{} (1988)147–155.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
The tables below imply that $N_2(K(4;4))\leq 14$ and $N_2(K(5;5))\leq 23$.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
& $K(4;4)$\\
\hline
A1& *******0000000\\
A2& *******0000011\\
A3& *******0000101\\
A4& *******0000110\\
B1& *******0001***\\
B2& *0000001**0***\\
B3& *1100001**0***\\
B4& 0***1101**0***\\
C1& *******001****\\
C2& 0**01001*0****\\
C3& 0**00101*0****\\
C4& 1**1***1*0****\\
D1& *******01*****\\
D2& 0*****110*****\\
D3& 1100**010*****\\
D4& 1010**010*****\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\quad
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
& $K(5;5)$\\
\hline
A1& ******* ******* 000000000\\
A2& ******* ******* 000000011\\
A3& ******* ******* 000000101\\
A4& ******* ******* 000000110\\
A5& ******* ******* 000011***\\
B1& ******* ******* 000001***\\
B2& ******* 0000000 000*10***\\
B3& ******* 0000011 000*10***\\
B4& ******* 0000101 000*10***\\
B5& ******* 0000110 000*10***\\
C1& ******* ******* 0010*****\\
C2& ******* 0001*** **01*****\\
C3& *000000 1**0*** **01*****\\
C4& *110000 1**0*** **01*****\\
C5& 0***110 1**0*** **01*****\\
D1& ******* ******* 01*0*****\\
D2& ******* 001**** *0*1*****\\
D3& 0**0100 1*0**** *0*1*****\\
D4& 0**0010 1*0**** *0*1*****\\
D5& 1**1*** 1*0**** *0*1*****\\
E1& ******* ******* 1**0*****\\
E2& ******* 01***** 0**1*****\\
E3& 0*****1 10***** 0**1*****\\
E4& 1100**0 10***** 0**1*****\\
E5& 1010**0 10***** 0**1*****\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 and Schools of Mathematics and Computer Science, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, [[email protected]]{}.
[^2]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19707, [[email protected]]{}.
[^3]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19707, [[email protected]]{}.
[^4]: School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Wen-Tsun Wu Key Laboratory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui, China, [[email protected]]{}.
[^5]: Research School of Computer Science, Australian National University, ACT 2601, Australia, [[email protected]]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Pierre Kervella
- Frédéric Arenou
- Jean Schneider
bibliography:
- '../biblioAlfCen.bib'
date: 'Received ; Accepted'
title: Orbital inclination and mass of the exoplanet candidate Proxima c
---
Introduction
============
(, , hereafter Proxima) is a red dwarf of spectral type M5.5V, and our nearest stellar neighbor. It is a member of the $\alpha$Centauri triple system (, ), which also comprises the solar-like stars $\alpha$Cen A () and B () of spectral types G2V and K1V , respectively. Using the radial velocity technique, discovered a terrestrial-mass planet orbiting Proxima in its habitable zone (). confirmed its parameters and identified a second planet candidate, , orbiting at 1.5au with a minimum mass $m_c \sin i = 6\,M_{\oplus}$. One of the interests of the planetary system of Proxima is that, because of its proximity to us, it is a privileged target for future interstellar probes , such as for example the Breakthrough Starshot project . Here, we combine the spectroscopic orbital parameters of Proxima determined by with the astrometric proper motion anomaly (PMa) measured by . Using these two complementary observables, we constrain the orbital parameters of the planet, and in particular the orbital plane inclination $i$ and the longitude of the ascending node $\Omega$.
Analysis from spectroscopy and astrometry
=========================================
Observational quantities\[observ\]
----------------------------------
[lccl]{} Quantity & & Value & Ref.\
Mass of Proxima & $m_\star$ & $0.1221 \pm 0.0022\,M_\odot$ & M15\
Parallax & $\varpi$ & $768.529 \pm 0.220$mas & GDR2\
RV amplitude of Proxima & $K_\mathrm{c}$ & $1.2 \pm 0.4$ms$^{-1}$ & D20\
Orbital period & $P_\mathrm{orb}$ & $1900^{+96}_{-82}$days & D20\
Inferior conjunction BJD & $T_\mathrm{c,conj}$ & $2\,455\,892^{+101}_{-102}$ & D20\
Eccentricity & $e$ & 0 & Fixed\
GDR2 PM anomaly & $\Delta \mu_\mathrm{G2}$ & $\Delta\mu_\alpha = +0.218 \pm 0.112$masa$^{-1}$ & K19\
& & $\Delta\mu_\delta = +0.384 \pm 0.215$masa$^{-1}$ & K19\
& & $\rho(\Delta\mu_\alpha, \Delta\mu_\delta) = 0.37$ & GDR2\
\[Proxima-table\]
The spectroscopic orbital parameters summarized in Table \[Proxima-table\] were determined by based on high-precision radial velocity measurements collected using the HARPS and UVES spectrographs. These parameters characterize the orbital reflex motion induced by Proxima c on its parent star along the line of sight.
define the PMa as the difference between the short-term proper motion (PM) vector from the Hipparcos or Gaia DR2 catalogs and the long-term PM vector. The latter is computed using the difference between the Hip2 and GDR2 positions, taking advantage of the long time baseline of 24.25 years to reach high accuracy. Historically, this long-term to short-term PM comparison has been employed by to discover and , and recent applications of this technique can be found in , , and . It relies on the fact that the presence of an orbiting stellar or planetary companion shifts the barycenter of the system away from its photocenter (located very close to the primary star center in the case of a planet). This results in a deviation of the short-term PM vector (attached to the photocenter) compared to the long-term PM vector (that mostly follows the barycenter motion). In this paper, we assume the long-term Hip2-GDR2 PM to be the motion of the barycenter of the Proxima system (including the star and its planets). The orbital periods of Proxima b and c, namely 11.2 days and 5.2 years, respectively, are much shorter than the 24.25 years separating the Hip2 and GDR2 measurements, and their effect on the long-term PM can be neglected. The influence of the inner planet Proxima b on the GDR2 PMa vector $\vec{\Delta \mu_\mathrm{G2}}$ is also negligible due to its very short orbital period (11.2days) compared to the GDR2 observing window (668days). The PMa vector listed in Table \[Proxima-table\] therefore closely traces the tangential reflex motion of Proxima induced by the outer planet Proxima c, averaged over the GDR2 time window. Further details on the sensitivity function and limitations of the PMa as an indicator of binarity can be found in .
Following , the mass of is estimated to $m_\star = 0.1221 \pm 0.0022\,M_\odot$ from the mass–luminosity relation calibrated by and the 2MASS magnitude $m_K = 4.384 \pm 0.033$ . As in , we slightly corrected the parallax of Proxima from the Gaia DR2 catalog by adding a parallax zero point offset of $+29\,\mu$as (negligible compared to the uncertainty) and rescaling the error bar, as recommended by . We obtain $\varpi = 768.529 \pm 0.220$mas for epoch J2015.5, whose uncertainty ($\pm 0.03\%$) is negligible for the present analysis.
Orbital parameters and mass of Proxima c \[orbitparams\]
--------------------------------------------------------
We fit the orbital parameters of Proxima c taking into account the spectroscopic orbital parameters determined by , as well as the $\vec{\Delta \mu_\mathrm{G2}}$ PMa vector from . We retrieved the transit times of Proxima on the Gaia detectors from the online Gaia Observation Forecast Tool (GOST)[^1]. This allowed us to model the time smearing in the GDR2 catalog PMa using the true distribution of individual measurement epochs corresponding to the PM vector reported in the GDR2 catalog. We use this information to match the PMa from our orbit model to the measured (averaged) PMa vector. The effective GDR2 PMa measurement epoch for Proxima is found to be J2015.67. While this method is in theory more accurate than a straight, unweighted integration over the GDR2 measurement window, we find that both computations agree very well in practice. This is due to the high density of the Gaia transits and their regular distribution over the observing time window, which covers approximately half of the orbital period of Proxima c.
Similarly to , we assume a circular orbit for planet c ($e=0$). The orbital period and the adopted mass of Proxima (Table \[Proxima-table\]) define the orbital radius $a_c$. The only orbital parameters to be determined are therefore the orbital inclination $i$ and the longitude of the ascending node $\Omega$. For the estimation of the uncertainties on $i$ and $\Omega$, we followed a classical Monte Carlo (MC) numerical approach. We adopted a prior on the orbital inclination proportional to $\sin(i)$ using rejection sampling, which corresponds to a random orientation of the orbit. The choice of this prior is justified by the fact we have a low signal-to-noise ratio ($<5$) on the astrometry and radial velocity data; further details can be found in and for example. We neglected the uncertainties on the mass of Proxima and its parallax. We took into account the uncertainties on the spectroscopic orbital parameters, the averaging of the PMa over the GDR2 transit epochs, the PMa vector uncertainty, and the correlation listed in the GDR2 catalog between the PM vector components ($\rho=0.37$). Due to the fact that we have only one PMa vector, two inclinations are possible: $0^\circ \leqslant i_1 \leqslant 90^\circ$ (retrograde) and $i_2 = 180^\circ - i_1$ (prograde, $90 \leqslant i_2 \leqslant 180^\circ$). Following the standard convention, $\Omega$ is counted from north ($\Omega=0^\circ$) toward east, and corresponds to the position angle of the intersection of the planetary orbit with the plane of the sky at Proxima’s distance, when the Sun–planet distance is increasing.
The best-fit orbital parameters and mass of Proxima c are listed in Table \[Planet-table\], and the MC scatter plots of the distributions of $i$ and $\Omega$ for the prograde solution are shown in Fig. \[histo-kde\]. The inclination of the prograde solution is found to be $\inclP \pm \inclPerr \deg$, corresponding to a mass of $m_c = \Massc^{\Masscerrplus}_{\Masscerrminus}\,M_\oplus$ for Proxima c, comparable to Uranus and Neptune. We tested a MC computation without any prior on $i$, for which we obtain a best fit value $i=159\,\deg$ and a planet mass of $16\,M_\odot$, which is highly consistent with the results obtained without the prior.
![Monte Carlo scatter plots (upper right and lower left panels) and kernel density estimates (upper left and lower right panels) of the inclination $i$ and longitude of ascending node $\Omega$ distributions for the prograde orbital solution. \[histo-kde\]](Figures/histo-kde-prograde.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
The best-fit prograde and retrograde orbits are displayed in Fig. \[orbit-plot\]. Due to the relatively large uncertainties on $i$ and $\Omega$, this map cannot be used to accurately predict the position of Proxima c at any time. However, when the orbital phase of the planet is close to the ascending or descending nodes, its relative position with respect to Proxima is significantly more probable over a relatively narrow arc. The maps of the probability of presence of Proxima c for epochs 2020.0, 2021.0 (close to the ascending node), and 2022.0 are shown in Fig. \[position-plot\].
[lcc]{} Quantity & & Value\
Orbital radius & $a_c$ & $1.489 \pm 0.049$au\
& $a_c$ & $1.145 \pm 0.041\,\arcsec$\
Minimum mass of planet & $m_c \sin i$ & $5.7 \pm 1.9\,M_\oplus$\
Prograde solution:\
Orbital inclination & $i$ & $\inclP \pm \inclPerr\,\deg$\
Longitude of asc. node & $\Omega$ & $\OmegaPval \pm \OmegaPvalerr\,\deg$\
Correlation $(i,\Omega)$ & $\rho(i,\Omega)$ &\
Retrograde solution:\
Orbital inclination & $i$ & $\inclR \pm \inclRerr\,\deg$\
Longitude of asc. node & $\Omega$ & $\OmegaRval \pm \OmegaRvalerr\,\deg$\
Correlation $(i,\Omega)$ & $\rho(i,\Omega)$ &\
Mass of planet c & $m_c$ & $\Massc^{\Masscerrplus}_{\Masscerrminus}\,M_\oplus$\
\[Planet-table\]
{width="14cm"}
{width="15cm"}
Discussion\[discussion\]
========================
In the present analysis, the error budget of the orbital parameters of Proxima c is dominated by the precision of the PMa vector, and more specifically by the GDR2 PM vector of Proxima. The uncertainties on the components of the long-term Hip2-GDR2 PM vector ($\vec{\mu_\mathrm{HG}}$) are approximately four times smaller than those of the short-term PM vector ($\vec{\mu_\mathrm{G2}}$). However, the uncertainty on the spectroscopic radial velocity is quite comparable: the mean velocity anomaly of Proxima in the tangential plane over the GDR2 time-span is $\vec{\Delta \mu} = \left[+1.34 \pm 0.69, +2.37 \pm 1.33\right]$m s$^{-1}$, while the mean radial velocity is $v_r = -0.94 \pm 0.40$m s$^{-1}$. The Gaia Early Data Release 3 (EDR3) is expected in the third quarter of 2020. It will bring significant improvement to the precision of the Gaia PM vector, and therefore also the PMa vector, possibly by a factor of more than approximately two thanks to the longer time base and the decrease in systematic error. This will provide a comparable improvement to the orbital parameters and mass of Proxima c.
The inclination of the dust rings identified by ($\approx 45^\circ$) from ALMA observations of Proxima is compatible with our derived inclination. The position angle of the major axis of the ring ($\approx 140^\circ$) is also in agreement with the position angle of the line of nodes of the orbit of Proxima c. On a larger scale, we note that the orbit of Proxima in the $\alpha$Cen system and the orbit of the main components $\alpha$Cen A and B are both progrades (counter clockwise), possibly favoring the prograde solution for the orbit of Proxima c (Table \[Planet-table\]).
If we assume the coplanarity of the orbits of the planets Proxima b and c, the de-projected mass of the close-in planet is $m_b = 2.1^{+1.9}_{-0.6}\,M_\oplus$ (adopting $m_b \sin i = 1.0 \pm 0.1\,M_\oplus$ from ). It has been suggested that this planet is lying in the habitable zone of Proxima, but this red dwarf is known to experience strong flares . recently observed repeated, very energetic events using the TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite). Such high-energy flaring could reduce the chance that Proxima b hosts life. However, a high planet mass could help protect its surface from the high-energy radiation and particles, through the preservation of its atmosphere and the possible presence of a magnetic field. Depending on the greenhouse effect on Proxima b, the flares could induce adequate temperatures for liquid water that, if the atmosphere is dense enough, would in turn protect its surface from the flares. We note that suggest that a fraction of the population of microorganisms on Proxima b is able to survive the flares and superflares of Proxima.
recently presented a combined astrometry and radial velocity analysis for the massive ($3\,M_J$), long-period (45years) planet orbiting $\epsilon$Ind A. While the present work does not reach a comparable level of predictive accuracy on the position and mass of the much-less-massive Proxima c, it confirms the high potential of the combination of ultra high-accuracy astrometry and radial velocity measurements. As the astrometric signature of orbiting companions is linearly decreasing with distance, emphasis should be placed on radial velocity monitoring of the nearest stars not saturating the Gaia detectors in order to reach the highest possible sensitivity in combination with Gaia astrometry.
The present work has benefited substantially from insightful suggestions by the referee Dr. Timothy D. Brandt, to whom we are grateful. This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission [*Gaia*]{} (<http://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia>), processed by the [*Gaia*]{} Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, <http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium>). This research has made use of Astropy[^2], a community-developed core Python package for Astronomy . We used the SIMBAD and VizieR databases and catalog access tool at the CDS, Strasbourg (France), and NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services.
[^1]: <https://gaia.esac.esa.int/gost/index.jsp>
[^2]: Available at <http://www.astropy.org/>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In a properly edge colored graph, a subgraph using every color at most once is called *rainbow*. In this thesis, we study rainbow cycles and paths in proper edge colorings of complete graphs, and we prove that in every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there is a rainbow path on $(3/4-o(1))n$ vertices, improving on the previously best bound of $(2n+1)/3$ from [@GyarfasMhalla2010].
Similarly, a $k$-rainbow path in a proper edge coloring of $K_n$ is a path using no color more than $k$ times. We prove that in every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there is a $k$-rainbow path on $(1-2/(k+1)!)n$ vertices.
author:
- Frank Mousset
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
date: 'August 22, 2011'
title: Rainbow Cycles and Paths
---
[thesistype[Bachelor Thesis]{}]{} [advisors[Advisors: Prof. Dr. Emo Welzl, Heidi Gebauer]{}]{} [department[Department of Computer Science]{}]{}
[-]{}
Introduction
============
Rainbow cycles and paths
------------------------
Consider an edge colored graph $G$. A subgraph of $G$ is called *rainbow* (or *heterochromatic*) if no two of its edges receive the same color. We are concerned with rainbow paths and, to a lesser extent, cycles in proper edge colorings of the complete graph $K_n$. Hahn conjectured that every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ admits a Hamiltonian rainbow path (a rainbow path visiting every vertex of $K_n$) (c.f. [@Maamoun1984]). Maamoun and Meyniel [@Maamoun1984] disproved this conjecture by constructing counterexamples for the case where $n$ is a power of two, as follows. Let $n=2^m$. Then we can identify the vertices of $K_n$ with distinct elements of the group $({\mathbold{Z}}/2{\mathbold{Z}})^m$, and color every edge $\{a,b\}$ of $K_n$ with the sum of the group elements corresponding to $a$ and $b$. This is a proper edge coloring, because for two edges $\{a,b\}$ and $\{a,c\}$, the group property implies $a+b\neq a+c$. Maamoun and Meyniel proved that this coloring admits no Hamiltonian rainbow paths. The reader is invited to check this fact for the case of $K_4$.
(-4,-2.5)(4,3.5) (0,0)[.08]{}[a]{} (0,3)[.08]{}[b]{} (-2.5891,-1.5,)[.08]{}[c]{} (2.5981,-1.5)[.08]{}[d]{}
Conversely, it is widely believed that in every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there is a rainbow path on $n-1$ vertices (see for example [@GyarfasMhalla2010]). Still, this is far from proved, and to date, the best general lower bound on the number of vertices in a maximum rainbow path in (a properly edge colored) $K_n$ is $(2n+1)/3$, as proved by Gyárfás and Mhalla in [@GyarfasMhalla2010]. The main result of this thesis improves this bound to $(3/4-o(1))n$.
\[thm:intro\] In every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there is a rainbow path of length $$\left(\frac{3}{4}-o(1)\right)n\text.$$
Several theorems and conjectures on rainbow cycles can be found in a paper by Akbari, Etesami, Mahini and Mahmoody [@Akbari2007]. Most importantly (for our purposes), it is proved that in every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there is a rainbow cycle of length at least $n/2-1$. This result was later improved on by Gyárfás, Ruszinkó, Sarközy and Schelp in [@Gyarfas2011], where a bound of $(4/7-o(1))n$ is given.
A related topic is that of colorful Hamiltonian cycles in proper edge colorings of $K_n$. In [@Akbari2007], it is conjectured that every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ contains a Hamiltonian cycle using at least $n-2$ colors, and it is proved that there is always one with at least $(2/3-o(1))n$ colors. The construction used in our proof of Theorem \[thm:intro\] can be used to show that there are Hamiltonian cycles using at least $(3/4-o(1))n$ colors.
In [@Hahn1986], Hahn and Thomassen studied rainbow cycles and paths in *$k$-bounded edge colorings* of $K_n$, that is, (not necessarily proper) edge colorings that use every color at most $k$ times. It is shown that for fixed $k$ and large enough $n$, every such coloring contains a Hamiltonian rainbow path; and the authors conjecture that there are Hamiltonian rainbow paths even if $k = a n$ for some suitably small constant factor $a$.
Paths with repeated colors
--------------------------
Generalizing the notion of a rainbow path, we consider paths in $K_n$ that use every color at most a constant number of times. We call such paths *$k$-rainbow paths*, where $k$ is the number of times a color may appear on the path. We will prove that in every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ and for every integer $k>0$, there are $k$-rainbow paths on at least $n-O(n/k!)$ vertices. As far as we know, there are no previous results in this direction.
Note on Latin squares
---------------------
We now give some motivation for the study of rainbow cycles and paths by relating it to problems whose nature is not inherently graph-theoretic.
Latin squares have been a popular topic in combinatorics at least since the times of Euler, who studied them extensively. An array of $n$ rows and $n$ columns is called a *Latin square of order $n$* if every number in $[n] = \{1,\dotsc,n\}$ appears exactly once in each of its rows and columns. A (complete) *transversal* of a Latin square is a selection of $n$ cells of the square, choosing exactly one from each row and column, such that every number in $[n]$ is contained in exactly one cell of the selection. Similarly, a *partial transversal* of a Latin square is a maximal selection of cells, each cell again being from a different row and column, such that no two chosen cells contain the same symbol.
As shown by Maillet (1894), there are many Latin squares which do not have complete transversals. However, a famous conjecture of Ryser (1967) states that every Latin square of odd order has a transversal and, moreover, Brualdi conjectured that every Latin square of order $n$ admits a partial transversal of size at least $n-1$.
Proofs for both conjectures seem out of reach, even though it is known that in every Latin square of order $n$, there are partial transversals of size $n-o(n)$. All this and more can be found in [@Denes].
How do Latin squares relate to rainbow cycles, or graph theory in general? Consider any Latin square $A$, and let $R$ and $C$ denote the sets of its rows and columns respectively. Then $A$ defines a proper edge coloring of the complete bipartite graph with partite sets $C$ and $R$, as follows: for $c\in C$ and $r\in R$, the edge $\{c,r\}$ is colored with the number contained in the cell determined by the row $r$ and the column $c$. Then a transversal of $A$ corresponds to a perfect bipartite matching in this graph, in which no two edges use the same color: a rainbow perfect matching. Rainbow matchings are studied for example in [@Wang2008].
Conversely, every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ with $n-1$ colors can be used to construct a Latin square $A$ of order $n$, in the following way. Let $\{v_1,\dotsc,v_n\}$ denote the vertex set of $K_n$. Then for every $i\in [n]$ and $j\neq i$, let $A_{i,i}=n$ and let $A_{i,j}$ be the color of the edge $\{v_i,v_j\}$. A complete transversal of this Latin square corresponds to a 2-regular rainbow subgraph (i.e., a subgraph consisting of vertex-disjoint cycles) that covers all but at most one vertex of $K_n$. This can be seen as follows. For every vertex $v_i$, either $A_{i,i}$ is in the transversal, or two cells $A_{i,j}$ and $A_{k,i}$ (with $i\neq j$ and $i \neq k$) are in the transversal. In the former case, $v_i$ does not belong to the subgraph. In the latter case, the two edges $\{v_i,v_j\}$ and $\{v_i,v_k\}$ are included in the subgraph. Hence, all included vertices have degree two. By the defining property of a transversal, all selected edges have different colors, so the subgraph is really rainbow, and there are no cycles of length two. Moreover, for every vertex $v_i$, we have $A_{i,i}=n$, so at most one vertex does not belong to the subgraph.
Thesis structure
----------------
In Chapter 2, some results on rainbow paths are proved; in particular, we prove Theorem \[thm:intro\]. The chapter also contains an informal overview over the ideas used in the proof.
Chapter 3 takes a look at $k$-rainbow paths. It is proved that every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ contains a $k$-rainbow path on at least $(1-2/(k+2)!)n$ vertices.
The final chapter is a short conclusion.
Notation
--------
In this section, we define the notation used throughout the thesis and briefly introduce the basic graph-theoretic notions.
### Sets
We write ${\mathbold{N}}$ for the set $\{1,2,3,\dotsc\}$ of natural numbers. If $n$ is a natural number, then we write $[n]$ for the set $\{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$.
We use capital letters for sets. If $A$ is a set, then $\abs{A}$ is the cardinality of $A$ and $\binom{A}{k}$ is the set of all $k$-element subsets of $A$. We write $A^c$ for the complement of $A$ (relative to some universe).
### Graphs
For graphs, we follow the notation from [@Diestel], although we will restate the most important definitions here.
A *graph* is a tuple $(V,E)$, where $V$ is the finite set of *vertices* and $E \subseteq \binom{V}{2}$ is the set of *edges*. The *endpoints* of an edge are its elements, and the edge is *incident* to them and only them. Two edges are *coincident* if they intersect, and two vertices $u$ and $v$ are *adjacent* if $\{u,v\}\in E$. If $G$ is a graph, then we write $V(G)$ for its vertex set and $E(G)$ for its edge set. A graph $H=(V',E')$ is a *subgraph* of $G=(V,E)$, written $H\subseteq G$, if $V'\subseteq V$ and $E'\subseteq E$.
For a graph $G=(V,E)$ and an arbitrary $e\in \binom{V}{2}$, we write $G + e$ and $G-e$ for the graphs $(V,E \cup \{e\})$ and $(V,E\setminus \{e\})$. If $G=(V,E)$ and $H=(V',E')$ are graphs, then $G\cup H$ denotes the graph $(V\cup V', E\cup E')$.
The *complete graph on $n$ vertices* is the graph with vertex set $[n]$ and edge set $\binom{[n]}{2}$. It is denoted by $K_n$.
Given a graph $G = (V,E)$, a map $c\colon E \to {\mathbold{N}}$ is called a *proper edge coloring* (or simply a coloring) of $G$ if for every two coincident edges $e$ and $e'$ of $G$, we have $c(e)\neq c(e')$. The colors in the image domain $c(E)$ of $c$ are called the colors *used* by $G$, and we usually write $c(G)$ for this set. For an edge $\{u,v\}\in E$, we usually write $c(u,v)$ instead $c(\{u,v\})$. Slightly abusing this notation, if $A$ is a set of vertices, then we also write $c(u,A)$ for the set $c(E(u,A))$.
### Cycles and paths
A *path* is a non-empty graph $P=(V,E)$ of the form $$V = \{p_1,p_2,\dotsc,p_k\} \quad \text{and}\quad E = \{\{p_1,p_2\},\{p_2,p_3\},\dotsc,\{p_{k-1},p_k\}\},$$ which we usually denote by the sequence $(p_1,p_2,\dotsc,p_k)$. Then $p_1$ and $p_k$ are the *start* and *end* vertices of $P$, respectively. The number of edges in $E$ is called the *length* of $P$. We call $p_i$ a *$k$-successor* of $p_j$ if $i>j$ and there are at most $k-1$ vertices between $p_i$ and $p_j$ on $P$. In other words, $p_i$ is a $k$-successor of $p_j$ if $0< i-j\leq k$. Equivalently, $p_j$ is a *$k$-predecessor* of $p_i$.
If $P = (p_1,p_2,\dotsc,p_k)$ is a path, then the graph $C=P + \{p_k,p_1\}$ is a *cycle*, and $\abs{E(C)}$ is the *length* of $C$. We represent this cycle by the cyclic sequence of its vertices, for example $C = (p_1,p_2,\dotsc,p_k,p_1)$. If $G$ is a graph and $H\subseteq G$ is a path or cycle such that $V(H)=V(G)$, then $H$ is called *Hamiltonian*.
Rainbow Paths
=============
Introduction
------------
Consider the complete graph $K_n =(V,E)$ with a proper edge coloring $c\colon E \to {\mathbold{N}}$. Given this coloring, the rainbow paths and cycles are exactly the paths and cycles in $K_n$ that use every color at most once.
If $P$ is a rainbow path, then we will refer to the colors in $c(P)$ as *old* and to those in $c(P)^c=c(E)\setminus c(P)$ as *new*. Edges colored with old colors are *old*, edges colored with new colors are *new*.
In [@GyarfasMhalla2010], Gyárfás and Mhalla proved that regardless of how the coloring is chosen, there always are rainbow paths on at least $(2n+1)/3$ vertices. Now we give the basic idea behind their proof, the details of which we will see later. Consider any maximum rainbow path $P=(p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$ in $K_n$, and consider an edge $\{p_i,p_{i+1}\}$ such that $\{p_1,p_{i+1}\}$ is new, as in the following figure.
(-5.2,-1.5)(5.2,2) (-5,0)[.08]{}[p1]{} (0,0)[.08]{}[pi]{} (1,0)[.08]{}[psi]{} (5,0)[.08]{}[pt]{}
(-2.75,0)[a]{} (-2.25,0)[b]{}
(2.75,0)[a1]{} (3.25,0)[b1]{}
Clearly, any edge $\{p_k,r\}$ with $r\in V(P)^c$ cannot use the color of $\{p_{i+1},p_i\}$, as otherwise the path $$(p_i,\dotsc,p_1,p_{i+1},\dotsc,p_k,r)$$ would be a rainbow path on $\abs{V(P)}+1$ vertices, contradicting the choice of $P$. Viewed the other way around, we can say that a certain number of edges in $E(P)$ are not allowed to have colors in $c(p_k,V(P)^c)$. But all the edges in $E(p_k,V(P)^c)$ must be old, so their colors appear somewhere on the path. As Gyárfás and Mhalla observed, this conflict leads to the bound $k\geq (2n+1)/3$.
But what if we knew that starting in any vertex $r\in V(P)^c$, there is a rainbow path in $V(P)^c$ (of a certain minimum length $l$) that uses no colors of $c(P)$? Assume that this is the case, and, moreover, that given two arbitrary new colors, this path can be chosen in such a way that it does not use any one of them. Then instead of forbidding colors in $c(p_k,V(P)^c)$ to appear only on edges $\{p_i,p_{i+1}\}$ as above, we can also forbid them to appear on any edge $\{p_i,p_{i+1}\}$ such that $p_{i+1}$ has an $l$-successor $p_j$ with $c(p_1,p_j){\not\in}c(P)$. While this does not immediately lead to a good bound on the length of $P$, it does give us more flexibility; as we will see we can now often simply ‘forget’ about constant terms. This is the main idea behind the upcoming proof that in every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there are rainbow paths of length $(3/4-o(1))n$.
Now for some definitions. For any vertex $v\in V$, we define the *new neighborhood* of $v$ relative to a rainbow path $P$ by $${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)} = \{ u \in V\setminus \{v\} : c(u,v) {\not\in}c(P) \}\text.$$ Analogously, if $C$ is a rainbow cycle, then $${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)} = \{u \in V\setminus \{v\} : c(u,v) {\not\in}c(C) \}\text.$$
Moreover, for any rainbow path $P=(p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$, we define the sets $$\begin{aligned}
&A(P) = \{ p_i \in V(P) : p_{i+1}\in {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_1,P)}\}\\
\shortintertext{and}
&B(P) = \{ p_i \in V(P) : p_{i-1}\in {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_{k},P)}\}\text. \end{aligned}$$ Note that these definitions are symmetric in the sense that if $P'=(p_k,\dotsc,p_1)$, then $A(P)=B(P')$ and $A(P') = B(P)$. Figure \[fig:a\] serves as a visual aid for the formal definitions of $A(P)$ and $B(P)$.
(-5.2,-2)(5.2,2) (-5,0)[.08]{}[p1]{} (-3,0)[.08]{}[x]{} (-2,0)[.08]{}[y]{} (0,0)[.08]{}[pi]{} (1,0)[.08]{}[psi]{} (2,0)[.08]{}[u]{} (3,0)[.08]{}[v]{} (5,0)[.08]{}[pk]{}
(-4.25,0)[a]{} (-3.75,0)[b]{}
(-1.25,0)[a1]{} (-.75,0)[b1]{}
(3.75,0)[a2]{} (4.25,0)[b2]{}
(-3,0)[.25]{} (0,0)[.25]{} (2.75,-.25)(3.25,.25)
We will be working mostly with maximum rainbow paths, that is, rainbow paths of maximum length. Clearly, if $P = (p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$ is a maximum rainbow path, then adding any edge from $E(p_k,V(P)^c)$ to it cannot result in a rainbow path (otherwise $P$ would not be maximum). This means that all edges in $E(p_k,V(P)^c)$ use colors that are also used by $P$. The same argument can be made for edges in $E(p_1,V(P)^c)$.
\[prop:maximality\] If $P=(p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$ is a maximum rainbow path with respect to some coloring $c$, then $c(p_1,V(P)^c)\subseteq c(P)$ and $c(p_k,V(P)^c)\subseteq c(P)$.
In particular, $\abs{A(P)} = \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_1,P)}} \geq n-k$ and $\abs{B(P)} = \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_k,P)}} \geq n-k$.
Using this simple observation, we directly obtain the following lower bound on the length of a maximum rainbow path.
\[prop:n/2-bound\] In every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there are rainbow paths on at least $(n+1)/2$ vertices.
Consider an arbitrary proper edge coloring $c$ of $K_n$, and let $P = (p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$ be a maximum rainbow path in this coloring. We have $$\abs{c(p_k,V(P)^c)} = \abs{V(P)^c} = n-k\text,$$ and $$\abs{c(P)} = \abs{E(P)} = k-1\text.$$
By Proposition \[prop:maximality\], we have $c(p_k,V(P)^c)\subseteq c(P)$, and hence $\abs{c(p_k,V(P)^c)} \leq \abs{c(P)}$. Thus $n-k \leq k-1$, and so we have $$k \geq \frac{n+1}{2}\text,$$ as claimed.
Actually, we proved something slightly stronger, namely, that given any vertex $v$ of $K_n$, there is a rainbow path on $(n+1)/2$ vertices starting in this vertex. To see this, revisit the proof and let $P$ be the longest rainbow path starting in $v$, and observe that the argument made for Proposition \[prop:maximality\] still applies.
Rotations
---------
The paths in $K_n$ admit many symmetries; in fact, every permutation of the vertices of a path results in another path. We consider a special kind of permutation, which we call rotation here. Rotations were already used by Pósa in [@Posa1976]. For every $i\in[k]$, there is a rotation $\rho_i$ which acts on the path $P = (p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$ to produce the path $$\rho_i \cdot P = (p_i,p_{i-1},\dotsc,p_1,p_{i+1},p_{i+2},\dotsc,p_k)\text,$$ as shown in figure \[fig:rotation\].
(-5.2,-2)(5.2,2) (-5,0)[.08]{}[p1]{} (0,0)[.08]{}[pi]{} (1,0)[.08]{}[psi]{} (5,0)[.08]{}[pt]{}
(-2.75,0)[a]{} (-2.25,0)[b]{}
(2.75,0)[a1]{} (3.25,0)[b1]{}
The point is that if $P = (p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$ is a rainbow path and $p_i\in A(P)$, then $\rho_i\cdot P$ is a rainbow path that does not use the color $c(p_i,p_{i+1})$, but that is still very similar to $P$. In particular, $\rho_i\cdot P$ ends in the same vertex as $P$.
\[prop:maximality-rot\] If $P = (p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$ is a maximum rainbow path with respect to some coloring $c$, then for every $p_i\in A(P)$ we have $c(p_i,p_{i+1}){\not\in}c(p_k,V(P)^c)$. Similarly, for every $p_i\in B(P)$ we have $c(p_i,p_{i-1}) {\not\in}c(p_1,V(P)^c)$.
Suppose that $p_i\in A(P)$ is such that $c(p_i,p_{i+1})\in c(p_k,V(P)^c)$. Then there is a vertex $v\in V(P)^c$ such that $c(p_k,v)=c(p_i,p_{i+1}){\not\in}c(\rho_i\cdot P)$. Since $\rho_i\cdot P$ ends in $p_k$ and $v{\not\in}V(P) = V(\rho_i\cdot P)$, the rainbow path $\rho_i\cdot P$ violates Proposition \[prop:maximality\].
The second part follows by symmetry.
This fact was used by by Gyárfás and Mhalla to find rainbow paths on $(2n+1)/3$ vertices. Because the proof is quite elegant and uses a technique similar to those used later on, we give it here.
\[thm:gm2010\] In every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there is a rainbow path on at least $(2n+1)/3$ vertices.
Consider an arbitrary proper edge coloring $c$ of $K_n$, and let $P = (p_1,\dotsc,p_k)$ be a maximum rainbow path with respect to $c$. By Proposition \[prop:maximality\], $c(p_k,V(P)^c)\subseteq c(P)$. Now let $$X = \{ c(p_i,p_{i+1}) : p_i\in A(P) \}\text.$$ Then we have $\abs{X} = \abs{A(P)} \geq n-k$. Since $X\subseteq c(P)$, we get $$X\cup c(p_k,V(P)^c)\subseteq c(P)\text,$$ and hence $\abs{X \cup c(p_k,V(P)^c)} \leq \abs{c(P)} = \abs{E(P)} = k-1$. By Proposition \[prop:maximality-rot\], we have $\abs{X \cap c(p_k,V(P)^c)} = \emptyset$, and thus $$\abs{X\cup c(p_k,V(P)^c)} = \abs{X} + \abs{c(p_k,V(P)^c)} \geq n-k + n-k\text,$$ and so $2n - 2k\leq k-1$, or $$k \geq \frac{2n+1}{3}\text,$$ which is what we needed to prove.
Now we come to the main result of this work.
A theorem on the length of rainbow paths
----------------------------------------
In this section, we are going to prove the following result, which is equivalent to Theorem \[thm:intro\].
\[thm:awesome\] For every $\epsilon > 0$, there is some $n_0 = n_0(\epsilon)$ such that for $n> n_0$, every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ contains a rainbow path on at least $(3/4-\epsilon)n$ vertices.
The proof proceeds by contradiction, that is, we assume that for some $\epsilon > 0$, there are no such rainbow paths, and show that we can construct a rainbow path that is longer than the length of a (supposedly) maximum rainbow path. There are two steps to how this is done:
1. We show that there is a maximum rainbow path $P$ such that almost all (i.e., all but constantly many) vertices in $V(P)^c$ have at least some constant number of new neighbors in $V(P)^c$.
2. We show how such a rainbow path can be extended to a longer rainbow path, resulting in a contradiction.
### Preliminaries
Let $\epsilon > 0$ and let $n>n_0$ for some suitably large value $n_0 = n_0(\epsilon)$. We will not give an explicit value for $n_0$, rather we will tacitly assume that increasing functions of $n$ dominate any constant. We are given a proper edge coloring $c$ of $K_n$. Then we denote by $t$ the number of vertices in a maximum length rainbow path, that is, there are no rainbow paths of length $t$ (on $t+1$ vertices).
We will assume throughout that we have $$t \leq \left(\frac{3}{4}-\epsilon\right)n\text,$$ trying to arrive at a contradiction.
During the proof, let $a$ be a ‘large enough’ constant. For example $a = 100+\ceil{100/\epsilon}$ is more than enough.
### Nice rainbow paths
For any rainbow path $P$, we define the set $$R(P) = \{ r\in V(P)^c : \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(r,P)} \cap V(P)^c} > a\} \text.$$ So $R(P)$ is the set of vertices in $V(P)^c$ that have more than $a$ new neighbors in $V(P)^c$. Then we have the following definition.
A *nice* rainbow path is a rainbow path $P$ satisfying $$\abs{R(P)}> n-t- 1/\epsilon\text.$$
In other words, nice rainbow paths are such that all but at most $1/\epsilon$ vertices in $V(P)^c$ have more than $a$ new neighbors in $V(P)^c$. We will be interested in nice maximum rainbow paths, that is, nice rainbow paths on $t$ vertices. Before showing that such paths exist, we will motivate them by proving that they have some nice properties.
\[prop:long-paths\] If $P$ is nice maximum rainbow path, then for any vertex $r\in R(P)$ and any set $F$ of colors, there is a rainbow path $Q$ starting in $r$ in the subgraph induced by $R(P)$ such that $\abs{V(Q)} = \floor{(a-\abs{F}-1/\epsilon)/2}$ and $c(Q)\cap (F \cup c(P)) = \emptyset$.
Let $k=\floor{(a-\abs{F}-1/\epsilon)/2}$. We construct a series of rainbow paths $Q_1,\dotsc,Q_{k}$ starting in $r$ and using only vertices in $R(P)$, such that for every $i \in [k]$, we have $\abs{V(Q_i)} = i$. Furthermore, we shall make sure that no $Q_i$ uses colors in $F\cup c(P)$. Clearly, the path $Q_k$ will have the desired properties.
Let $Q_1 = (r)$ and define $Q_{i+1}$ in terms of $Q_i$ as follows. By construction, $Q_i$ starts in $r$ and ends in some vertex $v\in R(P)$. If there is a vertex $u\in {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)} \cap R(P)\setminus V(Q_i)$ such that $$c(u,v){\not\in}c(Q_i)\cup F\text,$$ then we can simply define $Q_{i+1}$ to be $Q_i\cup(v,u)$. Hence it is enough to prove that $\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)} \cap R(P) \setminus V(Q_i)} > \abs{c(Q_i)\cup F}$.
Because $i< k$, we have $$\abs{c(Q_i)\cup F} \leq \abs{c(Q_i)} + \abs{F} < k + \abs{F}\text.$$ Since $P$ is nice, we have $\abs{V(P)^c\setminus R(P)} < 1/\epsilon$, and as $v\in R(P)$, we get $$\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)} \cap R(P)} > a-1/\epsilon\text,$$ and hence $$\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)} \cap R(P) \setminus V(Q_i)} > a- 1/\epsilon -k\text.$$ Now the claim follows from $$a-1/\epsilon -k \geq k + \abs{F}\text,$$ which holds because $k \leq (a-\abs{F}-1/\epsilon)/2$.
The importance of this fact comes from the following lemma.
\[lemma:no-paths\] If $P$ is a nice maximum rainbow path, then every rainbow path $$Q = (q_1,\dotsc,q_k)$$ satisfies at least one of the following properties:
1. $V(Q)\not\subseteq V(P)$,
2. $({\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(q_1,Q)}\cup {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(q_k,Q)}) \cap R(P)= \emptyset$,
3. $\abs{c(Q)\setminus c(P)}> 2$, or
4. $k< t-a/3$.
Suppose that there is a rainbow path $Q=(q_1,\dotsc,q_k)$ satisfying none of the properties (P1–4).
Because (P2) is violated, either ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(q_1,Q)}\cap R(P)\neq \emptyset$ or ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(q_k,Q)}\cap R(P)\neq \emptyset$. In any case, there is an endpoint $q$ of $Q$ such that for some vertex $s_1\in R(P)$, we have $c(q,s_1){\not\in}c(Q)$. Then let $$F = \{c(q,s_1)\}\cup (c(Q)\setminus c(P))\text,$$ and since (P3) is violated, we have $\abs{F}\leq 3$.
By Proposition \[prop:long-paths\], we know that the subgraph induced by $R(P)$ contains a rainbow path $S = (s_1,\dotsc,s_l)$ with $l\geq \floor{(a-3-1/\epsilon)/2}$ such that $c(S)\cap (F\cup c(P)) = \emptyset$. So $S$ does not use any colors in $$F\cup c(P) = \{c(q,s_1)\}\cup c(Q)\cup c(P)\text,$$ and hence the path $S' = (q_1,s_1,\dotsc,s_l)$ is a rainbow path with $c(S')\cap c(Q)=\emptyset$.
Because (P1) is violated, we have $V(Q)\cap R(P) = \emptyset$, and thus $$V(Q)\cap V(S') = \{q\}\text.$$ so $Q\cup S'$ is a rainbow path. As (P4) is violated, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\abs{V(Q\cup S')} &=\abs{V(Q)}+\abs{V(S')}-1\\
&= k + l-1\\
&\geq t-\frac{a}{3} + \floor{(a-3-1/\epsilon)/2}-1\\
&> t-\frac{a}{3} + \frac{a}{2} -\frac{1}{2\epsilon}- 3\\
&> t\text.
\end{aligned}$$ But by definition of $t$, there are no rainbow paths this long.
Thus Lemma \[lemma:no-paths\] suggests that we can prove Theorem \[thm:awesome\] in two steps. Under the assumption that $t\leq(3/4-\epsilon)n$:
- Show that there is at least one nice maximum rainbow path $P$.
- Then show that for this $P$, there is a rainbow path $Q$ violating Lemma \[lemma:no-paths\].
### Existence of nice maximum rainbow paths
In this section, we will prove that there are nice maximum rainbow paths. First, let us reiterate what it means for a rainbow path not to be nice. If $P$ is a rainbow path that is not nice, then we have $$\abs{R(P)}\leq n-t-1/\epsilon\text,$$ or, equivalently, $$\abs{R(P)^c} \geq n-(n-t-1/\epsilon) = t+1/\epsilon\text.$$ For any rainbow path, we have $\abs{V(P)}\leq t$, so we get $$\abs{R(P)^c\cap V(P)^c} = \abs{R(P)^c\setminus V(P)}\geq 1/\epsilon\text.$$ This means that there are at least $1/\epsilon$ vertices in $V(P)^c$ that have no more than $a$ new neighbors in $V(P)^c$.
\[cons:no-cycles\] Suppose that there are no nice maximum rainbow paths. Then there are no rainbow cycles of length $t$.
Suppose that $C$ is such a cycle. Then removing any edge $e\in E(C)$ from $C$, we get a maximum rainbow path $P=C-e$, with $V(P)=V(C)$.
By assumption, this maximum rainbow path cannot be not nice, so there is a vertex $v \in V(C)^c$ such that at least $\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)}} - a\geq n-t-a$ new neighbors of $v$ are in $V(C)$. Since, for large enough $n$, we have $n-t-a\geq 2$, at least one of those neighbors, call it $u$, is such that $c(u,v)\neq c(e)$. So $c(u,v){\not\in}c(P+e) = c(C)$.
Let $u'$ be a vertex adjacent to $u$ on $C$. Then $(C-\{u,u'\}) \cup (u,v)$ is a rainbow path of length $t$. This contradicts the definition of $t$.
Suppose that there are no nice maximum rainbow paths, and let $P = (p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$ be a maximum rainbow path. Then for every vertex $p_i\in A(P)\cap B(P)$ we have $c(p_1,p_{i+1}) = c(p_{i-1},p_t)$.
Assume by way of contradiction that there is a vertex $p_i \in A(P)\cap B(P)$ such that $c(p_1,p_{i+1}) \neq c(p_{i-1},p_t)$. By definition, $c(p_1,p_{i+1}){\not\in}c(P)$ and $c(p_t,p_{i-1}){\not\in}c(P)$, so the cycle $$C = (p_1,\dotsc,p_{i-1},p_t,p_{t-1},\dotsc,p_{i+1},p_1)$$ shown in figure \[fig:easy-cycle\] is a rainbow cycle of length $t-1$.
(-5.2,-2)(5.2,2) (-5,0)[.08]{}[x1]{} (-1,0)[.08]{}[xpi]{} (0,0)[.08]{}[xi]{} (1,0)[.08]{}[xsi]{} (5,0)[.08]{}[xt]{}
(-3.25,0)[a]{} (-2.75,0)[b]{}
(2.75,0)[a1]{} (3.25,0)[b1]{}
By assumption, $P$ could not have been nice, so there is a vertex $v \in V(P)^c$ with $$\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)}\cap V(P)} \geq \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)}} - a\text.$$ Some thought shows that $$\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)} \cap V(C)}\geq \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}}-a-5\text,$$ because at most three vertices of ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)}\cap V(P)$ are in not in ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}\cap V(C)$, and at most two vertices of ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}$ are not in ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,P)}$.
But no two vertices $u,u'\in {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}\cap V(C)$ can be adjacent in $C$, because otherwise, the cycle $(C - \{u,u'\}) \cup (u,v, u')$ would be a rainbow cycle of length $t$, contradicting Proposition \[cons:no-cycles\]. In other words, no edge $e\in E(C)$ is incident to two vertices in ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)} \cap V(C)$. Hence, if we write $X = \{e \in E(C) : e\cap {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)} \neq \emptyset\}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\abs{X} &= 2\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}\cap V(C)}\\
&\geq 2\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}}-2a-10\\
&\geq 2n-2t-2a-12\text.
\end{aligned}$$
Now let $Y = V(C)^c \cap {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}^c$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\abs{Y} &= \abs{V(C)^c \cap {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}^c}\\
&= \abs{V(C)^c} - \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)} \cap V(C)^c}\\
&= n-t+1 - \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}} + \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}\cap V(C)}\\
&\geq n-t+1 - \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}} + \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(v,C)}}-a-5\\
&= n-t-a-4\text.
\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, $c(X) \subseteq c(C)$ and $c(v,Y\setminus \{v\})\subseteq c(C)$. Then $c(X)$ and $c(v,Y\setminus \{v\})$ have to intersect, because $$\begin{aligned}
\abs{c(X)} + \abs{c(v,Y\setminus \{v\})} &= \abs{X} + \abs{Y} - 1\\
&\geq 3n-3t - 3a -17 \\
&> t-1\\
&= \abs{c(C)}\text.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, there exists an edge $e\in X$ with $c(e) = c(v,u)$ for some $u\in V(C)^c$. By definition, $e$ is incident to some vertex $x\in V(C)$ with $c(x,v){\not\in}c(C)$. Then the rainbow path $(C-e)\cup (x,v,u)$ is a rainbow path of length $t$, but this contradicts the definition of $t$.
This suggests that one could choose $P$ in such a way that $\abs{A(P)\cap B(P)}$ is small. Indeed, we can do this, as we will show next.
\[cons:a-b\] Suppose that there are no nice maximum rainbow paths. Then there is a maximum rainbow path $P$ such that $\abs{A(P)\cap B(P)}\leq \epsilon n$.
Let $k = \ceil{1+2/\epsilon}$ and let $P$ be an arbitrary maximum rainbow path. Now we define a sequence of maximum rainbow paths $(P_0,\dotsc,P_k)$ as follows:
- $P_0 = P$.
- $P_l$ is defined in terms of $P_{l-1}=(p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$. Because $P_{l-1}$ is a maximum rainbow path, we have $\abs{A(P_{l-1})} \geq n-t > k$. Then choose a vertex $p_i \in A(P_{l-1})$ that is *not* the starting vertex of any of the paths $P_0,\dotsc,P_{l-1}$, and let $P_l = \rho_i \cdot P_{l-1}$. Then, because $p_i\in A(P_{l-1})$, the path $P_l$ is a maximum rainbow path starting in $p_i$ and ending in $p_t$.
By this construction, all paths $P_i$ end in the same vertex $p_t$, but no two different paths start in the same vertex. We now show that at least one of the paths $P_l$ must satisfy $\abs{A(P_l)\cap B(P_l)}\leq \epsilon n$. By way of contradiction, assume that for every $l\in \{0,\dotsc,k\}$, we have $$\abs{A(P_l)\cap B(P_l)} > \epsilon n\text.$$ For every path $P_l = (p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$, we define two sets $X_l$ and $Y_l$.
Let $X_l$ be the smallest set that, for every vertex $p_i\in {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_t,P_l)}$, contains the triples $(p_i,p_{i+1},p_{i+2})$ and $(p_i,p_{i-1},p_{i-2})$, if those vertices are defined. Observe that $\abs{X_l\setminus X_{l-1}} \leq 4$, because the path $P_l$ is built from $P_{l-1}$ by a single rotation. Then, since $\abs{X_0} \leq 2t$, we get $$\abs{X_0\cup \dotsb\cup X_k} \leq 2t + 4k\text.$$ Now let $Y_l$ be the smallest set that, for every vertex $p_i \in A(P_l)\cap B(P_l)$, contains the triple $(p_{i-1},p_i,p_{i+1})$. If $p_i\in B(P_l)$, then $p_{i-1}\in {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_t,P_l)}$, so we have $Y_l\subseteq X_l$.
Assuming that $n$ is large enough, we get $$\frac{\abs{X_0\cup \dotsb\cup X_k}}{\abs{Y_l}} < \frac{2t+4k}{\epsilon n} < 1+2/\epsilon\leq k\text.$$ Thus $k\abs{Y_l}> \abs{X_0\cup \dotsb \cup X_k}$. Since $Y_l\subseteq \abs{X_0\cup \dotsb \cup X_k}$, and because there are $k$ sets $Y_l$ altogether, this means that there are two sets $Y_i$ and $Y_j$ that intersect, say in the triple $(u,v,w)$. But if we write $P_i = (p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$ and $P_j=(p_1',\dotsc,p_{t-1}',p_t)$, then either $c(p_1,w)\neq c(u,p_t)$ or $c(p_1',w)\neq c(u,p_t)$, contradicting the result above stating that for any maximum rainbow path $P=(p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$, every vertex $p_i\in A(P)\cap B(P)$ satisfies $c(p_1,p_{i+1}) = c(p_{i-1},p_t)$.
Now we are ready to prove the following.
There exists at least one nice maximum rainbow path.
We may assume that there are no nice maximum rainbow paths.
Then, by Proposition \[cons:a-b\], there is a maximum rainbow path $P$ with $\abs{A(P)\cap B(P)}\leq \epsilon n$. Writing $A$ and $B$ for $A(P)$ and $B(P)$ respectively, this means that $$\abs{A \cup B} = \abs{A} + \abs{B} - \abs{A\cap B} \geq 2n-2t - \epsilon n\text.$$ Observe that every vertex in $A\cup B$ can have at most one new neighbor in $V(P)^c$, as otherwise we would get a rainbow path of length $t$.
Now suppose that $r$ is a vertex in $V(P)^c$ such that $$\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(r,P)}\cap V(P)} \geq {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(r,P)}-a\geq n-t-a\text.$$ For brevity, let us write $X = {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(r,P)}\cap V(P)$. Then, using $\abs{A \cup B \cup X}\leq t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\abs{(A \cup B) \cap X}& = \abs{A\cup B} + \abs{X} - \abs{A \cup B \cup X}\\
& \geq 2n-2t-\epsilon n + n - t-a - t\\
& = 3n - 4t -a- \epsilon n\\
& \geq \epsilon n\text.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, at least $\epsilon n$ new neighbors of $r$ are in $A\cup B$. Hence, by the observation above, there may be at most $$\frac{\abs{A\cup B}}{\epsilon n} \leq \frac{2n-2t-\epsilon n}{\epsilon n} < \frac{1}{\epsilon}$$ vertices $r\in V(P)^c$ with $\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(r,P)} \cap V(P)} \geq \abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(r,P)}}- a$. In other words, more than $n-t-1/\epsilon$ vertices in $V(P)^c$ satisfy $$\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(r,P)}\cap V(P)}> a\text,$$ so $P$ is nice, contradicting our assumption.
### Establishing a contradiction
In the following, let $P = (p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$ be a nice maximum rainbow path, that is, such that $$\abs{R(P)} > n-t-1/\epsilon\text.$$ We will now try to reach a contradiction by constructing a rainbow path $Q$ violating Lemma \[lemma:no-paths\]. We will start by proving the following useful proposition.
\[prop:counting\] Let $A$ be any subset of $V(P)$. Then for any $k \in {\mathbold{N}}$, there are at most $1+t/k$ vertices in $A$ that do not have a $k$-successor in $A$ (on $P$).
Let $X\subseteq A$ be the set of vertices in $A$ that do not have a $k$-successor in $A$. Clearly, there can be only one vertex in $A$ that does not have a $t$-successor in $A$. So for all but at most one vertex in $X$, there are $k$ vertices following that vertex that are not in $A$. If we also count the vertices in $X$ themselves, then in total we count at least $k(\abs{X}-1)+\abs{X}$ vertices. Altogether, there are only $t$ vertices in $P$. Therefore $$k(\abs{X}-1)+\abs{X} \leq t$$ and hence $$\abs{X} \leq \frac{t+k}{k+1} \leq \frac{t}{k}+1\text.$$ This completes the proof.
\[prop:a-b-bound\] We have $\abs{A(P) \cap B(P)} \leq \epsilon n$.
Suppose that $$\abs{A(P) \cap B(P)} > \epsilon n\text.$$ Let $k=\ceil{t/(\epsilon n-1)}$. If $p_i \in A(P) \cap B(P)$, then by definition $p_{i-1} \in {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_t,P)}$. By Proposition \[prop:counting\], at most $1+t/k$ vertices in ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_t,P)}$ have no $k$-predecessor in ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_t,P)}$ on $P$. Therefore, there are more than $$\epsilon n - 1-t/k \geq 0$$ vertices $p_i\in A(P)\cap B(P)$ such that $p_{i-1}$ does have a $k$-predecessor $p_j$ in ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_t,P)}$. Take any such vertex; at least one of the edges $\{p_t,p_{i-1}\}$ and $\{p_t,p_{j}\}$ is colored differently from $\{p_1,p_{i+1}\}$. As shown in figure \[fig:cycle-ab\], there is a rainbow cycle $C$ using this edge, of length at least $$t-k-1 \geq t-\ceil{t/(\epsilon n-1)}-1\geq t- a/3\text.$$ Now we distinguish two cases.
(-5.2,-2)(5.2,2) (-5,0)[.08]{}[x1]{} (-2,0)[.08]{}[xa]{} (-1,0)[.08]{}[xpi]{} (0,0)[.08]{}[xi]{} (1,0)[.08]{}[xsi]{} (5,0)[.08]{}[xt]{}
(-3.75,0)[a]{} (-3.25,0)[b]{}
(2.75,0)[a1]{} (3.25,0)[b1]{}
1. There is a vertex $r\in R(P)$ such that for some $v \in V(C)$, we have $c(r,v){\not\in}c(C)$. Let $e\in E(C)$ be adjacent to $v$. Then it is easily verified that the path $C-e$ violates Lemma \[lemma:no-paths\].
2. No vertex $r\in R(P)$ has a neighbor $v\in V(C)$ such that $c(r,v) {\not\in}c(C)$. Let $r$ be any vertex in $R(P)$. Since there are at most $\abs{c(C)}$ vertices $u$ such that $c(r,u) \in c(C)$, and because by assumption all of them are in $V(C)$, we have $c(r,p_i){\not\in}c(C)$. Then let $e\in E(C)$ be adjacent to $p_{i+1}$; in this case the path $(C-e)\cup (p_{i+1},p_i)$ violates Lemma \[lemma:no-paths\].
Both cases result in a contradiction.
There are at least $\epsilon n$ vertices $p_i \in A(P)$ such that $c(p_i,p_{i+1}) \in c(p_1,R(P))$.
Let $$X = \{ p_i \in V(P) : c(p_{i},p_{i+1}) \in c(p_1,R(P)) \} \text.$$ First we show that $X\cap B(P) = \emptyset$. This is the case, because if $p_i \in X\cap B(P)$, then $c(p_i,p_{i+1}) = c(p_1,r)$ for some $r\in R(P)$, so $P' = (r,p_1,\dotsc,p_{i-1},p_t,p_{t-1},\dotsc,p_{i+1})$ is a rainbow path on $t$ vertices. But since $r\in R(P)$, at least one vertex of ${\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(r,P')}$ is not in $V(P')$, so $P'$ cannot be maximum.
Hence $X\cap B(P) = \emptyset$. Then we can partition $X$ as follows: $$X = \big(X \cap (A(P)\cup B(P))^c\big) \cup \big(X\cap A(P)\big)\text.$$ By Proposition \[prop:a-b-bound\], we have $\abs{A(P)\cap B(P)}\leq \epsilon n$. So we get $$\begin{aligned}
\abs{X \cap (A(P)\cup B(P))^c} &\leq \abs{V(P)} - \abs{A(P)\cup B(P)}\\
&= \abs{V(P)} - \abs{A(P)} -\abs{B(P)} + \abs{A(P)\cap B(P)}\\
&\leq t - n+t - n+t + \epsilon n\\
& = 3t-2n +\epsilon n\text,
\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\abs{X\cap A(P)} = \abs{X} - \abs{X \cap (A(P)\cup B(P))^c}
> 3n - 4t - 1/\epsilon - \epsilon n > \epsilon n\text,$$ using $\abs{X} = \abs{R(P)}>n-t-1/\epsilon$.
By Proposition \[prop:counting\], at most $1+\epsilon t$ vertices in $A(P)$ do not have a $\ceil{1/\epsilon}$-successor in $A(P)$. Thus at least $2\epsilon n -\epsilon t-1 > 0$ vertices $p_i\in A(P)$ satisfy the following properties:
1. $c(p_i,p_{i+1}) \in c(p_1,R(P))$ and
2. $p_i$ has a $\ceil{1/\epsilon}$-successor $p_j\in A(P)$.
Take any such vertices $p_i$ and $p_j$.
\[prop:inter\] We have $$\abs{{\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_i,P)}\cap {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_j,P)} \cap V(P)} > \epsilon n\text.$$
Because $p_i,p_j\in A(P)$, the paths $P_i = \rho_i \cdot P$ and $P_j = \rho_j \cdot P$ are maximum rainbow paths.
Both paths $P_i$ and $P_j$ end in the same vertex $p_t$. It will be useful to consider $P_i$ and $P_j$ as directed paths, so let $E_i$ and $E_j$ be the edge sets of $P_i$ and $P_j$, but with the edges directed towards $p_t$. Because $p_j$ is a $\ceil{1/\epsilon}$-successor of $p_i$, we have $$\abs{E_i\cup E_j} \leq t-1+\ceil{1/\epsilon} \quad \text{and}\quad \abs{E_i\cap E_j} \geq t-1-\ceil{1/\epsilon}\text.$$
Since $P_i$ and $P_j$ are maximum rainbow paths, the colors in $c(p_t,V(P)^c)$ must appear on edges of $P_i$ and $P_j$. Let $Z$ be the set of edges in $E_i\cap E_j$ that are colored with colors in $c(p_t,V(P)^c)$. We have $$\abs{Z} \geq \abs{c(p_t,V(P)^c)} - \ceil{1/\epsilon} = n-t-\ceil{1/\epsilon}\text.$$ If we write $P_i = (x_1,\dotsc,x_t)$ and $P_j = (y_1,\dotsc,y_t)$, then we can define $$X = \{(x_i,x_{i+1}) : x_{i}\in A(P_i) \} \quad \text{and}\quad Y = \{(y_i,y_{i+1}) : y_{i}\in A(P_j) \}\text.$$ Note that it is sufficient to show that $\abs{X\cap Y}> \epsilon n+2$. By maximality of $P_i$ and $P_j$, $$Z \cap X = Z \cap Y = \emptyset\text.$$
Therefore, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\abs{Z \cup X \cup Y}
& = \abs{Z} + \abs{X \cup Y}\\
& = \abs{Z} + \abs{X} + \abs{Y}
- \abs{X \cap Y}\\
& \geq 3n - 3t - \ceil{1/\epsilon}- \abs{X\cap Y}\text.
\end{aligned}$$
But $Z \cup X\cup Y\subseteq E_i\cup E_j$, so we have $$\abs{Z \cup X \cup Y} \leq \abs{E_i\cup E_j} \leq t+\ceil{1/\epsilon}\text,$$ and therefore $$\abs{X\cap Y} \geq 3n-4t-2\ceil{1/\epsilon}
>\epsilon n+2 \text,$$ which is what we needed to prove.
In the following, let us write $$X = {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_i,P)}\cap {\Gamma_{\mathrm{new}}(p_j,P)}\cap V(P)\text.$$ We have just shown that $\abs{X}\geq \epsilon n$. Because there are less than $1/\epsilon$ vertices of $P$ between $p_i$ and $p_j$, we can say that if $n$ is large enough, then either there are at least $\epsilon n /3$ vertices of $X$ preceding $p_i$ on $P$ (Case 1), or there are $\epsilon n /3$ vertices of $X$ succeeding $p_j$ (Case 2). Now we distinguish between the Cases 1 and 2.
1. In this case, there are at least $\epsilon n/3$ vertices of $X$ preceding $p_i$. Using Proposition \[prop:counting\], there are at most $1+\epsilon t/10<\epsilon n/10$ vertices in $X$ that do not have a $\ceil{10/\epsilon}$-successor in $X$.
Therefore, at least $$\frac{\epsilon n}{3}-\frac{\epsilon n}{10} = \frac{7\epsilon n}{30}$$ of the vertices of $X$ preceding $p_i$ have a $\ceil{10/\epsilon}$-successor in $X$ Note that there is a bijection between the vertices and their successors – to every vertex in $X$ corresponds his closest successor in $X$. So by the same argument, of those successors, at least $$\frac{7\epsilon n}{30} - \frac{\epsilon n}{10} = \frac{4\epsilon n}{30}$$ have themselves a $\ceil{10/\epsilon}$-successor in $X$.
Hence there is a vertex $u \in X$ preceding $p_i$ on $P$ that has two $\ceil{20/\epsilon}$-successors in $X$ which also precede $p_i$. In particular, $u$ has a $\ceil{20/\epsilon}$-successor $v$ that precedes $p_i$ and that satisfies $c(p_i,u)\neq c(p_j,v)$.
Then the path shown in figure \[fig:case1\] is a rainbow path starting in $p_1$ and ending in $p_t$, visiting at least $t-\ceil{1/\epsilon}-\ceil{20/\epsilon}$ vertices, that uses only two colors not in $c(P)$.
2. As in the previous case, there is a vertex $v \in X$ succeeding $p_j$ on $P$ that has a $\ceil{20/\epsilon}$-successor $v$ which satisfies $c(p_i,u)\neq c(p_j,v)$. The path shown in figure \[fig:case2\] is a rainbow path starting in $p_1$ and ending in $p_t$, visiting at least $t-\ceil{1/\epsilon}-\ceil{20/\epsilon}$ vertices, that uses only two colors not in $c(P)$.
(-5.2,-2)(5.2,2) (-5,0)[.08]{}[p1]{} (-2.5,0)[.08]{}[u]{} (-1.5,0)[.08]{}[v]{} (1.5,0)[.08]{}[pi]{} (2.5,0)[.08]{}[pj]{} (5,0)[.08]{}[pt]{}
(-4,0)[a]{} (-3.5,0)[b]{}
(3.5,0)[a1]{} (4,0)[b1]{}
(-5.2,-2)(5.2,2) (-5,0)[.08]{}[p1]{} (-2.5,0)[.08]{}[u]{} (-1.5,0)[.08]{}[v]{} (1.5,0)[.08]{}[pi]{} (2.5,0)[.08]{}[pj]{} (5,0)[.08]{}[pt]{}
(-4,0)[a]{} (-3.5,0)[b]{}
(3.5,0)[a1]{} (4,0)[b1]{}
Notice that by this construction, the path that we get is always such that some color in $c(p_1,R(P))$ is not used, namely, $c(p_i,p_{i+1})$. But since $t-\ceil{1/\epsilon}-\ceil{20/\epsilon} > t-a/3$, in both cases the resulting path violates Lemma \[lemma:no-paths\]. This is the desired contradiction.
Conclusion
----------
We have proved that for every $\epsilon > 0$, every proper edge coloring of the graph $K_n$ contains a rainbow path on $$t > \left(\frac{3}{4}-\epsilon\right)n$$ vertices, assuming that $n$ is larger than some value $n_0$ depending on $\epsilon$. This is a significant improvement over Theorem \[thm:gm2010\].
In [@Akbari2007], the authors proved that every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ contains Hamiltonian cycles on at least $(2/3-o(1))n$ different colors. Clearly, the extension of a rainbow path of length $t$ to a Hamiltonian cycle in $K_n$ gives a Hamiltonian cycle using at least $t$ colors. So as a bonus we get the following corollary to Theorem \[thm:awesome\].
In every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there are Hamiltonian cycles using at least $(3/4-o(1))n$ different colors.
Paths with Repeated Colors
==========================
Introduction
------------
In this chapter, we take a look at a natural generalization of rainbow paths. Given a proper edge coloring of $K_n$, a rainbow path uses no color more than once; now we allow for *$k$-rainbow paths*, using every color at most a fixed number $k$ of times. Note that $1$-rainbow paths are just rainbow paths, so we have the following theorem.
\[thm:1-rainbow\] In every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there is a $1$-rainbow path on at least $(2n+1)/3$ vertices.
Mostly, we are interested in an asymptotic statement: how does the length of a maximum $k$-rainbow path increase with $k$? The following is a simple bound, although for simplicity we only prove it for powers of two.
\[prop:naive\] Let $n = 2^m$, for some $m \in {\mathbold{N}}$. In every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ and for any $k\geq 1$, there is a $k$-rainbow path of length $(1-1/2^k)n - O(k)$.
We actually prove a stronger statement: that for every vertex $v$ of $K_n$, there is a $k$-rainbow path starting in $v$ of length $(1-1/2^k)n - O(k)$. The proof goes by induction on the number of vertices. In the base case of $K_1$, there are no paths of nonzero length, so the claim is trivially satisfied.
Now assume that the claim is true for some value $n$ and consider the graph $K_{2n}$. Let $v$ and $k$ be given. Starting in $v$, there is a rainbow path $P=(v,p_2,\dotsc,p_n)$ on $n$ vertices in $K_{2n}$. This was noted after the proof of Proposition \[prop:n/2-bound\] in the previous chapter. Then we can invoke the induction hypothesis to get a $(k-1)$-rainbow path starting in $p_n$ and avoiding the vertices of $P$, of length $(1-1/2^{k-1})n-O(k-1)$. Appending the two paths together, we get a $k$-rainbow path of length $$n-1 + \left(1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}\right)n - O(k-1) = \left(1-\frac{1}{2^k}\right)
2n - O(k)\text,$$ concluding the proof.
This proof, while simple, already contains an important idea: that we can use $(k-1)$-rainbow paths to build $k$-rainbow paths. The rest of this chapter is about improving on this result, but first we define some notation.
Consider the complete graph $K_n = (V,E)$ and a proper edge coloring $c$ of $K_n$. If $P$ is a $k$-rainbow path with respect to $c$, then let $C_0(P) = c(P)^c$ and for $i\in [k]$, let $C_i(P)$ be the set of colors used exactly $i$ times on edges of $P$. Clearly, $c(E) = \bigcup_{i=0}^k C_i(P)$.
Furthermore, for a $k$-rainbow path $P=(p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$, we define $$C_A(P) = \{c(p_{i},p_{i+1}) : c(p_1,p_{i+1}) {\not\in}C_k(P)\}\text.$$
Now we define what we mean by a maximal $k$-rainbow path. A $k$-rainbow path $P=(p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$ is *maximal* if it satisfies both $$\begin{gathered}
c(p_1, V(P)^c) \subseteq C_k(P)\text.\label{eq:maximality}\\
\shortintertext{and}
c(p_t,V(P)^c) \subseteq C_k(P) \setminus C_A(P)
\label{eq:maximality-rot}\end{gathered}$$ We shall see that every maximum length $k$-rainbow path is also maximal in this sense.
Two lemmas on maximal $k$-rainbow paths
---------------------------------------
If $P$ is a $(k-1)$-rainbow path, then there is a maximal $k$-rainbow path $P'$ with $\abs{C_{k}(P')} \leq \abs{V(P')}-\abs{V(P)}$.
Let $P$ be any $(k-1)$-rainbow path. Then $P$ is also a (non-maximal) $k$-rainbow path with $C_{k}(P) = 0$. We will show that for any non-maximal $k$-rainbow path $P$, there is a $k$-rainbow path $P'$ with $\abs{V(P')}=\abs{V(P)}+1$ and $\abs{C_k(P')}\leq \abs{C_k(P)} +1$. Since we cannot add vertices indefinitely, we will eventually get a maximal $k$-rainbow path with the required properties.
So if $P= (p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$ is a non-maximal $k$-rainbow path, then one of the following is the case.
1. If $c(p_1, V(P)^c) \not\subseteq C_{k}(P)$, then there is an edge $\{p_1,r\}\in E(p_1,V(P)^c)$ colored with a color $c{\not\in}C_{k}(P)$. Hence the path $P \cup \{p_1,r\}$ is a $k$-rainbow path and $C_{k}(P\cup\{p_1,r\}) = C_{k}(P)+1$.
2. If $c(p_t, V(P)^c) \not\subseteq C_{k}(P)$, then we can proceed just as in the first case, after reversing the order of the vertices on $P$.
3. If $c(p_t, V(P)^c) \subseteq C_{k}(P)$ but $c(p_t, V(P)^c) \not\subseteq C_{k}(P)\setminus C_A(P)$, then there are vertices $p_i\in V(P)$ and $r\in V(P)^c$ such that $c(p_i,p_{i+1})=c(p_t,r)\in C_k(P)$ and, furthermore, $c(p_1,p_{i+1}){\not\in}C_{k}(P)$.
Recall that $\rho_i \cdot P$ is the path $(p_i,p_{i-1},\dotsc,p_1,p_{i+1},\dotsc,p_t)$. Then $\rho_i \cdot P$ is a $k$-rainbow path with $\abs{C_k(\rho_i\cdot P)}\leq \abs{C_k(P)}$ and $\abs{V(\rho_i\cdot P)} = \abs{V(P)}$. Moreover, $\rho_i\cdot P$ ends in $p_t$ and we have $c(p_t,r)\in C_{k-1}(\rho_i\cdot P)$. This means that $c(p_t, V(\rho_i\cdot P)^c) \not\subseteq C_{k}(\rho_i\cdot P)$, and so can we proceed as in the second case.
This completes the proof of the lemma. Note that in addition, we have proved that every maximum length $k$-rainbow path is maximal.
\[lemma:ck\] If $P$ is a maximal $k$-rainbow path, then $$\abs{C_k(P)} \geq (k+1)n - (k+1)\abs{V(P)}\text.$$
Let $P=(p_1,\dotsc,p_t)$ be a maximal $k$-rainbow path. If $C\subseteq C(E)$ is a set of colors, then we write $${\mathcal{E}[C]} = \{ e\in E(P) : c(e)\in C \} = c^{-1}(C)\cap E(P)$$ for the set of edges of $P$ colored with a color in $C$.
First, we would like to find a lower bound for $\abs{C_A(P) \cap C_k(P)}$. Since every color appears at most $k$ times on $P$, we have $$k\abs{C_A(P)\cap C_k(P)} \geq \abs{{\mathcal{E}[C_A(P)\cap C_k(P)]}}\text.$$ By maximality condition , every vertex $v$ with $c(p_1,v) {\not\in}C_k(P)$ is in $V(P)$, so we have $$\abs{{\mathcal{E}[C_A(P)]}}\geq \abs{C_A(P)} \geq n-1-\abs{C_k(P)}\text.$$ Moreover, $$\abs{{\mathcal{E}[C_k(P)^c]}} = \abs{E(P)}-\abs{{\mathcal{E}[C_k(P)]}} = t-1-k\abs{C_k(P)}\text.$$ Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
k\abs{C_A(P)\cap C_k(P)} &\geq \abs{{\mathcal{E}[C_A(P)\cap C_k(P)]}}\\
& = \abs{{\mathcal{E}[C_A(P)]}\setminus {\mathcal{E}[C_k(P)^c]}}\\
&\geq \abs{{\mathcal{E}[C_A(P)]}} - \abs{{\mathcal{E}[C_k(P)^c]}}\\
&\geq n-1-\abs{C_k(P)} - (t-1-k\abs{C_k(P)})\\
&= n-t +(k-1)\abs{C_k(P)}\text.
\end{aligned}$$
By maximality condition , $$\begin{aligned}
k\abs{c(p_t,V(P)^c)} &\leq k\abs{C_k \setminus C_A(P)} \\
&= k\abs{C_k(P)} - k\abs{C_A(P) \cap C_k(P)} \\
&\leq k\abs{C_k(P)} - n + t - (k-1)\abs{C_k(P)}\\
&= \abs{C_k(P)} - n + t
\end{aligned}$$
With $\abs{c(p_t,V(P)^c)} = n-t$, we get $$\abs{C_k(P)} \geq (k+1)n - (k+1)t\text,$$ as claimed.
A theorem on the length of $k$-rainbow paths
--------------------------------------------
\[thm:k-bound\] In every proper coloring of $K_n$ and for any $k\geq 1$, there is a $k$-rainbow path on at least $$\left(1-\frac{2}{(k+2)!}\right)n$$ vertices.
The proof goes by induction on $k$.
The induction basis is provided for by Theorem \[thm:1-rainbow\], since $$\frac{2n+1}{3} \geq \left(1-\frac{2}{3!}\right)n\text.$$
In the induction step, assume that there is a $(k-1)$-rainbow path using $$t_{k-1} > \left(1-\frac{2}{(k+1)!}\right)n$$ vertices. Then, by Lemma 1, there is a maximal $k$-rainbow path $P$ with $\abs{C_k(P)}\leq \abs{V(P)}-t_{k-1}$. Using Lemma 2, we get $$\abs{C_k(P)} \geq (k+1)n - (k+1)\abs{V(P)}\text,$$ so if we write $t_k$ for $\abs{V(P)}$, then $$t_k-t_{k-1} \geq (k+1)n - (k+1)t_k\text,$$ or $$(k+2)t_k \geq t_{k-1} + (k+1)n\text.$$
Using the induction hypothesis, we get $$\begin{aligned}
t_k& \geq \frac{t_{k-1} + (k+1)n}{k+2}\\
&> \frac{\left(1-\frac{2}{(k+1)!}\right)n}{k+2} + \frac{(k+1)n}{k+2}\\
&= \frac{n}{k+2} + \frac{(k+1)n}{k+2} - \frac{2n}{(k+2)!}\\
&= \frac{(k+2)n}{k+2} - \frac{2n}{(k+2)!}\\
&= \left(1 - \frac{2}{(k+2)!}\right)n\text,
\end{aligned}$$ so $P$ is a $k$-rainbow path of sufficient length.
Conclusion
----------
From the statement of Theorem \[thm:k-bound\], it is easily seen that for fixed $n$, the number of vertices not included in a maximum $k$-rainbow path is in the order of $1/k!$. This is clearly an improvement over Proposition \[prop:naive\], which only shows that the number of vertices not included in a maximum $k$-rainbow path is in the order of $1/2^k$. The growth provided by Theorem \[thm:k-bound\] is asymptotically faster.
In the proof, we essentially used a generalized version of the argument made by Gyárfás and Mhalla in [@GyarfasMhalla2010], a discussion of which can be found in the previous chapter. In this light, it might be interesting to generalize the techniques used in the proof of the bound of $(3/4-o(1))n$ for the length of maximum rainbow paths in $K_n$, and to apply them to $k$-rainbow paths.
Conclusion
==========
In the preceding chapters, we have derived two novel results on the existence of certain paths in proper edge colorings of the complete graph $K_n$.
Most importantly, we have shown that in every proper edge coloring of $K_n$ there is a rainbow path of length at least $$\left(\frac{3}{4}-o(1)\right)n\text.$$ This result improves on the previously best known bound of $2n/3$ proved by Gyárfás and Mhalla in [@GyarfasMhalla2010]. As a corollary, there are Hamiltonian cycles using at least $(3/4-o(1))n$ colors; here we improve on a result by Akbari, Etesami, Mahini and Mahmoody [@Akbari2007].
Moreover, we have proved that in every proper edge coloring of $K_n$, there is a $k$-rainbow path on at least $$\left(1-\frac{2}{(k+2)!}\right)n$$ vertices, for any $k>0$. Thus, for fixed $n$, the number of vertices not included in a maximum $k$-rainbow path decreases with $k$ faster than any exponential function, and hence asymptotically faster than what we got using a naive approach.
We believe that the techniques used in the proof of the first result, which relied heavily on pigeonhole-style arguments, do not immediately lend themselves to proving stronger bounds. Moreover, the proof itself does not seem to reveal deep insights into the structure of rainbow paths, leading us to believe that different methods will have to be used to prove the existence of rainbow paths of length $n-o(n)$.
However, it seems likely that applying the same methods, suitably generalized, to the problem of $k$-rainbow paths in $K_n$ might prove to be fruitful. Indeed, we would expect the resulting bound to be asymptotically stronger (in $k$, for fixed $n$) than our bound, whose proof relied on comparatively simple techniques.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present evidence that the insulator to metal transition in near $x\sim0.2$ is driven by the suppression of coherent Jahn-Teller distortions, originating from $d$ type orbital ordering. The orbital ordered state is characterised by large long-range $Q2$ distortions below . Above we find evidence for coexistence between an orbital-ordered and -disordered state. This behaviour is discussed in terms of electronic phases of an orbital ordered insulating and orbital-disordered metallic states.'
author:
- 'Bas B.'
- Auke Meetsma
- 'Y. Tomioka'
- 'Y. Tokura'
- 'Thomas T. M. Palstra'
title: 'Orbital order induced metal-insulator transition in '
---
2g[$t_{2g}$]{} 9[La$_{0.81}$Ca$_{0.19}$MnO$_3$]{} +[$^{2+}$]{} +[$^{3+}$]{} +[$^{4+}$]{}
LaMnO$_3$ in the ground state is an antiferromagnetic insulator with a checkerboard pattern of orbitals [@Jon50; @Hua98; @Goo55; @Ele71; @Kug73; @Cus01]. The basic exchange interactions in the manganite perovskites allow three phases: a ferromagnetic metal, a charge/orbital ordered antiferromagnetic insulator and a paramagnetic polaronic liquid. Although superexchange allows ferromagnetic interactions, the observed orbital ordering in LaMnO$_3$ renders an overall antiferromagnetic state. When 20% to 50% holes are introduced, a ferromagnetic metallic ground state with degenerate orbitals is obtained. However, , with $0.10<x<0.20$, has a ferromagnetic insulating ground state. This unexpected coexistence of ferromagnetic and insulating behaviour seems to contradict the conventional double and superexchange models. The LaMnO$_3$-CaMnO$_3$ phase diagram by Cheong and co-workers [@Che00], sketched partially in Fig. \[fig:phasediagram\], shows the doping induced ferromagnetic insulator (FI) to ferromagnetic metal (FM) transition at a critical concentration of $x_c\sim0.21$. While this transition is intriguing by itself, the situation becomes more complex by the orbital order (O’) to “not orbital ordered” (O\*) transition, deduced from anomalies in the resistivity. The origin of the coexistence of ferromagnetism with insulating behaviour is not clear, but might stem from a delicate balance of charge localisation by orbital ordering (OO), due to the Jahn-Teller (JT) effect, and ferromagnetic interactions between Mn+-Mn+. Neither the exact concentration dependence of this transition nor the interaction of this orbital order transition with the magnetic ordering and the temperature- or doping-induced metal-insulator transition is known. The O’-O\* transition is typically associated with a step in the resistance or a re-entrant insulating behaviour.
![Phase diagram of near the FMI-FMM transition, modified from Cheong [@Che00]. The critical concentration, $x_{\textrm{c}}$, indicates the metal-insulator transition at $T=0$. The phase separated region is indicated by P.S..[]{data-label="fig:phasediagram"}](fig1.eps){width="86mm"}
The phase diagram of Sr doped manganites has been explored in great detail [@Uru95]. Here the situation is more complicated than for Ca doping, because the number of phases is larger due to the rhombohedral structure at $x>0.18$ and the pronounced charge ordering (CO) at $x\sim\frac{1}{8}$ [@Yam96]. Several authors reported a JT related structural phase transition above the magnetic ordering temperature, $T>T_c$ at $x\sim0.12$. Below $T_c$, a transition to CO or OO is observed, where the co-operative JT distortion is significantly reduced [@Arg96; @End99]. As the transition temperatures are extremely concentration dependent, a comparison between the various reports is not straightforward. It is claimed that the intermediate phase is both ferromagnetic and metallic and exhibits static co-operative JT distortions [@Kaw96b; @End99]. Some reports clearly distinguish these two properties and combine short range order of JT distortions with metallic behaviour [@Dab99]. However, a general relation between the JT ordered phase and the nature of the conductivity has not been established. Also, a coincidence of the CO transition and the re-entrant insulator-metal transition is claimed. The common metal-insulator transition is indisputably associated with the ferromagnetic ordering at $T_c$ [@Uru95; @End99; @Kaw96b; @Dab99].
The Ca doped phase diagram is somewhat less complex, as there is no orthorhombic-rhombohedral structural transition. Furthermore, the phase transitions take place at higher concentrations. As a result we can probe the ferromagnetic insulating phase at concentrations far away from $x=\frac{1}{8}$ to evade charge ordering. In this Letter, we explore the region where the OO phase line crosses the magnetic ordering phase line. We will show that the transition to the ferromagnetic metallic phase is controlled by the suppression of JT ordering. Our measurements show that the $Q2$ distortion is constant below . However it decreases smoothly above , both in the paramagnetic and in the ferromagnetic phase. We will show that the decrease is associated with phase separation in an O’ phase and an orbital disordered (O\*) phase.
The experiments were carried out on single crystals of , $x=0.16$, $x=0.19$ and $x=0.25$, obtained by the floating zone method. The sample with $x=0.19$ originated from the MISIS institute, Moscow, the other two samples are grown at JRCAT, Japan. Although all crystals were twinned [@Van01c], small mosaicity and sharp diffraction spots were observed. Resistance curves for the samples were measured using a four-point set-up. Sharp metal-insulator transitions, indicative of the good quality of the crystals are observed for 9 and as shown in Fig. \[fig:R(T)\]. A thin piece was cut from the crystals to be used for single crystal diffractometry. Initial measurements were carried out on an Enraf-Nonius CAD4 single crystal 4-circle diffractometer to determine the twin relations and the twin fraction volume [@Van01c]. Temperature dependent measurements between 90 K and 300 K were performed on a Bruker APEX diffractometer with an adjustable temperature set-up.
The temperature dependence of the resistivity is shown for the three samples in Fig. \[fig:R(T)\]. All three samples show a local maximum at $T_c$. For and 9, we observe at significantly lower temperatures, $T\approx145$ K and $T\approx160$ K respectively, that the resistivity shows a subtle and wide transition to activated behaviour. For a step in the resistance is observed at $T\approx275$ K.
The temperature dependence of the crystal structure of , $x=0.16$, $x=0.19$ and $x=0.25$, has been determined by single crystal diffraction. In analogy to conventional ferromagnetic metallic systems, with $x\sim0.3$ [@Boo98], we expect to observe a narrowing of the distribution of Mn$-$O bond lengths below $T_c$ as a result of the itinerancy in the ferromagnetic, metallic regime. As soon as the JT orbital ordering sets in there will be an abrupt disproportionation of the Mn$-$O bond lengths, as observed for La$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$MnO$_3$ with $0.11<x<0.165$ [@Dab99]. The changes in the structure due to orbital ordering are described using the $Q2$ distortion [@Cus01].
The lattice parameters are not a very accurate probe to measure the bond disproportionation, because they are the sum of long and short bonds. However, we have shown elsewhere [@Van01c] that the O2 position[@Q2] in $Pnma$ space group symmetry accurately reflects both the JT distortion and the rotation of the octahedra. Because the $Q2$ distortion [@Q2] and the GdFeO$_3$ rotation [@Gla72] involve orthogonal displacements of O2, they can be accurately obtained from the fractional atomic co-ordinates of O2, as shown in Fig. \[fig:plane\]. The final refinement, including the twin relations, yielded $RF=0.068$ and $wR2=0.26$, and is published in detail elsewhere [@VanAken].
![Sketch of the GdFeO$_3$ rotation (open arrow) and the JT distortion (closed arrow) in the $ac$ plane, obeying $Pnma$ symmetry. Mn and O are represented by large and small circles, respectively. $Pnma$ symmetry results in a checkerboard arrangement of $Q2$ JT-distorted octahedra.[]{data-label="fig:plane"}](jt-rot.eps)
Fig. \[fig:shift JT 3x vs t\] shows the parameter for the co-operative $Q2$ distortion against temperature as determined by single crystal XRD. Below , $Q2$ is constant for the samples with $x=0.16$ and $x=0.19$. For the $x=0.25$ sample $Q2$ is constant at all temperatures. Because the O2 position is not constrained in $Pnma$, we consider $Q2\sim0.002$ signalling the absence of long range JT distortions. This value is also observed for non-Jahn-Teller active systems such as AFeO$_3$, *e.g.* $Q2=0.0036$ for LuFeO$_3$ [@Mar70]. We also observe in Fig. \[fig:shift JT 3x vs t\] that above $Q2$ gradually decreases for $x=0.16$ and $x=0.19$. Extrapolating the data yields that near $T\sim300$ K all evidence for long range JT distortions is absent.
Comparing the temperature dependence of the resistance with that of $Q2$, we note that the kink in $Q2$ is accompanied with the upturn and step in the resistance, commonly associated with . This is direct evidence that the “plateau” state in $Q2$ is the signature for the O’ phase. These coherent distortions, associated with orbital ordering, are therefore sufficient to localise the charge carriers. Thus, orbital ordering and metallicity are mutual exclusive in the system. This confronts the model proposed by Killian and Khaliullin [@Kil99].
This model calculates the effect of orbital ordering on the kinetic energy of the valence electrons in terms of coherent and incoherent charge transport. An incoherent process consists of an electron that is excited to an orbital that violates the long range order. If the energy to occupy a symmetry breaking orbital is too high, the incoherent process is considered absent. The absence of incoherent processes will result in a large reduction of the holon band width, which can cause the metal-insulator transition. They argue that the reduction of the holon band width is too small to have a significant effect on the kinetic energy of the charge carriers. Thus, in their model, the orbital disorder-order crossover cannot be responsible for the metal-insulator transition.
However, this model neglects the influence of coherent JT lattice distortions. An incoherent process not only involves the orbital excitation energy associated with the energy difference of the two orbitals, but also compromises the $Pnma$ symmetry that incorporates the coherent $Q2$ distortions. Therefore, incoherent processes do not only involve crystal field energies, but require adjustment of the local oxygen co-ordination such that the orbitals and lattice distortions are aligned. Our main finding is that orbital ordering has a large effect on electronic conduction and moreover that metallicity only results in if the orbital degeneracy is maintained.
When holes are introduced on JT distorted Mn+ sites, the resulting Mn+ ions still experience a JT distorted oxygen co-ordination. The reason is that the perovskite lattice consists of corner sharing oxygen octahedra. Therefore, the oxygen position is determined by two Mn ions. Thus a Mn+ ion co-ordinated by Mn+ containing octahedra will still have a distortion, albeit with a smaller amplitude. This is in contrast to single ions models [@Kil99], that neglect the co-operative effect of the ordered $Q2$ distortions.
Nevertheless, introduction of holes in orbital ordered LaMnO$_3$ will decrease the magnitude of the $Q2$ distortion. Our experimental values at 100 K are shown in Fig. \[fig:q2 vs x\]. Clearly $Q2$ decreases gradually with Ca doping and no JT distortion can be observed for $x>0.21$. The $Q2$ parameter for the undoped system LaMnO$_3$ is about four times larger than in undoped 2g systems such as YVO$_3$ [@Bla01] and YTiO$_3$ [@Mac79]. Furthermore, is reduced with increased doping level. The reduction in $Q2$ and with increased doping level is consistent with resistivity and Seebeck measurements, which showed that the activation energies for charge transport decreased with doping [@Pal97]. We speculate that the disappearance of long-range orbital order is partially induced by frustrating the $d$ type orbital ordering by introducing holes with doping. Undoped LaMnO$_3$ has antiferromagnetic interactions along the $b$ axis, which is consistent with mirror symmetry perpendicular to the $b$ axis and the ferrodistortive orientation of the orbitals along the $b$ axis. Introduction of holes will result in ferromagnetic interactions along $b$, resulting eventually for $x>0.10$ in a ferromagnetic ground state. However, a larger carrier concentration is required to suppress the orbital order and obtain degeneracy of the orbitals and thus a metallic state.
![ and $Q2$ against Ca concentration. The $Q2$ value for LaMnO$_3$ ($x=0$) has been taken at 300 K [@Rod98], is taken from Ref.[@Mur98b]. The dashed lines are a guide to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:q2 vs x"}](fig5.eps){width="76mm"}
Whereas conventionally is considered to be a doped antiferromagnet in which double exchange plays a dominant role, we emphasise the dominating role of introducing holes in the orbital ordered state.
We note that the temperature dependence of the $Q2$ distortion is remarkably different from that observed in 2g based JT ordered systems. For these materials the JT distortion exhibits a BCS-like type temperature dependence, with the vanishing of the coherent distortion above . Here, we observe a rapid decrease of the coherent distortion above [@Bla01]. We interpret this temperature dependence originating from a coexistence of an orbital ordered and orbital disordered state. We note that the measurements of integrated intensities cannot give more detail of the nature of these states. This coexistence was also observed in neutron powder diffraction experiments on La$_{0.86}$Ca$_{0.16}$MnO$_3$ at room temperature [@Dab99b]. Such structural phase separation is evidence for electronic phase separation as we associate the orbital ordered state with localised charge carriers and the orbital degenerate state with, if $T<T_c$, the metallic state.
In the phase diagram of La$_{1-x}$Sr$_{x}$MnO$_3$, the CO phase borders the FMM phase, as observed by superlattice reflections in single crystal neutron experiments [@Yam96]. In contrast, for the CO phase is suppressed by the orbital ordered FMI phase. We have not observed any superlattice reflections. A possible charge ordering phase either exists at lower temperatures, $T<90$ K, or at a hole concentration closer to $x=1/8$. We note that the concept of orbital polarons might lead to low temperature charge and orbital ordering [@Kil99; @Miz01]. However this feature is incompatible with $Pnma$ symmetry, and thus can be ruled out.
We have demonstrated that the ferromagnetic metallic phase is obtained by the suppression of the long range Jahn-Teller ordering. This contrasts the common opinion that metallicity occurs if the charge carrier density exceeds a critical concentration. The O’ phase mixes with the O\* phase above . Above a second phase line, the transition to the O\* phase is complete. The metallic state of is bounded by ferromagnetic ordering and the absence of orbital ordering.
Stimulating discussions with Daniel Khomskii, Lou-Fé Feiner, George Sawatzky, Graeme Blake, Martine Hennion, Paolo Radaelli, Neil Mathur and Takashi Mizokawa are gratefully acknowledged. This work is supported by the Netherlands Foundation for the Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM) and by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) of Japan.
[27]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , (), .
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , (), .
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, Ph.D. thesis, (), .
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We show that the ARPES spectra for emission from the bonding as well as the antibonding Fermi surface sheet in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_8$ (Bi2212) possess remarkable site selectivity properties in that the emission for photon energies less than 25 eV is dominated by $p
\rightarrow d$ excitations from just the O-sites in the CuO$_2$ planes. There is little contribution from Cu electrons to the ARPES intensity, even though the initial states at the Fermi energy contain an admixture of Cu-$d$ and O-$p$ electrons. We analyze the origin of this effect by considering the nature of the associated dipole matrix element in detail and find that various possible transition channels (other than $p \rightarrow d$ on O-sites) are effectively blocked by either the fact that the related radial cross section is small and/or a lack of available final states. Our prediction that ARPES can preferentially sample Cu or O states by tuning the photon energy suggests novel possibilities for exploiting energy dependent ARPES spectra for probing initial state characters in the cuprates.
author:
- 'S. Sahrakorpi$^{1}$, M. Lindroos$^{1,2}$ and A. Bansil$^1$'
title: ' Remarkable site selectivity properties of the ARPES matrix element in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_8$'
---
Introduction
============
The photointensity observed in an angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) experiment is the result of modulation of the spectral density of the initial state via the ARPES matrix element. This modulation can be quite substantial in the cuprates and depends in general strongly on ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$, polarization and energy of the incident photons as well as the energy and character of the initial state. Chuang et al.[@chuang03], for example, have recently exploited the large theoretically predicted differences in the ARPES cross sections of bonding and antibonding pieces of the Fermi surface (FS) by tuning the photon energy to adduce the doping dependence of the bilayer splitting in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_8$ (Bi2212). Asensio et al.[@asensio03] find that apparently different looking Fermi surface maps obtained in Bi2212 over wide area in the $({\mathbf k}_x,{\mathbf k}_y)$ plane at different photon energies largely reflect the effect of the ARPES matrix element. In other applications, such as a recent proposal[@vekhter02] to determine the spectral function of the boson mediating the Cooper pairs in the cuprates, it will be necessary to develop strategies for minimizing the effect of the ARPES matrix element in order to obtain robust physical results through ARPES spectra. It is clear that a good understanding of the nature of the ARPES matrix element is of considerable importance in continued development of ARPES as a probe of electronic structure of complex materials.
With this motivation, we examine in this article the nature of emissions from the bonding as well as the antibonding parts of the FS of Bi2212. In considering contributions to photointensity arising from different angular momentum channels and various atomic sites in the unit cell, we find that the ARPES matrix element possesses remarkable site selectivity properties in that the ARPES intensity throughout the $({\mathbf k}_x,{\mathbf k}_y)$ plane in the 5-25 eV energy range is dominated by only the O $p \rightarrow d$ transitions. The contribution from Cu sites is quite small, even though the electronic states at the Fermi energy in Bi2212 contain substantial Cu character. In order to ascertain the origin of this effect, the dipole transition matrix element between the relevant initial and final states is analyzed in detail and the factors responsible for this behavior are identified.[^1] Our prediction that ARPES can preferentially sample Cu or O states suggests novel possibilities for exploiting energy dependent ARPES spectra to gain insight into character of initial states in complex materials.
The paper is ordered as follows. In Section II we briefly discuss the underlying formalism. Section III presents and analyzes the nature of the ARPES spectra. In Subsection IIIA, a typical ARPES spectrum for emission from the Fermi energy in Bi2212 is considered to orient the reader. Subsection IIIB continues with a discussion of site-resolved photointensities over the 5-25 eV photon energy range for ${\mathbf
k}_\parallel$ values covering the entire $({\mathbf k}_x,{\mathbf
k}_y)$ plane. The origin of the site-selectivity effect is then delineated in Subsection IIIC. Finally, Section IV makes some concluding remarks, including possible application of site-selectivity property in gaining insight into interesting issues such as the Zhang-Rice mechanism[@zhang88; @harada02] in the cuprates and the doping dependence of the Hubbard $U$ parameter via energy dependent ARPES measurements[@kusko02].
Overview of Formalism
=====================
The methodology used in this study has been discussed previously in Ref. , to which we refer the reader for details; See also Refs. . Some comment in this connection is nevertheless necessary in order to meaningfully describe the new results presented here. In particular, Ref. shows that substantial insight into the nature of the ARPES photointensity[^2] resulting from excitation between specific bulk initial and final states in the solid, $\tilde{\psi}_i$ and $\tilde{\psi}_f$, can be obtained in terms of the behavior of the corresponding momentum matrix element, . We then expand the $\tilde{\psi}$ within the KKR band structure scheme[@mijnarends90; @bansil99_2] as $$\tilde{\psi}({\mathbf r}) =
\sum_{L,\beta} \> i^l C_L^\beta R_l^\beta (r) Y_L(\Omega)
\label{y8} \>,$$ where $L \equiv (l,m)$ is a composite angular momentum index, $Y_L(\Omega)$ are real spherical harmonics and $\beta$ denotes different basis sites. $C_L^\beta$ are expansion coefficients and $R_l^\beta (r)$ is the radial part of the Bloch wave function on site $\beta$. The use of form (\[y8\]) for the initial and final states yields[@chen76; @sahrakorpi01; @lindroos02; @sahrakorpi02] $$<\tilde{\psi}_f|{\bf p}|\tilde{\psi}_i> =
\sum_{\alpha ,\beta} \sum_{L,L'}
{\mathbf {\hat{e}}}_\alpha i^{l-l'-1} {C_{L'}^\beta}^* C_L^\beta
B_{l,l'}^\beta {\cal G}_{L,L'}^\alpha
\label{y9} \>.$$ Here ${\mathbf {\hat{e}}}_\alpha$ denotes a unit vector along $\alpha$-direction and primed indices refer to the final state. ${\cal G}_{L,L'}^\alpha$ are the standard Gaunt coefficients. The detailed expression for $B_{l,l'}^\beta$ is given in Ref. . For present purposes, the important point to recognize is that $$B_{l,l'}^{\beta} \propto \int_0^{r_{MT}^\beta}
~{R_{l'}^{\beta}(r)}^* ~r~ R_l^{\beta}(r) ~r^2~ dr
\label{y10} \>,$$ where the integral extends to the muffin-tin radius $r_{MT}^\beta$ of the atom $\beta$ in the basis. It is useful to decompose the momentum matrix element into contributions from various angular momentum channels and sites in the unit cell as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
M_\alpha \> \equiv \>
< \> \tilde{\psi}_f \> | \> p_\alpha \> | \> \tilde{\psi}_i \> >
& = & \> \sum_{\gamma} \> M^\gamma_\alpha
\label{y12} \\
& = & \> \sum_{\gamma} \> \sum_{L,L'} M^{\gamma}_{\alpha, \> L,L'}
\label{y13} \>,\end{aligned}$$ with $$M^{\gamma}_{\alpha, \> L,L'} \> = \> \sum_{\delta} \>
i^{l-l'-1} \> ({C_{L'}^{\gamma,\delta}})^* \>
C_L^{\gamma,\delta} \> B_{l,l'}^{\gamma,\delta} \> {\cal G}_{L,L'}^\alpha
\label{y15} \>.$$ Aside from the obvious notation in Eqs. \[y12\]-\[y15\], indices $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are together meant to encompass the summation of Eq. \[y9\] over all basis sites $\beta$ in the unit cell. In the present case of tetragonal Bi2212, $\gamma$ takes on eight distinct values which include the Ca atom and seven pairs of symmetrically located atoms (Bi, O$_{Bi}$, Sr, O$_{Sr}$, Cu, O$_{Cu,x}$, O$_{Cu,y}$). $\delta$ in Eq. \[y15\], on the other hand, takes only two values, which account for the two atoms placed symmetrically with respect to the Ca layer in the unit cell. In this sense, we may think of $\gamma$ as a “site“ index and $\delta$ as a ”pairing" index. In this work we study particularly the matrix element $M^{\gamma}_{\alpha, \> L,L'}$, which includes the contribution of pairs of sites $\delta$ related by mirror symmetry. We will see that its dependence on different sites and excitation channels $L
\rightarrow L'$ is important for delineating the nature of photointensity in Bi2212.
Concerning relevant computational details, the crystal potential used is the same as that employed in our previous studies of Bi2212 on a body centered tetragonal lattice and involves 30 atoms per unit cell; See, e.g., Refs. and . For definiteness, incident light is assumed polarized along the \[110\]-direction. The damping of final states is included via an imaginary part of the final state self-energy, $\Sigma_f'' = 2$ eV. In order to understand the ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$ and energy dependencies of the dipole matrix element, calculations were carried out over the photon energy range of 5-25 eV for each of the 20 ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$-points considered in the $({\mathbf
k}_x,{\mathbf k}_y)$-plane. This set of ${\mathbf
k}_\parallel$-points covers both the bonding and the antibonding parts of the bilayer split Fermi surface of Bi2212.
Results
=======
ARPES spectrum of Bi2212
------------------------
For orientation, Fig. \[fig1\] shows a typical computed one-step ARPES spectrum for emission from the $E_F$ at 21 eV. The Umklapp and shadow features[@bansil02; @asensio03] are not included in this simulation for simplicity. The imprints of the bilayer-split bonding (B) and antibonding (A) parts of the FS are seen clearly and are in remarkable accord with recent ARPES experiments[@bogdanov01; @kordyuk02; @bansil02; @asensio03; @chuang03]. The bonding band gives rise to the $X \> (Y)$ centered hole sheet B. The antibonding band is responsible for the electron-like $\Gamma$-centered sheet A with a very narrow neck around the $M$-point[@lindroos02]. The associated intensity appears somewhat diffuse due in part to the presence of a van Hove singularity in the electronic spectrum close to $M$. Note that the polarization vector of the incident light (white arrow) breaks the symmetry between the irreducible regions $\Gamma-Y-M$ and $\Gamma-M-X$ of the Brillouin zone. For this reason, we have characterized the ${\mathbf k}$-points on the A and B FS’s in these two regions by the indicated angle $\beta$, where $\beta>0$ refers to the upper half and $\beta<0$ to the lower half on the right hand side of the figure. The intensity from either the A or the B sheet is zero along the nodal line $\Gamma-Y$ $(\beta=45^\circ)$, but this is not the case for the symmetrically placed nodal line $\Gamma-X$ for $\beta=-45^\circ$. This is due to the fact that even though the momentum matrix elements $M_x$ and $M_y$ are non-zero in general they add (for the present polarization) destructively along $\Gamma-Y$ but constructively along the $\Gamma-X$ line.
As already noted, insight into the ARPES intensity can be obtained by considering the momentum matrix element which connects the relevant initial and final states and the associated intensity $$\tilde{I} \> = \> { | \mathbf{A} \cdot < {\tilde{\psi}_f}|
\mathbf{p}|{\tilde{\psi}_i}> | }^2
\label{tildeI} \>.$$ Fig. \[fig2\] shows intensity computed by using Eq. \[tildeI\] for a series of ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$-points lying along the bonding and antibonding Fermi surface sheets characterized by the angle $\beta$ of Fig. \[fig1\]. It is clear that the dipole matrix element varies strongly with photon energy and ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$. The main features in the intensity from both the bonding and antibonding bands are the two peaks at $h\nu$ around 11 eV and 18 eV.
Contributions to photointensity from different sites
----------------------------------------------------
We next consider the extent to which Cu and O related initial state electrons are excited in the photoemission process. Fig. \[fig3\] gives site ($\gamma$) resolved contributions to the photointensities obtained by taking into account only the terms related to Cu or O$_{Cu}$-sites of the CuO$_2$ planes, i.e. for $\gamma\equiv$ Cu or $\gamma\equiv$ O$_{Cu,x}$+O$_{Cu,y}$ in Eq. \[y12\], where the corresponding contributions from the two CuO$_2$ planes are added together. Fig. \[fig3\](a) shows the Cu contribution from the bonding initial state as a function of ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$ and photon energy. The intensity is seen to be practically zero indicating that, for emission emerging from any part of the bonding FS, Cu sites essentially do not contribute to the photointensity. In sharp contrast, contribution from O$_{Cu}$-sites in Fig. \[fig3\](b) is substantial. In fact, the remaining sites in the crystal lattice (not shown) are found to give little contribution, which explains why the intensity pattern from O$_{Cu}$-sites in Fig. \[fig3\](b) is quite similar to the corresponding total intensity in Fig. \[fig2\](a). Much of the preceding commentary concerning the bonding FS is also seen to be valid for the antibonding FS by looking at Figs. \[fig3\](c), \[fig3\](d) and \[fig2\](b) and need not be repeated. The results of Fig. \[fig3\] thus substantially extend the observations made in Ref. at a single ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$-value (i.e. $M(\pi,0)$ point) to show that the ARPES matrix element is dominated by contribution from O$_{Cu}$-sites in the CuO$_2$ planes over the [*entire FS*]{} at photon energies below 25 eV. We have carried out limited computations at higher energies and find that around $h\nu = 40$ eV both Cu and O$_{Cu}$ contribute roughly equally to the photointensity.
Why copper electrons do not contribute?
---------------------------------------
Eqs. \[y9\] and \[y15\] make it clear that the value of the momentum matrix element depends on the magnitudes and phases of several component quantities, namely, the expansion coefficients $C_L^{\gamma,\delta}$ of the initial and final states, the Gaunt coefficients ${\cal G}_{L,L'}^\alpha$, and the radial integral terms $B_{l,l'}^{\gamma,\delta}$. Concerning the character of the [ *initial states*]{} of interest here, note that the antibonding as well as the bonding initial states in the vicinity of the FS in Bi2212 primarily consist of electrons in the CuO$_2$ bilayers, where the O$_{Cu,x}$, O$_{Cu,y}$ and Cu atomic sites contain approximately 80-90% of the weight in the associated Bloch wave function[@lindroos02]. The primary Cu orbital involved is $d_{x^2-y^2}$, while the most relevant O$_{Cu}$ orbitals are $p_x$ and $p_y$. The distribution of electrons between different sites and orbitals changes as a function of ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$, but in general the electrons at $E \approx E_F$ are strongly concentrated in the vicinity of the CuO$_2$ planes.
Since the initial states of interest are mainly Cu $d$ and O$_{Cu}$ $p$ type, from various possible $L\rightarrow L'$ transition channels in Eq. \[y15\], the dipole selection rule $\Delta l = \pm 1$ limits the $L'$ for the [*final states*]{} to the Cu $p$ and $f$ states and O$_{Cu}$ $s$ and $d$ states, respectively. A handle on the availability of appropriate final states (i.e. a substantial final state coefficient $C_{L'}^{\gamma,\delta}$) is provided by the partial densities of states (PDOS’s) of the final states resolved into different $l'$-channels and sites, shown in panels (a)-(d) of Fig. \[fig4\]. In the case of Cu, Figs. \[fig4\](a) and \[fig4\](b) show that PDOS is substantial only in the $p$ channel, the value in the $f$ channel being quite small, so that significant contribution to the matrix element is to be expected only from the $d \rightarrow p$ transitions. Similarly, Figs. \[fig4\](c) and \[fig4\](d) show that for the O$_{Cu}$-related final states, the $d$ PDOS is substantial so that the $p\rightarrow d$ transitions from O$_{Cu}$-sites will dominate. In short, the lack of Cu $f$-type and O$_{Cu}$ $s$-type final states in effect “blocks” the Cu $d \rightarrow f$ and O$_{Cu}$ $p \rightarrow
s$ channels in the allowed dipole transitions such that only Cu $d
\rightarrow p$ and O$_{Cu}$ $p \rightarrow d$ excitations remain to be of interest in further analysis.
We next consider the term of Eq. \[y15\] which is defined by the radial integral of Eq. \[y10\]. This term may be thought of as the radial cross section associated with site $(\gamma,\delta)$ for the transition from $l$ to $l'$ orbital. In Fig. \[fig4\](e) these radial integrals are presented for the relevant Cu and O$_{Cu}$ related transitions. All curves are seen to be smooth, slowly varying functions of energy, although absolute values vary greatly between different transitions. The Cu $d \rightarrow f$ and O$_{Cu}$ $p \rightarrow d$ excitation channels are the strongest, whereas the Cu $d \rightarrow p$ and O$_{Cu}$ $p \rightarrow s$ integrals are smaller and will attenuate the related excitations. In view of the discussion of the preceding paragraph, weakness of the Cu $d \rightarrow p$ radial cross section is particularly important, since the Cu $d \rightarrow p$ channel is the only Cu transition channel that could have contributed substantially to the photointensity. It follows then that the O$_{Cu}$ $p \rightarrow d$ is the main transition channel in the formation of the momentum matrix element for emission from the FS in Bi2212 at low photon energies.[^3]
Insight into the relative magnitudes of the O$_{Cu}$ and Cu related radial cross sections can be gained by considering the behavior of initial and final state radial wave functions as shown in panels (f) and (g) of Fig. \[fig4\]. In the case of O$_{Cu}$ $p \rightarrow d$ transition, initial and final states in Fig. \[fig4\](f) are both nodeless and thus the integral $B_{l,l'}^{\gamma,\delta}$ does not change sign. By contrast, the wave function for the Cu $p$ final state in Fig. \[fig4\](g) (dot-dashed) possesses two nodes so that when it is combined with the nodeless Cu $d$ initial state radial wave function the integral oscillates in sign yielding a small value of the radial cross section for this transition. This mechanism where the nodes in the final state wave function play an important role is reminiscent of the arguments made in connection with the origin of the Cooper minima[@cooper62; @yeh85; @molodtsov00] observed in photoionization cross sections of atomic systems at higher photon energies.[^4] Putting it all together, the discussion of this section shows that even though the initial states at the FS in Bi2212 possess considerable Cu $d$ character, these states contribute little to photointensity for $h\nu
\leq 25$ eV due to a combination of two effects: The $d$ to $f$ channel is suppressed due to the lack of available $f$-type final states, while the $d$ to $p$ channel possesses a weak radial cross section.[^5]
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
We consider the nature of ARPES spectra from Bi2212 for emission from the Fermi energy. Over the 5-25 eV photon energy range, the spectra are shown to display remarkable spatial selectivity properties in the sense that emissions are dominated by excitation from just the O-sites in the CuO$_2$ planes, even though the initial state wave functions involved possess substantial Cu character. This selectivity applies to the bonding as well as the antibonding FS sheet and holds throughout the $({\mathbf k}_x,{\mathbf k}_y)$ plane. Insight into the origin of this effect is obtained by considering the dipole matrix element for transitions between the relevant initial and final states and by decomposing this matrix element into contributions arising from individual sites in the unit cell in various angular momentum channels. Our analysis reveals that, of the two possible channels for exciting Cu $d$-electrons ($d \rightarrow f$ and $d \rightarrow p$), the $d \rightarrow f$ channel is suppressed by lack of available $f$-type final states, while the $d \rightarrow p$ channel is effectively blocked due to a small radial cross section (i.e. the term $B_{l,l'}^{\gamma,\delta}$ in Eq. \[y15\]). Similarly, of the two possible channels for O $p$-electrons ($p \rightarrow s$ and $p
\rightarrow d$), the $p \rightarrow s$ channel is suppressed since few $s$-type final states are available, leaving significant contribution to the spectrum from only the O $p \rightarrow d$ transitions. It turns out that the presence of nodes in the final state wave function tends to reduce the radial cross section, which is reminiscent of Cooper minimum type effect in photoionization cross section of atomic systems. Limited computations at higher photon energies show that the contribution from Cu sites increases at higher energies, and that by around 40 eV, the Cu and O states are excited roughly equally in the spectrum.
Our prediction that ARPES can preferentially sample Cu or O states by tuning the photon energy suggests novel possibilities for exploiting energy dependent ARPES spectra for probing initial state characters. An exciting example in the cuprates would be to test the Zhang-Rice mechanism[@zhang88; @harada02] and potentially to deduce experimentally the value of the Hubbard $U$ parameter as a function of doping. Zhang and Rice noted that large $U$ greatly restricts double occupancy of Cu orbitals, so that the first holes doped at near half filling – equivalently, the states at the top (high energy part) of the lower Hubbard band – should have strong O character. Thus, even though ARPES cannot see the upper Hubbard band (and hence cannot measure $U$ directly), it should be possible to adduce $U$ by measuring the relative Cu/O character of states along the lower Hubbard band, and comparing this to predictions of appropriate model computations. A direct determination of the doping dependence of $U$ would be an important confirmation of recent results and predictions[@kusko02].
It is a pleasure to acknowledge important discussions with Bob Markiewicz. This work is supported by the US Department of Energy contract DE-AC03-76SF00098, and benefited from the allocation of supercomputer time at NERSC, Northeastern University’s Advanced Scientific Computation Center (ASCC) and the Institute of Advanced Computing (IAC), Tampere. One of us (S.S.) acknowledges Suomen Akatemia and Vilho, Yrjö ja Kalle Väisälän Rahasto for financial support.
[99]{}
A. Bansil and M. Lindroos, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 5154 (1999).
M. Lindroos, S. Sahrakorpi and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 054514 (2002).
A. Bansil, M. Lindroos, S. Sahrakorpi, R. S. Markiewicz, G. D. Gu, J. Avila, L. Roca, A. Tejeda and M. C. Asensio, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 63, 2175 (2002).
M. C. Asensio, J. Avila, L. Roca, A. Tejeda, G.D. Gu, M. Lindroos, R. S. Markiewicz and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 014519 (2003).
Y.-D. Chuang, A. D. Gromko, A.V. Fedorov,Y. Aiura, K. Oka, Y. Ando, M. Lindroos, R. S. Markiewicz, A. Bansil and D. S. Dessau, Submitted to Phys. Rev. B (2003).
D. L. Feng, C. Kim, H. Eisaki, D. H. Lu, A. Damascelli, K. M. Shen, F. Ronning, N. P. Armitage, N. Kaneko, M. Greven, J.-i. Shimoyama, K. Kishio, R. Yoshizaki, G. D. Gu and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. B [ **65**]{}, 220501(R) (2002).
A. A. Kordyuk, S. V. Borisenko, T. K. Kim, K. A. Nenkov, M. Knupfer, J. Fink, M. S. Golden, H. Berger, and R. Follath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 077003 (2002).
A. Damascelli, Z.-X. Shen and Z. Hussain, cond-mat/0208504 (2002).
J. C. Campuzano, M. R. Norman and M. Randeria, cond-mat/0209476 (2002).
I. Vekhter and C. M. Varma, cond-mat/0210508 (2002).
F.C. Zhang and T.M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 3759 (1988).
Y. Harada, K. Okada, R. Eguchi, A. Kotani, H. Takagi, T. Takeuchi, and S. Shin, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 165104 (2002).
C. Kusko, R.S. Markiewicz, M. Lindroos, and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 140513(R) (2002).
K. Gofron, J. C. Campuzano, A. A. Abrikosov, M. Lindroos, A. Bansil, H. Ding, D. Koelling, and B. Dabrowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 3302 (1994).
M. Lindroos and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1182 (1995).
A. Bansil and M. Lindroos, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**56**]{}, 1855 (1995).
M. Lindroos and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2985 (1996).
S. Sahrakorpi, Ph.D. Thesis, Tampere University of Technology, Publications 354 (2001).
S. Sahrakorpi, M. Lindroos and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 235107 (2002).
P. E. Mijnarends and A. Bansil, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2, 911 (1990).
See, e.g., A. Bansil, S. Kaprzyk, P. E. Mijnarends and J. Tobola, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 13396 (1999), and references therein.
A. B. Chen, Phys. Rev. B [**14**]{}, 2384 (1976).
P. V. Bogdanov, A. Lanzara, X. J. Zhou, S. A. Kellar, D. L. Feng, E. D. Lu, H. Eisaki, J.-I. Shimoyama, K. Kishio, Z. Hussain and Z. X. Shen, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 180505(R) (2001).
J. W. Cooper, Phys. Rev. [**128**]{}, 681 (1962).
J. J. Yeh and I. Lindau, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**32**]{}, 1 (1985).
S. L. Molodtsov, S. V. Halilov, V. D. P. Servedio, W. Schneider, S. Danzenbächer, J. J. Hinarejos, M. Richter and C. Laubschat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4184 (2000).
[^1]: The site selectivity effect discussed in this article was noted in Ref. . However, Ref. considered only a single ${\mathbf k}_\parallel$-point, namely the $M (\pi,0)$ symmetry point and did not attempt to elucidate the origin of this effect in terms of radial cross sections, etc. as done in this study.
[^2]: This bulk momentum matrix element of course does not take into account effects of surface termination, the finite lifetimes of the initial and final states, etc.
[^3]: P. Marksteiner et al., Phys. Rev. B [ **38**]{}, 5098 (1988), considered angle-integrated photointensities and found that the spectra are weighted in favor of Cu excitations at higher photon energies.
[^4]: According to J. J. Yeh and I. Lindau, Ref. , the atomic photoionization cross section is approximately one third smaller for the Cu $3d$ than for the O $2p$ atomic levels at photon energies around 30 eV.
[^5]: The destructive interference discussed in Ref. between Cu terms of different CuO$_2$-planes decreases the Cu-related intensity further. This destructive interference seems to be more prevalent for the Cu terms than for the O$_{Cu}$-terms.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We analyze the formation and evolution of stellar bars in galactic disks embedded in [*mildly*]{} triaxial cold dark matter (CDM) halos that have density distributions ranging from large flat cores to cuspy profiles. We have applied tailored numerical simulations of analytical and live halos which include the feedback from disk/bar system onto the halo in order to test and extend earlier work by El-Zant & Shlosman (2002). The latter employed the method of Liapunov exponents to analyze the fate of bars in analytical asymmetric halos. We find the following: (1) The bar growth is very similar in all [*rigid*]{} axisymmetric and triaxial halos. (2) Bars in live models experience vertical buckling instability and the formation of a pseudo-bulge with a boxy/peanut shape, while bars in rigid halos do not buckle. (3) In [*live*]{} axisymmetric halos, the bar strength varies by a factor of $\ltorder 2$, in growth or decay, during the secular evolution following the buckling. The bar pattern speed evolution (i.e., deceleration) anticorrelates with the halo core size. In such halos, the bar strength is larger for smaller disk-to-halo mass ratios D/H within disk radii, the bar size correlates with the halo core sizes, and the bar pattern speeds correlate with the halo central mass concentration. In contrast, bars embedded in [*live*]{} triaxial halos have a starkly different fate: they dissolve on a timescale of $\sim 1.5-5$ Gyr due to the onset of chaos over continuous zones, sometimes leaving behind a weak oval distortion. The onset of chaos is related to the halo triaxiality, the fast rotating bar and the halo cuspiness. Before the bar dissolves, the region outside it develops strong spiral structures, especially in the live triaxial halos. (4) More angular momentum is absorbed (fractionally) by the triaxial halos as compared to the axisymmetric models. The disk–halo angular momentum exchange is mediated by the lower resonances in the latter models. (5) Cuspy halos are more susceptible than flat-core halos to having their prolateness washed out by the action of the bar. The subsequent evolution is then similar to the case of a cuspy axisymmetric halos. We analyze the above results on disk and bar evolution in terms of the stability of trajectories and development of chaos in the system. We set important constraints on the triaxiality of DM halos by comparing our predictions to recent observational results on the properties of bars out to intermediate redshifts $z\sim 1$.'
author:
- Ingo Berentzen and Isaac Shlosman
- Shardha Jogee
title: 'Stellar Bar Evolution in Cuspy and Flat-Cored Triaxial CDM Halos'
---
Introduction
============
Stellar bars are recognized as the single most important [*internal*]{} factor which drives the evolution of disk galaxies both dynamically and secularly, modifying their morphology in this process. Modern understanding of the bar growth is based on the efficiency of angular momentum exchange between the (bar-forming) inner disk and the surrounding dark matter halo, outer disk, bulge, and, to a certain degree, with the immediate galactic environment (Athanassoula 2003). A number of yet to be identified and investigated intricacies can affect the efficiency of this process.
In this work we attempt to analyze the formation and evolution of stellar bars embedded in fully grown disks in the presence of [*triaxial*]{}[^1] halos with various radial density profiles, from cuspy to flat-core models. We study both analytical (i.e., rigid) and live triaxial halos and compare our results with the evolution of the bars in axisymmetric ones. Corollaries for disk evolution, such as the back-reaction of disks and bars on the halo shapes, are investigated as well. This effect has broad implications for the cosmological evolution of galaxies. Additional evolutionary effects on the 3-D structure of stellar bars embedded in such halos will be addressed elsewhere.
The evolution of bars is expected to be substantially altered if the surrounding halos are even mildly non-axisymmetric (El-Zant & Shlosman 2002, hereafter ES02). However, this effect in a live disk-halo system was not verified so far. Competing gravitational torques from a bar and a halo acting on the main families of planar and 3-D periodic orbits can destabilize them and dramatically reduce their ability to trap neighboring trajectories, thus inducing chaos and dissolving otherwise stable structural features in disk galaxies. The full extent of these non-linear effects is not yet clear, but one can expect them to speed up secular changes in the collisionless components and to facilitate the angular momentum loss in the gaseous one. Although triaxial shapes of dark matter halos appear inherent in the cosmological numerical simulations (e.g., Barnes & Efstathiou 1987; Frenk et al. 1988; Dubinski & Carlberg 1991; Warren et al. 1992; Cole & Lacey 1996), relatively little attention has been paid so far to this issue when building self-consistent galactic models.
Observational constraints on the [*shapes*]{} of galactic halos coming from gas kinematics in disk galaxies (e.g., Sparke 1986; Sackett 1999; Andersen et al. 2001; Merrifield 2002; Dekel & Shlosman 1983) and their polar rings (Sackett et al. 1994; Sackett & Pogge 1995), gravitational lensing (Kochanek 1995; Oguri et al. 2003; Hoekstra, Yee & Gladders 2004) and X-ray gas in ellipticals (Buote & Canizares 1994, 1996; Buote et al. 2002) remain inconclusive.
Nevertheless, some clues exist. Residual [*potential*]{} axial ratios (both flatness and prolateness[^2]) of about $0.9$ in Cold Dark Matter (hereafter CDM) halos are plausible, even in [*present*]{} day galaxies (e.g., Kuijken & Tremaine 1994 \[for the Milky Way\]; Rix & Zaritsky 1995; Helmi 2004). Another evidence for triaxiality of the DM halo is provided by the X-ray isophote position angle twist observed by [*Chandra*]{} in NGC 720 (but not in stellar isophotes!) (Buote et al. 2002). A nearly prolate DM halo, with $T\sim 0.985$ (and $b/a\sim 0.791,$ $c/a\sim 0.787$) has been inferred for the elliptical galaxy NGC 5128 from a kinematic study of planetary nebula system (Peng et al. 2004). We conjecture, therefore, that while some individual halo shapes are compatible with being mildly prolate even at the present time, the statistical significance of this effect is not clear, and it is not clear whether disk galaxies differ in this respect from ellipticals. Overall, the prolateness of [*contemporary*]{} halos appears to be insignificant.
The main motivation behind this work is that theoretically a galactic halo is expected to acquire its triaxial shape during its initial collapse and to support this shape during the ongoing process of a hierarchical merging. The degree of triaxiality[^3] will depend on the merging history, specifically on the relative angular momenta of the merger precursors and interaction frequency — which is difficult to quantify.
Numerical simulations indicate that at very high redshifts, at the epoch of galaxy formation, the halos can be significantly triaxial. Detailed properties of individual numerical halos, such as triaxial shapes and radial density structure, can be extracted from the models and directly confronted by their observational counterparts. Flatness and prolateness in the models appear to increase with the halo mass, being somewhat milder in the $\Lambda$CDM than CDM cosmology (e.g., for a recent review Bullock 2002). This triaxiality seems to be marginally higher in the outer halo parts, independently of the halo mass and of the ratio of rotational-to-dispersion velocity, indicating that the halos are supported by anisotropic velocity dispersions.
The high halo triaxiality that may be present at the epoch of early galaxy formation can be substantially diluted by the present-day. For instance, the addition of spherical and/or axisymmetric baryonic components to the system (e.g., during the formation and development of a galactic disk) can wash out the halo triaxiality, still keeping it non-negligible (Dubinski 1994; Kazantzidis et al. 2004).
From an observational standpoint it appears that [*profiles*]{} of the DM halos in fully formed galaxies tend to have nearly constant density cores (Flores & Primack 1994; Moore 1994; Burkert 1995; Kravtsov et al. 1998; Borriello & Salucci 2001; de Blok & Bosma 2002; Gentile et al. 2004; etc.). A sim ilar effect has been recently observed in galactic clusters (Sand et al. 2002). At the same time, dissipationless CDM simulations of galactic halos agree with a universal density profile $\propto r^{-\alpha}$, where $\alpha = 1 - 1.5$ (e.g., Dubinski & Carlberg 1991; Warren et al. 1992; Crone et al. 1994; Cole & Lacey 1996; Tormen et al. 1997; Huss et al. 1999; Fukushige & Makino 1997; Moore et al. 1999; Klypin et al. 2000; Jing & Suto 2002; Power et al. 2003). (Note, Jing & Suto (2000) claim that the profiles are not universal.) Navarro, Frenk & White (1996, hereafter NFW) have found a fitting formula for the density profile of DM halos, for a wide range of cosmological models, in which the inner profile diverges as $r^{-1}$, while the outer profile drops as $r^{-3}$. It has been also demonstrated theoretically that a cuspy density profile arises inherently from the cold gravitational collapse in an expanding universe (Lokas & Hoffman 2000). The CDM model, therefore, predicts that the inner density profile of galactic scale DM halos is characterized by a density cusp while observations of the dynamics of the central regions of galaxies imply a core-halo structure of the DM. Another disagreement with observations is the so-called angular momentum catastrophe — the $N$-body and gas dynamical simulations consistently result in too small galactic disks due to the overall lack of angular momentum necessary to reproduce the observed disk sizes (e.g., Burkert & D’Onglia 2004).
This controversy between observations of DM cores and density cusps in numerical models is not a fundamental one and can be resolved within the general context of CDM cosmology. Within the conventional physics framework, interactions with the dissipative and clumpy baryonic component, such as dynamical friction, during the initial stages of collapse can level off the central density cusps (which have been shown to be thermodynamically improbable) and produce harmonic cores in DM halos (El-Zant, Shlosman & Hoffman 2001). Even though this may affect the isodensity contours, making them rounder, it need not symmetrize the isopotentials; these can remain asymmetric if triaxiality is not affected beyond some radius (for example, a uniform bar has a non-axisymmetric force contribution inside its density figure). More generally, this process was shown to replace the DM cusps with baryonic cusps (El-Zant et al. 2004). Furthermore, asymmetric and flat core halos can have interesting implications for the disk growth and correlate the properties of the central supermassive black holes with those of galactic bulges and halos themselves (El-Zant et al. 2003). Alternatively, the central density cusps have been proposed to dissolve by the action of galactic bars (Weinberg & Katz 2002; but see McMillan & Dehnen 2005).
A number of approaches can be taken in order to construct triaxial halos and elliptical galaxies (e.g., Aarseth & Binney 1974; Merritt & Valluri 1996; Holley-Bockelmann et al. 2001; Moore et al. 2004) and to study the bar dynamics within triaxial halos. Ideta & Hozumi (2000) have used analytical density distributions for two highly prolate halos with (equatorial) axial ratios of 0.6 and 0.75 and a very steep density distribution outside the core. Here we choose to construct stable triaxial models with a subsequent introduction of axisymmetric collisionless disks which are then released and their time evolution is observed. In our initial conditions we tend to follow ES02, who studied systematically the stability of stellar bars in [*analytical*]{} halos of different triaxiality and central concentration by means of Liapunov exponents. While in ES02 approach the feedback from disk/bar system onto the halo is naturally ignored, our models presented here fully account for it.
In ES02, mildly triaxial shapes have been used, with the gravitational potential axial ratios in the equatorial plane, $b/a$, between 0.9 and 1.0, and $c/a=0.8$, where $c$ is the halo polar axis. A clear trend has been found, in the sense of models becoming intrinsically chaotic with growing triaxiality and central concentration. For small halo (flat) core sizes, $\sim 0.5 - 2$ kpc, and potential axis ratios of $0.9-0.95$ most of the trajectories integrated appeared chaotic and had large Liapunov exponents. Importantly, trapping by neighboring stability islands is insignificant, because the distribution of values of Lyapunov exponents is very similar to the distribution of occupied configuration space volume. This means that stellar bars under these conditions would disintegrate on timescales of a few dynamical times, much shorter than the Hubble time, as chaotic trajectories quickly diffuse out of the bar’s configuration space. Even spherically-symmetrical models, with a small core size, showed a healthy fraction of chaotic trajectories, though connected regions of regular orbits aligned with the bar remained in this case and a self-consistent bar could be maintained.
What are the reasons for a dramatic increase in the fraction of chaotic orbits in the barred disks with the increase in central concentration (i.e., cuspiness) and triaxiality in the halo models of ES02? First, in terms of invariants of motion, a stable 3-D figure must be built from trajectories which at least approximately conserve them. The chaos appears when the number of invariants of motion becomes smaller that the dimensionality of the system. While in the flat core systems, the potential can be approximated as quadratic (i.e., harmonic) and motions along the coordinates are independent of each other, in cuspy potentials these motions are coupled, which leads to the overall decrease in the number of invariants of motion and typically to a chaotic behavior. In other words, cuspy density distribution cause solutions for the Poisson equation to be far from quadratic, i.e., when the potential is expanded in power series, it will have a non-negligible contribution from terms beyond the quadratic one. These terms produce the coupling between different degrees of freedom in equations of motion which become highly non-linear. Such systems are prime candidates to excite chaotic motions when perturbed.
The second reason is related to the time-dependent character of the azimuthal force field comprised from the fast rotating[^4] bar and a non- or slowly tumbling halo. In other words, the origin of chaos in this case lies in the comparable (in value) and competing forces from the bar and the asymmetric halo. (Note, that in a halo potential only, most of the orbits are regular, even in the triaxial case.)
This onset of chaos in the presence of a bar within even a mildly triaxial halo hints that such configurations are structurally unstable on dynamical timescales. Since numerical cosmological halos are both triaxial and centrally-concentrated, serious questions arise about the survival of large-scale stellar bars or of the halos’s triaxiality under these conditions. This issue defines the general thrust of our work.
This paper is structured as follows. In the next section we provide the initial conditions for numerical modeling. Sections 3 and 4 describe our results for analytical and live models, and section 5 is devoted to discussion and concluding remarks.
Numerical Modeling
==================
We have introduced the following dimensionless model units. The spatial distance unit is taken as $r\!=\!10$kpc, the mass unit is $M\!=\!10^{11}~{\rm M_\odot}$ and the gravitational constant is chosen to be ${\rm G}\!=\!1$, which result in a time unit of $\tau\!=(r^3/{\rm G}\,M)^{1/2}=4.7\times 10^7$yrs, corresponding to the dynamical timescale, $\tau_{\rm dyn}$. In these units, the velocity is given in $208~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$. The actual physical units are used when it is needed for clarity.
We have used version FTM-4.4 of $N$-body code (e.g., Heller & Shlosman 1994; Heller 1995) with $N\!=\!6-9\times 10^5$ particles and gravitational softening of 100 pc to simulate the collisionless disk and spheroidal galactic components (i.e., bulges and DM halos) in a large number of models. Our results appear to be reasonably independent of $N$. The gravitational forces have been computed using Dehnen’s (2002) [falcON]{} force solver, a tree code with mutual cell-cell interactions and complexity [*O(N)*]{}. It conserves momentum exactly and is about 10 times faster than optimally coded Barnes & Hut (1986) tree code.
To analyze the angular momentum redistribution in the models, we have applied the spectral analysis method described in Binney & Spergel (1982), in conjunction with our nonlinear orbit finding algorithm (e.g., Heller & Shlosman 1996). Athanassoula (2002) has shown that the angular momentum exchange between the disk and the halo is mediated by the lower resonances, with the disk losing and the halo gaining the angular momentum. Overall, the resonances provide an independent test of the quality of the numerical scheme. When the $N$-body potential is too ‘grainy’, the particles cannot be locked by the resonances and so the latter efficiency in redistributing the angular momentum is sharply reduced.
Initial conditions
------------------
[lcccclccl]{} [**RS1**]{} & 10.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & Rigid spherically-symmetric halo\
[**RS2**]{} & 2.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & Rigid spherically-symmetric halo\
[**RS3**]{} & 0.5 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & Rigid spherically-symmetric halo\
[**RS4**]{} & 2.0 & 0.721 & 1.0 & 1.0 & Rigid spherically-symmetric halo\
[**RS5**]{} & 0.5 & 0.708 & 1.0 & 1.0 & Rigid spherically-symmetric halo\
[**LS1**]{} & 10.1 & 1.13 & 1.0 & 0.99 & Live axisymmetric halo\
[**LS2**]{} & 1.8 & 1.18 & 1.0 & 0.98 & Live axisymmetric halo\
[**LS3**]{} & 0.3 & 1.20 & 1.0 & 0.98 & Live axisymmetric halo\
[**RT1**]{} & 10.0 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 0.9 & Rigid triaxial halo\
[**RT2**]{} & 2.0 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 0.9 & Rigid triaxial halo\
[**RT3**]{} & 0.5 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 0.9 & Rigid triaxial halo\
[**RT4**]{} & 2.0 & 0.719 & 0.9 & 0.9 & Rigid triaxial halo\
[**RT5**]{} & 0.5 & 0.708 & 0.9 & 0.9 & Rigid triaxial halo\
[**LT1**]{} & 10.5 & 1.14 & 0.79 & 0.72 & Live triaxial halo\
[**LT2**]{} & 2.4 & 1.19 & 0.84 & 0.77 & Live triaxial halo\
[**LT3**]{} & 0.5 & 1.19 & 0.88 & 0.79 & Live triaxial halo\
[**LT3HM**]{} & 0.7 & 1.10 & 0.84 & 0.77 & as LT3, but with half-mass disk\
[**LT3MT**]{} & 0.5 & 0.4 & 0.9 & 0.8 & as LT3, but maintaining triaxiality \[table:models\]
The main challenge in running evolutionary models of galactic disks embedded in triaxial halos is to form the initially stable halo configurations in the first place. A limited number of options known to us was not considered to be satisfactory, as they did not allow for a sufficient control of initial triaxiality and mass distribution in the halos. Instead we have designed the following procedure to obtain the required halo properties, which is described below.
First, we have used the known density-potential pairs of required symmetry to lay out particles up to some given radial cut-off radius. The velocity distribution function has been taken $\propto E^{-\alpha}$, where $E$ is the energy and $\alpha = 2.5-3.5$, i.e., below the $3.5$ value for the Plummer sphere. Next, the halo has been evolved for about $50\,\tau_{\rm dyn}$ to allow for any residual relaxation to cease. This has resulted in a stable spherically-symmetric configuration. For the axisymmetric halos, a [*frozen*]{} stellar disk has been gradually introduced thereafter and the halo was been given time to relax again in this growing disk potential. The disk potential slightly changes the initial halo core size and therefore we apply an adiabatic cooling procedure to the halo particles within the core region, by gradually reducing the velocities. Before introducing the disk for the triaxial cases, we have implemented a similar adiabatic ‘heating-cooling’ procedure to the halo particles to create a triaxial halo of required flatness and prolateness, by using ‘heating’ of the velocities along the $x$-axis and ‘cooling’ along both the $y$- and the $z$-axes, over some period of time, i.e. some $40\,\tau_{\rm
dyn}$. The fractional energy heating/cooling per dynamical time is very small, $\sim 10^{-6}$ per machine timestep (corresponding to about $10^{-5}$ per dynamical time), so the system is never taken out of a dynamical equilibrium. The disk potential partially dilutes the halo triaxiality and therefore we apply a second heating-cooling procedure after the disc has been introduced in the models. This finally results in both the required $\beta\!=\!b/a$ and $\gamma\!=\!c/a$ distributions and core sizes in the halo potential (Fig. \[plot1\]). Note that in the models with smaller cores it is more difficult to impose (and maintain) the triaxiality at all radii.
For a direct comparison with ES02 in this work, we aimed to closely reproduce their initial conditions. A 3-D mass distribution (live or analytical) which pairs with the nonrotating logarithmic potential, $\Phi_{\rm H}$, (e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1987) was used for the halo,
$$\Phi_{\rm H} = \frac{1}{2}
\,V^{2}_{\rm H}\, \log \left(R_{\rm H}^{2} +
x^{2} + \beta^{-2} y^{2} + \gamma^{-2} z^2 \right) \ ,
\label{logarithm}$$
where $V_{\rm H}$ is the asymptotic (in the limit $R \gg R_{\rm H}$ and $\beta, \gamma \rightarrow 1$) circular velocity, $R_{\rm H}$ is the halo core radius and $\beta~(=b/a)$, $\gamma~(=c/a)< 1$ are the azimuthal and polar potential axis ratios. Note that the corresponding mass distribution is diverging for this potential. We, therefore, applied a truncation radius for models with live halos, i.e. $50$ and $100$kpc for the axisymmetric and triaxial halos, respectively. Although the potential of these models is going to change, both as a result of the disk addition and, in the case of live halo response, to the disk evolution, we find it nevertheless beneficial to compare the evolving potential to the fitted logarithmic one. For spherical (axisymmetric) models $\beta=\gamma=1.0$, while for triaxial models $\beta\!=0.9$ and $\gamma\!=0.8$, approximately for live models, after the halo has relaxed in the disk potential.
We have used two sets of initial halo models. In the [*first set*]{}, $1\rightarrow 4\rightarrow 5$ (see Table 1) — for rigid halos only – we adjust $V_{\rm H}$ requiring $1\!:\!1$ ratio of halo-to-disk mass within $r\!=\!1$. This means that on the scale of $r\sim 1$ models with different core size have the same mass concentration. On smaller scales of course the more cuspy models will be always more centrally concentrated, which can affect the properties of developing stellar bars.
In the [*second set*]{}, $1\rightarrow 2\rightarrow 3$, for which we run both rigid and live models, we retain the value of $V_{\rm H}$, obtained for an axisymmetric halo with a core radius of $R_{\rm H}\!=\!1$. For further halo configurations, the total halo mass within its truncation radius $r\!=\!100$kpc, is $10.0$ in our units. Thus, when moving from a large flat core to cuspy models, we move from a maximal disk model to a halo-dominated one.
Similarly, as in ES02, the stellar disk has been set up following the potential in the form of (Miyamoto & Nagai 1975),
$$\Phi_{\rm D} = - \frac{{\rm G}\,M_{\rm D}} {\sqrt{ x^{2}+y^{2}+ { \left( }A_{\rm D}
+\sqrt{B_{\rm D}^{2}+z^{2}} { \right)}^{2}
} } \ ,
\label{miyamoto}$$
which describes a disk-bulge system, with the parameters $A_{\rm D}\!=\!0.284$ and $B_{\rm D}\!=0.05$, determining the scalelength and height, respectively. The disk mass is $0.5$ within $r\!=\!1$ and about $0.6$ within the disk cut-off radius, i.e. $r\!=\!2.5$. The initial Toomre’s $Q$ parameter is taken $1.2$ and constant with radius. The disk rotational velocities in triaxial halos have been set using our standard procedure but ignoring the mild triaxialities in the total potential. The initial models are summarized in Table \[table:models\] and the initial rotation curves are shown in Fig. \[vcurve\].
Results
=======
We now present the bar evolution and its interaction with the outer disk and halo for the numerical models listed in Table \[table:models\]. We start with disks in rigid axisymmetric[^5] halos and compare them with those in rigid triaxial halos, assuming constant disk-to-halo mass ratios within 10 kpc, and varying the flat core sizes from large 10 kpc to cuspy ones. We then continue with live axisymmetric and triaxial halos.
Comparing Bars in Rigid Axisymmetric and Triaxial Halos with Constant Disk-to-Halo Mass Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Rigid axisymmetric halos
Only circumstantial evidence exists comparing the bar formation and evolution in analytical (i.e., rigid) and live halos, even in the case of an axial symmetry (e.g., Christodoulou, Shlosman & Tohline 1995 and refs. therein), with the exception of Athanassoula (2002). It is known that rigid halos are less hospitable to bar growth. All equal, bar instability in this case requires larger disk-to-halo mass ratio than in the live halo systems. This behavior of stellar disks embedded in non-responsive halo potentials can be readily understood in terms of absence of (resonance) halo orbits capable of absorbing the disk angular momentum. As expected, it is accompanied by a nearly constant bar pattern speed, as the angular momentum loss from the bar is minimized to the outer disk only.
Fig. \[plot2a\] exhibits some properties of stellar bars in such rigid axisymmetric (RS) halos — with a large flat-core $R_{\rm H}\!=\!10.0$kpc (model RS1), a smaller core $R_{\rm H}=2.0$kpc (model RS4) and a cuspy (model RS5; $R_{\rm H}=0.5$kpc) density profile (see Table \[table:models\]). The (normalized) amplitude of the $m\!=\!2$ mode, $A_2$ (Fig. \[plot2a\], top panels) provides only a partial description of the bar evolution. Because it is an integrated quantity over some specific radius and because the bar sizes will differ from model to model, it does not allow for a direct comparison between bars in different models. One can encounter a small size but strong bar whose amplitude will be diluted (say) by a large averaging region. To resolve this dilemma, we use both the bar amplitude, measured within a thin cylinder of radius of 5kpc, and the bar length and its maximum ellipticity, $\epsilon = 1\!-b/a$ (obtained from the isodensity fits, in the plane (Fig. \[plot2a\], middle panels), to characterize its strength. Both approaches can be tested observationally.
We note that a reliable determination of a $N$-body bar size from isophote fitting has its pitfalls (see Martinez-Valpuesta & Shlosman 2004). Before the vertical buckling, the bars have a flat distribution of ellipticity with radius, while at later times the ellipticity has a clear maximum. We find empirically that a good approximation to the bar size would be the radius where the bar ellipticity drops by 0.1. This is verified using nonlinear orbit analysis, finding the $x$-extent of the largest stable $x_1$ orbit in the bar (Martinez-Valpuesta, Shlosman & Heller 2006). On the other hand, the ellipticity of the surrounding disk shows a gradual decline with radius, even in mildly triaxial halos used in this work. This different behavior of ellipticity in numerical bars and disks allows us to safely separate them.
The rigid axisymmetric halo models RS1, 4 and 5 have been arranged along the same sequence of decreasing core size as in Fig. \[vcurve\]. These models have the same disk-to-halo mass ratio within the central 10 kpc, but correspond to increased central concentration in the halo.
All three models develop a strong bar in the process of a ‘normal’ bar instability (Fig. 3). The bar amplitudes, $A_2$, show a strong peak after the initial bar growth, at $\tau\sim 30-50$, and a subsequent decline, partly associated with a transient $m=3$ mode $A_3$. The latter appears to be a purely numerical artifact resulting from mixing of analytical (halo) and live (disk) potentials. The more centrally-concentrated models supress the (planar!) $m\!=\!3$ mode more efficiently. The sudden weakening and shortening of the bars has been related to the onset of chaos in strong bars (Martinez-Valpuesta & Shlosman 2004), which can be the case in these models as well. Asymptotically, the more cuspy models show marginally stronger bars. While the RS4 bar exhibits a slight secular growth in $A_2$, the RS5 bar shows a secular decline at the same time, again probably related to stronger chaos excited in cuspy models.
The asymptotic bar size, $\sim 6-7$ kpc, is largest in RS1 — the large halo core model, and about $3-4$ kpc in RS5. The [*maximal*]{} bar size (at $\tau\sim 30-50$) also clearly correlates with the halo core size, $R_{\rm H}$. This trend is much more pronounced in models which have increasing central mass concentration (see section 3.2.1 and Fig. 5).The bar ellipticity, $\epsilon$, closely follows the size evolution of the bars in all models. The bar pattern speed, $\Omega_{\rm p}$, shows some initial decline with time, more substantial in cuspy models, but then levels off — as expected, because of lack of angular momentum absorbing material in axisymmetric and to a certain degree also in mildly triaxial halos. The outer disk quickly saturates for this redistribution of angular momentum. As expected, more cuspy models have progressively faster $\Omega_{\rm p}$.
We find that the bars in rigid halos are not subject to the buckling instability (e.g., Pfenniger & Friedli 1991), apparently because of difficulty to develop vertical asymmetric modes, $m=1$. But vertical $m=3$ and 5 show up progressively more in RS4 and RS5, at the level of $\sim 8\%$. The vertical resonant heating in the bar (e.g., Friedli & Pfenniger 1990) is not obviously observed, possibly due to the rigid potential of the halo, and especially due to the absence of a discreteness noise in the analytical potential.
The effect of the bar on the disk is to shorten the original radial scalelength in the inner (bar region) disk and in the outer disk. In this sense, the combination of initial conditions and disk evolution maintain a double-exponential disk, $r_{\rm
D}$, characterized by the inner and outer radial scalelengths. The inner disk (the bar region) in RS1 develops $r_{\rm D}\sim 2.2$ kpc, when measured along the bar major axis. This value is progressively smaller for more cuspy models, e.g., $\sim 1.6$ kpc in RS5. In the outer disk, $r_{\rm D}$ decreases from its initial value $5.7$kpc to about 5kpc with time and remains constant when disk/bar reaches quasistationary stage after $\tau\sim
80$ (in RS1). The Toomre’s $Q$ increases overall from 1.2 to 2.1, measured at two radial initial scalelengths after the bar weakening in RS1 and more so in RS4 and RS5.
The vertical disk scaleheight, $z_{\rm D}$, shows progressively less change with increased cuspiness. While it increases from 0.5kpc to $\sim 0.7$ kpc in RS1, as a result of disk heating, towards the end of the simulations, it increases only 0.6 kpc in RS4 and stays unchanged in RS5.
### Rigid triaxial halos
In this section we describe the evolution of the models with rigid triaxial halos and a constant $M_{\rm D}/M_{\rm H}$ within $10$kpc (Table \[table:models\]), i.e. models RT1, RT4 and RT5. Some of the bar properties in these models are shown in Fig. \[plot4a\]. The angular momentum redistribution is discussed in section 4.
The bar initial growth and size, its maximal strength (i.e., of $A_2$), and even its peak ellipticity in rigid triaxial halos are remarkably similar to those in axisymmetric ones. The only difference is that the growth rate is faster and so the peak strength is achieved earlier. The subsequent evolution, however, is very different — the bar dissolves over the characteristic time of $\sim
30-100$, depending on the model, leaving only a weak oval distortion behind (Fig. 4). The general trend of bar evolution in this sequence of models clearly links the halo cuspiness to the dissolution process, which is amplified by the halo triaxiality — a trend predicted by ES02 based on the orbital stability analysis and the development of connected chaotic domains in these models
The bar size plot (mid panels), which indicates a bar of $6$kpc in RT1 at later times, is misleading here and seems to represent only the disk response to the triaxial potential and the ellipticity is that of the disk. As long as the bars exist in these models, their pattern speeds mirror those in axisymmetric halos of the same mass concentration.
Despite the destruction of bars in RT1 to RT5 models, the disk tends to acquire a double-valued radial exponential scalelength: the inner one of about 2 kpc and the outer one of $\sim 5-6$ kpc. The Toomre’s $Q$ and the vertical scaleheight behave as in the axisymmetric sequence.
Comparing Bars in Rigid and Live Axisymmetric Halos with Decreasing Disk-to-Halo Mass Ratios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Rigid axisymmetric halos
To provide a more direct comparison to the results of ES02, we present in this section a set of simulations in which we closely follow their model parameters. The basic difference with the previous set of models is that halo mass within the central 10 kpc is increased for progressively smaller cores (Table 1). Thus, when moving from flat core to cuspy models, we move from a maximal disk model (RS1) to a halo-dominated one (RS3) as evident from Fig. 2. Fig. \[plot2\] shows the evolution of stellar bars in such rigid axisymmetric halos. This corresponds to the increased central concentration, in excess of that shown by RS1$\rightarrow$RS4$\rightarrow$RS5 sequence.
Fig. 5 exhibits the disk evolution inside such halos. The strong bar only develops in the model RS1. The RS2 supresses the bar growth for the first $\tau\sim 60$, developing a short, $\sim 2-3$ kpc bar. Thereafter, $A_2$ drops and the bar further weakens to a rather oval distortion which persists over the period of simulations. The RS3 supresses the bar growth rate even stronger, and $A_2$ shows a steady secular growth not leveling off even after $\tau\sim 300$, while $A_3$ is completely supressed in a more cuspy models.
$Q$ increases to $\sim 2$ while the vertical scalelength shows no change whatsoever. The bar pattern speed correlates with the halo’s mass concentration, i.e. increasing with smaller core sizes. Pattern speed in RS3 is linearly decreasing with time reflecting the secular increase in $A_2$.
To summarize the sequence of rigid axisymmetric halos RS1$\rightarrow$RS3: the stellar bar is basically supressed in more cuspy models in accordance with ES02 analysis.
### Live axisymmetric halos
Models LS1 to LS3 present the case of live axisymmetric and increasingly cuspy halos. After introducing the disk and letting the halo to relax, we have fitted the halo density profile at the end of this relaxation process using the parameters of logarithmic potential, $V_{\rm H}$, $R_{\rm H}$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ (see Table \[table:models\]). The new density profiles for the halo can be fit reasonably well and show slight increase in $V_{\rm H}$ and unchanged $\beta$. Owing to the flattened disk potential $\gamma$ slightly decreases. For model LS1, the core radius remained at $\sim 10$ kpc, for model LS2 it decreased to $\sim 1.8$ kpc, and for model LS3 — to some $0.3$ kpc. The main difference between these models and the previously discussed ones with rigid halos, however, is an active redistribution of angular momentum between the bar forming region in the disk and the live halo (see section 4). For all live axisymmetric halos during disk evolution the halo density profile is stable (e.g., as shown for LS3 in Fig. 7).
The sequence LS1$\rightarrow $LS3 has produced the strongest bars among all of our models (Fig. 6). The amplitude $A_2$ has also shown a pattern of behavior: (1) the bar growth is fastest in LS1 (disk dominated) and slowest in LS3 (halo dominated); (2) the maximal bar strength is increasing along the sequence; (3) all bars exhibit vertical buckling, (4) $A_2$ decays most strongly in LS1 after the buckling, and least in LS3; and finally (5) the post-buckling bar in LS1 continuous its secular growth, which quickly saturates in LS2 and starts to decay in LS3. Hence LS1 (and to a lesser degree LS2) shows most resemblance to the secular evolution of a stellar bar in Martinez-Valpuesta, Shlosman & Heller (2006) where the bar weakens dramatically during its buckling and increases its strength thereafter.
For model LS1, the bar size decreases from roughly $10$kpc just before the buckling, to $\sim 7$kpc at $\tau\!\sim\!60$ and then increases again to about $9$kpc after the buckling. For model LS3, it grows from $5$kpc to $8$kpc. This means that during the initial growth, up to the time of the buckling, the bar is confined to the regular region delineated in ES02.
The bar sizes show clear correlation with the halo core size, $R_{\rm H}$, as in the rigid sequence RS1 $\rightarrow$ RS5 described in section 3.1. One can clearly observe here the ‘delay’ in the bar growth in halo-dominated models. The bar ellipticity shows a visible decay after the buckling in LS1 and stabilizes afterwards, while in LS2 and LS3 $\epsilon$ does not decay.
As expected, the bars slow down substantially over the simulation time and the initial slowdown is well correlated with $R_{\rm H}$ (Fig. \[plot3\], bottom panels). This angular momentum transfer from the disk is deposited mostly in the internal circulation in the halo as its figure does not acquire rotation (section 4).
We have mentioned above that all LS models show buckling which is less pronounced for halo-dominated models. This can be noted from the amplitudes of the vertical modes — LS1 shows clear increase of $m\!=\!1$, and LS2 and 3 only in $m\!=\!3$ and $5$.
The disk evolution in LS models again leads to a double-exponential scalelength: the inner bar-dominated part has $r_{\rm D}$ which slightly decreases from LS1 to LS3, from $\sim 2$ kpc to $\sim 1.6$ kpc, while the outer disk scalelength actually increases along the sequence, from about 5 kpc to just below 6 kpc.
The disk scaleheight in LS1 shows an abrupt increase at $\tau\!\sim \!50$ from its initial value 0.5 to about 0.9kpc within few dynamical times, during the vertical buckling of the bar. This effect is clearly related to the formation of a pseudo-bulge, i.e., bulge of a boxy/peanut shape. LS2 experiences a milder increase in $z_{\rm D}$ to $\sim 0.65$ kpc and in LS3 it remains largely unchanged.
All LS models show the formation of pseudo-bulges associated with the vertical buckling of the bars. However the shapes of these bulges differ and this difference persists for the time of the simulations. While in model LS1 and LS2 the isodensity contours show a more boxy shape, the cuspy model, LS3 develops a peanut-shaped bulge (see also Athanassoula & Misiriotis 2002).
Comparing Bars in Rigid and Live Triaxial Halos
-----------------------------------------------
### Rigid triaxial halos
The RT1$\rightarrow$RT3 sequence describes the disk evolution within rigid triaxial halos with decreasing core size, closely following the initial conditions in ES02 (Fig. 8). The only difference between the previously discussed RT1$\rightarrow$RT5 sequence and RT1–3 is that the latter one is progressively halo-dominated. This difference is responsible for the damping of bar instability in a disk embedded in RT2 and RT3 halos. Even RT1 shows a substantial decay of the initially strong bar to a largely an oval distortion, unlike the bar in RS1 model. Hence, asymptotically RT2 and RT3 behave as RT4 and RT5. However, early in the disk evolution, the former models show strong bars (see section 3.2.1).
The size and ellipticity of the central (bar) oval distortion in RT1 to RT3 correlate well with $R_{\rm H}$. In RT1, the maximal bar length is $\sim
9$kpc at $\tau\sim 35$ and after $\tau\sim 50-60$, the bar deteriorates into a rather triaxial (in the equatorial plane) configuration within the central $r\sim 4-5$kpc. Note the $A_2$ amplitude becomes finite already in the first moments into the simulation because of the disk response to the halo triaxiality.
The first few disk rotations, especially in RT2 and RT3, show a grand design spiral structure in the outer disk which remains tightly bound and quickly decays. Even more than in RS3, the disk stays largely axisymmetric within the central few kpc after $\tau\sim 30$. Its surface density profile shows (almost) no evolution. The outer disk radial scalelength decreases to about 4.5–5kpc, while the disk scaleheight stays unchanged.
### Live triaxial halos
As in the case of the live axisymmetric halos, the triaxial halos are modified by the introduction of the frozen disk potential. At the moment of disk ‘release,’ the halo core size in model LT1 has slightly increased to $R_{\rm
H}\!\sim 10.5$ kpc, in LT2 it has increased to $\sim 2.4$ kpc, and in LT3 stayed at $0.5$ kpc (see Table 1). We found it increasingly difficult to maintain the (inner) halo triaxiality in cuspy models after introduction of a frozen disk. This has affected the LT3 model which possesses a more structurally unstable halo.
The evolution of $A_2$ amplitude in the LT1$\rightarrow$LT3 sequence is remarkably different from that in the rigid sequence RT1 to RT3. The initial disk response to the halo potential has induced strong bars in all these models. The fate of the bar, however, differs depending on the model. The bars decay nearly linearly in LT1 and LT2 on a timescale of $\tau \sim 100$, and enter a steady state in LT3. Overall, the LT3 model behaves differently and its evolution resembes more the LS3 model, although the bar is not so strong. The buckling is clearly visible in all LT models. However, the resulting boxy shapes of bulges are quickly erased in LT1 and LT2, while peanut shape bulge in LT3 persists till the end of the simulation. The planar $A_3$ amplitude is negligible in all live halo models.
The radial density profile in the triaxial halo is stable during live disk evolution in all these models, even for the cuspy LT3. However the halo triaxiality $T$ is reduced sharply in LT3, due to decrease in $\epsilon_{\rm
H}$. After $\tau\sim 70$, it has largely lost its prolateness, $\beta\sim 1$ (Fig. 10). This halo axisymmetrization is only partially a result of initial conditions — LT3 has had somewhat larger $\beta$ at $\tau=0$, as noted above. Rather, as we discuss in section 5, the halo is much more structurally unstable in cuspy models. In order to test this latter assumption, we have re-run the LT2 model with a [*frozen*]{} disk. Fig. 11 shows the resulting evolution of potential axial ratios for the halo. Both halo flatness, $f$, and its prolateness, $\epsilon_{\rm H}$, show no evolution over 300 dynamical times, $\sim 14$ Gyrs. This confirms that it is the developing bar perturbation which decreases the halo prolateness without much effect on its flatness.
The bar size and ellipticity LT1 and LT2 (Fig. 9) represent a combined disk and bar evolution. The outer disk develops elaborate system of long-lived spiral arms, much more pronounced than in live axisymmetric models. Because of the difficulty to disentangle between the bar, spiral arms and the oval disk, the estimated bar size in Fig. 9 is erroneous. The inner disk radial scalelength shows a general decrease to about 1.7 kpc in LT1 and to $\sim 1.8$ kpc in LT2 and LT3. The outer disk has $r_{\rm D}$ approaching $\sim 4.8$ kpc in LT1 and about $5-5.5$ kpc in LT2 and LT3. The inner disk scaleheight increases abruptly to $\sim 0.9$ kpc after $\tau\!\sim \!35$ in LT1 and to $\sim 0.8$ kpc in LT2 and $\sim 0.75$ kpc LT3 models.
The live triaxial models are especially efficient in triggering the spiral structure in the barred disk. The arms penetrate deeper towards the center in LT2 model with smaller core radius. The strength of the spirals depends on the position angle of the bar with respect to the longest halo axis — when the bar is normal to this axis, the spirals are prominent. This type of spiral regeneration happens as long as the bar exists.
### Models with continuous support for halo triaxiality
Models LT1 to LT3 show that the disk (and bar) response to a live triaxial (halo) potential can act as to decrease its prolateness, e.g., equatorial ellipticity. This effect is most pronounced in model LT3, where it has been difficult to induce the halo’s triaxiality, especially in its central region. Compared to the models with larger cores, the disk in LT3 evolves more similarly to that in axisymmetric halos. Because of the strong feedback of stellar bars onto the halo triaxiality, we have run a model for LT3 with a continuous support for triaxiality — the LT3MT model. The simple justification for this is that mergers will induce triaxiality in the extended DM halos in the first place. We, therefore, mimic this process by maintaining or continuously regenerating a mild halo triaxiality, and at the same time allowing the live halo to interact with the live disk.
Fig. 12 (right) exhibits such an evolution of LT3MT and provides $A_2$ from LT3 for a comparison. The adiabatic heating/cooling procedure was gradually turned on and has its full strength from $\tau = 70$ to 225, when it is gradually turned off. Initially, the LT3MT evolved identically to LT3. Because the halo triaxiality has been maintained at the steady level (Table 1), it has a profound effect on the disk. The bar completely dissolves and starts to grow afterwards when the triaxiality is gradually washed out.
### Light disks in triaxial halos
The interaction between the halo and the evolving disk tends to gradually wash out the initial triaxiality in the halo. The efficiency of this process depends on the disk-to-halo mass ratio. The bar is then able to grow within the region in which the halo becomes more axisymmetric. To show explicitly the dependency of halo and disk evolution on their (inner) mass ratios, we have run live triaxial models with lower disk-to-halo mass ratio within central 10 kpc for the cuspy LT3 model. Here we show only LT3HM — the model with a half disk mass. The bar instability in this model is substantially suppressed compared to LT3 model. LT3HM develops a weak oval distortion in the center (Fig. 12, left) whose shape depends strongly on its orientation with respect to the halo major axis — its ellipticity is smaller when it is normal to the halo, and larger, when it is parallel. Otherwise, the disk is stable and no bar instability develops.
Disk-Halo Angular Momentum Exchange
===================================
The general direction of the angular momentum flow in all models is expected to be from the inner bar-forming disk towards the outer disk and the halo. This reflects behavior of all models that break their axial symmetry for whatever reason, that of initial conditions (triaxial halos) or as a result of a spontaneous bar instability. However, when this redistribution is mediated by the bar, there is also an additional flow from the inner disk (inside the bar corotation) to the outer disk.
In the models with rigid axisymmetric halos the exchange of angular momentum is limited to that between the inner and outer disks, across the corotation and mediated by the bar. Models RS1 and RS5 (Fig. 13) show that the total loss of the angular momentum from the disk is $\Delta L_{\rm z} =0$ and that the outer disk disk gains the angular momentum from inner part. This gain is larger for RS5 as it develops stronger bar. Rigid triaxial models drain some of the angular momentum from the disk (e.g., RT5 in Fig. 13) but this does not dominate the $L$-exchange because of the mild triaxiality here.
Fig. 14 shows the effect of introduction of a live halo, axisymmetric and triaxial. The total loss of the $L$ by the disk has been dramatically amplified compared to the rigid triaxial halos. The outer disk still gains the same amount but most of $L$ goes to the halo. The strong and long-lived bar developing in the LS1 model is instrumental in this transfer. The main difference with the LT1 model is that the disk immediately acquires a strongly oval shape which is gradually lost and so overall the transfer amount of angular momentum is less than in LS1. However, during the first 20–30 dynamical times, the $L$-transfer is stronger in LT1. Subsequently, the bar which has developed in LT1 dissolves, which levels off the rate of angular momentum trasfer.
Furthermore, in order to test the effect of the resonance coupling between the disk/bar and the halo, we have performed the spectral analysis of the orbital motion (Binney & Spergel 1982) in conjunction with our nonlinear orbital finder algorithm (Heller & Shlosman 1996). We find that a fraction of disk particles in live axisymmetric halos is locked by the lower resonances, especially by the inner Lindblad resonance (ILR). A fraction of the halo particles is locked by the corotation resonance — hence ILR-CR resonance coupling. Following Athanassoula (2002), we have frozen the model potentials at times $\tau=100$ and 150, and compared the angular momentum of individual particles at these times. Most of the angular momentum flow between the disk and the halo was mediated by this ILR-CR coupling. Particles trapped at $\tau=100$ largely remained trapped at 150. This result shows that the adverse effect of the grainy $N$-body potential on the evolution in our models is limited, and the latter is driven by a chaotic dynamics instead.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
We have analyzed the formation and evolution of stellar bars in galactic disks embedded in rigid (i.e., analytical) and live axisymmetric and mildly-triaxial DM halos of a varying cuspiness. The nearly axisymmetric potential employed in our simulations allows us to focus on the development of bar instability [*per se*]{} and does not violate the overall dynamics and survival of the disks. Using tailored numerical simulations we aimed at testing and extending the predictions of El-Zant & Shlosman (2002, ES02) which employed the method of Liapunov exponents to address the fate of bars in analytical triaxial halos. Our simulations of live halos, unlike ES02, include the feedback between the disk, bar, and halo. We fully support the main conclusions of ES02 and provide some additional insight into the bar and disk evolution.
We start with summarizing our results and follow up with discussion — based on the bar strength. In all cases we can separate the initial bar growth to its full strength, over $\tau\sim 30-50\sim
1.5-2$ Gyr, from the subsequent bar evolution, dynamical or secular, over the Hubble time. The first stage is very similar between all [*rigid*]{} axisymmetric and triaxial halo models. We find, that while some of the rigid halos suppress the bar formation, depending on the disk-to-halo mass ratio D/H within the disk radius, all live halos develop impressive bars with ellipticities in the range of $\sim
0.4-0.7$, depending on their evolutionary stage. In axisymmetric live cases (only!) these bars appear stronger for smaller D/H, in line with Athanassoula & Misiriotis (2002). In live halos, the bars develop faster in triaxial compared to axisymmetric halos. (This statement is marginally true also for rigid halos.)
All bars weaken at the end of the first stage. This process is accompanied by bar’s vertical buckling in the live halos and formation of exponential (pseudo-) bulges of a peanut or boxy shape. No buckling is observed in rigid halos.
The subsequent evolution of the bar differs substantially between axisymmetric and triaxial halos. In the former case, the bars appear dynamically stable and show a limited secular evolution by a factor of $\ltorder
2$ in strength, in growth or decay after the initial vertical buckling. This result is in agreement with Athanassoula (2002). In the latter case, the bars dissolve almost completely on a timescale of $\tau\sim
30-100 \sim 1.5-5$ Gyr, sometimes leaving behind a weak oval distortion in the central regions. This is true for all models with the exception of LT3 — a live cuspy triaxial halo, where the triaxiality (i.e. prolateness) is erased early due to the feedback from the bar and its ensuing evolution closely resembles that of the axisymmetric halos.
To verify that the bar endurance is related to the erasure of the halo prolateness, we have run a test model where (live) halo triaxiality in LT3 has been maintained at a constant level. The bar dissolved in this case as expected. On the other hand, to show that the evolution of halo prolateness is due to destabilizing action of the bar, we run models with a frozen axisymmetric disk in live triaxial halos — these models show basically no evolution for $\epsilon_{\rm H}$. We have also run a number of test models with the LT3 halo but smaller D/H mass ratio. Models with D/H$\ltorder 0.5$, formed only a weak oval distortion. This is unlike the trend in the axisymmetric live halos, where small D/H resulted in stronger bars. We discuss this below.
the bar sizes appear to correlate with the halo core sizes, with the exception of live triaxial models where the bar size is more difficult to establish due to the strong response in the disk and a quick bar dissolution. The bar ellipticities provide additional source of information on the bar strength and even more about the state of the disk when the bar amplitudes measured by $A_2$ decay below 0.1.
the pattern speeds of bars anticorrelate with halo core sizes — more centrally concentrated halos produce faster tumbling bars. However, the deceleration rate of the bar anticorrelates with the halo core sizes as well — thus, after the Hubble time, the end pattern speed of the bars is similar. As expected, bars in rigid halos quickly reach constant pattern speeds, while bars in live halos continue to slow down asymptotically. Interestingly, bars in live axisymmetric halos can become stronger or weaker while slowing down. Bars in live triaxial halos always weaken and dissolve while slowing down.
in rigid halos, the angular momentum of the inner disk is fed into the outer disk, across the bar corotation. Some angular momentum is lost to the halo in rigid triaxial models. In live models, the halo appears to gain angular momentum, more so fractionally in triaxial models. We have verified that in axisymmetric models the angular momentum is mediated by lower resonances, especially by the inner Lindblad resonance in the disk and by the corotation resonance in the halo.
in triaxial models, as long as a bar is present, the disk evolution is characterized by development of a strong spiral structure outside the bar region. It is especially prominent in live triaxial halos. The outer disk acquires exponential surface density distribution, while the inner (bar-unstable) part can be modeled roughly by a shorter exponential scalelength when measured along the bar major axis.
Our emerging understanding of the evolution of bars embedded in live, mildly triaxial or axisymmetric halos is based on two physical processes which determine the fate of the system. These are the angular momentum redistribution in the disk-halo system and the development of chaos. We can make a general statement that angular momentum flows from the bar unstable region in the disk to the outer disk and the halo. This process is accompanied by the initial growth of the bar both in strength and in size. In axisymmetric halos, it ultimately saturates and the bar enters a steady-state phase characterized by secular changes (Athanassoula 2003). Instead, in a mildly triaxial halo which hosts a barred disk, the dominant process is the increase in the fraction of chaotic trajectories — it affects both the bar and halo structures. In other words, no steady-state develops, and either the bar is dissolved or halo prolateness is washed out. This effect on the bar embedded in a [*rigid*]{} triaxial halo has been calculated in ES02, and here we have presented fully self-consistent numerical simulations accounting for the bar and [*live*]{} halo evolution.
After the submission of this work we have learned about the work by Curir et al. (2005) where stellar disks have been evolved within the cosmological DM halos, albeit at much lower resolution than in our work. In these simulations, the bars form in responce to the original torquing by the halo, but, contrary to our main results, survive for the rest of the simulation. We strongly suspect that this different behavior of bars results from the loss of prolateness by DM halos in their models, similarly to our model LT3. Furthermore, it is the process of introduction of disk into the halo which is also responsible for washing out the halo prolateness (Section 2.1), which required us to apply the second heating-cooling procedure. Unfortunately, Curir et al. do not provide any analysis of the shape of their halos after bringing up the disks and during their subsequent evolution. Their Table 1 refers to purely DM halos without stellar disks only.
Thus we expect that the combination of halo triaxiality and its cuspiness in conjunction with a fast rotating[^6] bar will lead to the development of chaos and to the dissolution of the least massive or structurally stable triaxial feature in the system, i.e., the bar or halo triaxiality. In section 1 (see also ES02 and refs. therein), we have argued that cuspy density distribution cause solutions for the Poisson equation to be far from quadratic and this will produce the coupling between different degrees of freedom in equations of motion which become highly nonlinear — a prime recipe to develop a chaotic behavior when such a system is perturbed.
To understand the results of these numerical simulations within the context of developing chaos in a triaxial system with a fast tumbling stellar bar, we take the next step and discuss the evolution of the bar strength in terms of the stability of trajectories used by ES02. Ultimately bars and other morphological features, such as prolate halos, dissolve when the density figure stops to support the figure of the background potential, in other words when self-consistency of density-potential pair is violated. As mentioned in section 1, a stable 3-D figure must be built from trajectories which at least approximately conserve the invariants of motion. Chaos appears when the number of invariants of motion becomes smaller that the dimensionality of the system.
Two issues appear most relevant in this respect: the overall asymmetry of the background potential and the degree of mass concentration. Stability of trajectories for potentials and density distributions used in this work have been analyzed in ES02 by calculating the Liapunov exponents on a high-resolution 3-D cylindrical grid. These exponents provide a measure of timescales which are associated with dynamical instabilities and are especially suitable to study development of chaotic motions in time-dependent potentials (see detailed description of this method in sections 1, 2 and the Appendix of ES02).
The mapping of halos which are under consideration here using the Liapunov exponents has shown that triaxial halos are regular in the absence of a bar — the top panel of Fig. 6 in ES02 indicates that trajectories within this potential are stable well over the Hubble time. This is supported by live models of triaxial halos presented here. All the models appear stable unless bar-unstable disks are added, [*even the cuspy halo in*]{} LT3, as expected. It is the addition of a (triaxial) bar fast tumbling with respect to the halo, which destabilizes the trajectories and triggers the chaos. The middle panels in Fig. 6 of ES02 show this effect in a cuspy halo — most of the configuration space becomes chaotic with the characteristic timescale $\ltorder 1$ Gyr. Moreover, the chaotic regions are fully connected, thus providing a strong indication that survival of any non-axisymmetric structure is highly questionable. The less cuspy barred models of ES02 show progressively less chaotic regions, especially in the flat cores, and the existing chaos is less interconnected. A self-consistent bar-disk model of Pfenniger (1984), without a surrounding halo, shows chaotic regions confined to the bar corotation radius (lower panels, Fig. 6 of ES02), in line with the above explanation. We also note that the remarkable correspondence between the distributions of the available configuration space volume for the trajectories in ES02 and the maximal Liapunov exponents points out that the nearby stability islands are not efficient in trapping the chaotic trajectories. Therefore, one should expect that the predicted bar dissolution in ES02 models will indeed be observed in numerical simulations.
The sequences, RT1$\rightarrow$RT3 and RT1$\rightarrow$RT5 discussed in section 3 represent a gradual increase in the halo cuspiness, i.e., increased central mass concentration and progressively smaller size of the halo core. Figs. 3 and 6 of ES02 demonstrate that the regular (stable) region shrinks from $\sim 5-6$ kpc in RT1 to about 0.5 kpc in RT3, along with the increased halo cuspiness, not leaving much space for the bar to survive. When the bar feedback onto the halo is fully accounted for, i.e., in live triaxial halos — they also lose part of their asymmetry (prolateness) $\epsilon_{\rm H}$, but most of it remains. This explains why bars in LT1 and LT2 models behave qualitatively similarly to those in rigid RT models — all of them exhibit the bar dissolution.
The main difference between these models and the cuspy LT3 is that cuspy halos are more structurally unstable, as we discussed above, and their prolateness is washed out early enough to allow for the bar to develop in a nearly axisymmetric environment. We confirm that either the onset of chaos dissolves the bar (e.g., LT1 and LT2) or it destroys the halo prolateness (e.g., LT3). We strongly suspect that this latter process of is also at work in Curir et al. (2005) simulations of cosmological halos, allowing for long-lived bars. Therefore, to some extent long-lived bars are incompatible with the high (equatorial) asymmetry in the DM halos. Even the mild asymmetry observed in some halos of nearby galaxies is sufficient to shorten the bar lifetime to $\ltorder 5$ Gyrs.
This provides an interesting constraint on halo shapes, when taken in tandem with recent observational results. Using $HST$-based morphologies and accurate redshifts from the Galaxy Evolution from Morphology and SEDs (GEMS; Rix et al. 2004) survey, Jogee et al. (2004, hereafter J04; 2005) recently showed that the optical fraction and distribution of structural properties for bars with moderate-to-high strength ($\epsilon\gtorder 0.35$) remain similar from the present-day, out to look-back times of $2-8$ Gyr ($z\sim 0.2-1.0$). J04 argue that these findings imply that on average bars have a long lifetime, well in excess of 2 Gyr. A constant optical bar fraction out to $z\sim 1$ is also reported independently from a smaller survey by Elmegreen et al. (2004). The simulations in this paper, when combined with these empirical results on a relatively constant fraction of bars out to $z\sim 1$ and an inferred long bar lifetime, put a lower limit on the halo equatorial axial ratio $\beta=b/a$ of 0.9 (in potential axes) at the redshift range of $z\sim 0-1$. This corresponds approximately to ($b/a$)$_\rho\sim 0.75-0.8$ axial ratio in [*density*]{} distribution.
The disappearance of triaxial halos with $\epsilon_{\rm H}\gtorder 0.1$ in disk galaxies at $z\ltorder 1$ seems as a corollary to our numerical simulations, when supplemented with the above observational results. As discussed in section 1, while cosmological simulations of dissipationless CDM galactic halos invariably produce triaxial halos, the triaxiality of the halo can be subsequently diluted by the addition of baryonic components. This is likely to happen, for instance, during the early formation and development of a galactic disk. Furthermore, this trend will be supported by a general decrease in the frequency of galaxy interactions and mergers below $z\sim 2$.
We note the following caveat: the halo prolateness in our modeled halos is (partially or fully) washed out by the action of the bar which leads to a dramatic increase in the fraction of chaotic orbits — these cannot support triaxial figures. It is the inner bar-forming part of the system where chaotic orbits dominate in asymmetric halos. In principle, we can envision the situation when the halo figure tumbles and trajectories which originate in its outer part cannot penetrate deep enough toward the central regions where they are typically destabilized. Such a halo will be more stable in preserving its prolateness, at least in its outer part. It is unclear how fast the halo must be tumbling for this effect to take place. Such models are beyond the scope of this work.
Finally, we find it important to address the question to what extent the evolution of stellar bars in our $N$-body potentials of mildly triaxial halos is [*not*]{} a numerical artifact, i.e., not a process driven by a numerical diffusion. In other words, can a Poisson noise, associated with the discreteness of the $N$-body potential, be primarily responsible for the observed model bar dissolution, as opposed to the chaotic behavior triggered by the competing forces from the triaxial halo and a bar in ES02 for smooth analytical potentials? One can argue that that the graininess of the $N$-body potential is identical in the axisymmetric and triaxial halo models. Because there is no indication that this potential has caused any numerical ‘relaxation’ effects in the former models, the latter ones will not be dominated by these effects as well. In principle, the consequences of the discreteness noise in the ‘mixed’ (triaxial halo/bar) models, i.e., models which are intrinsically more chaotic, can be more complex than in the axisymmetric models. Nevertheless, albeit indirectly, this supports our point of view that it is the chaotic dynamics which drives the evolution of stellar bar in triaxial halos modeled here.
To provide the most direct answer to this question is to analyze the numerical models presented here in terms of Lyapunov exponents of ES02, but this is outside the scope of our work and will be addressed elsewhere. However, even if this approach will be taken, it is not without caveats as we deal here with a transient and not a classical chaos which is defined in the asymptotic limit and corresponds to an exponential divergence of a trajectory in a [*fixed*]{} potential (e.g., Lichtenberg & Lieberman 1995).
In summary, we find that even a mild halo triaxiality of $\sim 0.9$ in potential axial ratio, dissolves the stellar bar on a timescale of $\ltorder 5$ Gyr, sometimes leaving behind a weak oval distortion. Especially in the live triaxial halos, as long as a bar is present, strong spiral structure develop outside the bar and its strength depends on the mutual orientation of bars and the halo major axis. In comparable live axisymmetric halos, there is limited secular evolution, either growth or decay, of the embedded bars. In these cases, the halo core sizes correlate directly with the bar sizes and their central mass concentration — with the bar pattern speeds. Cuspy halos are more susceptible to washing out of their triaxiality due to the action of the bar, and the subsequent evolution is similar to that of axisymmetric halos, where the bar does survive. We have interpreted the bar evolution in live asymmetric halos, as well as in mildly triaxial and cuspy models in terms of the orbital structure, the development of chaos and the feedback between the halo, disk and bar. We find that damping of the bar instability in such halos puts a tight upper limit on halo prolateness in [*disk*]{} galaxies in the range of redshifts extending from the local Universe to $z\sim 1$, in the light of recent results on a constant optical fraction of bar from the present-day out to these epochs.
We are grateful to Lia Athanassoula, Amr El-Zant, Clayton Heller and Inma Martinez-Valpuesta for numerous discussions. This research has been partially supported by NASA/LTSA grant NAG 5-13063 (S.J. and I.S.), NASA/ATP NAG 5-10823, HST AR-09546.01-A and 10284, and NSF grant AST-0206251 (I.S.). Simulations have been performed on a dedicated LinuX Cluster and we thank Brian Doyle for technical support.
Aarseth, S.J., Binney, J. 1974, MNRAS, 185, 227 Andersen, D.R., Bershady, M.A., Sparke, L.S., Gallagher, J.S. III, Wilcots, E.M. 2001, , 551, L131 Athanassoula, E., Misiriotis, A. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 35 Athanassoula, E. 2002, , 569, L83 Athanassoula, E. 2003, , 341, 1179 Barnes, J.E., Efstathiou, G. 1987, , 319, 575 Barnes, J., Hut. P. 1986, 324, 446 Binney, J. Spergel, D. 1982, , 252, 308 Binney, J., Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics, Princeton Univ. Press Borriello, A., Salucci, P. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 285 Bullock, J.S. 2002, in The Shapes of Galaxies and Their Dark Halos, ed. P. Natarajan (Singapore: World Scientific), 109 Burkert, A. 1995, , 447, L25 Burkert, A.M., D’Onglia, E. 2004, astro-ph/0409540 Buote, D.A., Canizares, C.R. 1994, , 427, 86 Buote, D.A., Canizares, C.R. 1996, , 457, 177 Buote, D.A., Jeltema, T.E., Canizares, C.R., Garmire, G.P. 2002, , 577, 183 Christodoulou, D.M., Shlosman, I. & Tohline, J.E. 1995, , 443, 551 Cole, S., Lacey, C. 1996, , 281, 716 Crone, M.M., Evrard, A.E., Richstone D.O. 1994, , 434, 402 Curir, A., Mazzei, P., Murante, G. 2005, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0510182) de Blok, W.J.G., Bosma, A. 2002, , 385, 816 Dehnen, W. 2002, J. Comp. Phys., 179, 27 Dekel, A., Shlosman, I. 1983, Internal Kinematics and Dynamics of Galaxies, ed. E. Athanassoula (Reidel Publ.), 187 Dubinski, J., Carlberg, R.G. 1991, , 378, 496 Dubinski, J. 1994, , 431, 617 Elmegreen, B.G., Elmegreen, D.M., Hirst, A.C. 2004, , 612, 191 El-Zant, A.A., Shlosman, I., Hoffman, Y. 2001, , 560, 636 El-Zant, A.A., Shlosman, I. 2002, , 577, 626 (ES02) El-Zant, A.A., Shlosman, I., Begelman, M.C., Frank, J. 2003, , 590, 641 El-Zant, A.A., Hoffman, Y., Primack, J., Combes, F., Shlosman, I. 2004, , 607, L75 Flores, R.A., Primack, J.R. 1994, , 427, L1 Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Davis, M., Efstathiou, G. 1988, , 327, 507 Friedli, D., Pfenniger, D. 1990, ESO/CTIO Workshop on Bulges of Galaxies, eds., B. Jarvis & D.M. Terndrup, p. 265 Fukushige, T., Makino, J. 1997, , 477, L9 Gentile, G., Salucci, P., Klein, U., Vergani, D., Kalberla, P. 2004, , 351, 903 Heller, C.H., Shlosman, I. 1994, ApJ, 424, 84 Heller, C.H. 1995, , 455, 252 Heller, C.H., Shlosman, I. 1996, ApJ, 471, 143 Helmi, A. 2004, ApJ, 610, L97 Hoekstra, H., Yee, H.K.C., Gladders, M.D. 2004, , 606, 67 Holley-Bockelmann, K., Mihos, J.C., Sigurdsson, S., Hernquist, L. 2001, , 549, 862 Huss, A., Jain, B., Steinmetz, M. 1999, , 517, 64 Ideta, M., Hozumi, S. 2000, , 535, L91 Jing, Y.P., Suto, Y. 2000, , 529, L69 Jing, Y.P., Suto, Y. 2002, , 574, 538 Jogee, S., Barazza, F.D., Rix, H.-W., Shlosman, I. et al. 2004, 615, L105 (J04) Jogee, S., et al. 2005, Penetrating Bars through Masks of Cosmic Dust, eds. D. Block, et al. (Dordrecht: Kluwer), in press (astro-ph/0408267) Kazantzidis, S., Kravtsov, A.V., Zentner, A.R., Allgood, B., Nagai, D., Moore, B. 2004, , 354, 522 Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A., Colin, P. 2000, Cosmic Flows Workshop, ASP Conf. Ser. 201, 344 Kochanek, C.S. 1995, , 445, 559 Kravtsov, A.V., Klypin, A.A., Bullock, J.S., Primack, J.R. 1998, , 502, 48 Kuijken, K., Tremaine, S. 1994, , 421, 178 Lichtenberg A.J., Lieberman M.A., 1995, Regular and Chaotic Dynamics. Springer, New York Lokas, E.L., Hoffman, Y. 2000, , 542, L139 Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Shlosman, I. 2004, , 613, L29 Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Shlosman, I., Heller, C.H. 2006, , 637, in press (astro-ph/0507219) McMillan, P.J., Dehnen, W. 2005, , in press (astro-ph/0508647) Merrifield, M.R. 2002, Shapes of Galaxies and Their Dark Halos, ed. P. Natarajan (Singapore: World Scientific), 170 Merritt, D., Valluri, M. 1996, , 471, 82 Miyamoto, M., Nagai, R. 1975, , 27, 533 Moore, B. 1994, , 370, 629 Moore, B. Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., Lake, G. 1999, , 499, L5 Moore, B., Kazantzidis, S., Diemand, J., Stadel, J. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 522 Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M. 1996, , 462, 563 (NFW) Oguri, M., Lee, J., Suto, Y. 2003, , 599, 7 Peng, E.W., Ford, H.C., Freeman, K.C. 2004, , 602, 685 Pfenniger, D. 1984, A&A, 141, 171 Pfenniger, D., Friedli, D. 1991, A&A, 252, 75 Power, C., Navarro, J.F., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Springel, V., Stadel, J., Quinn, T. 2003, , 338, 14 Rix, H.-W., Zaritsky, D. 1995, , 447, 82 Rix, H.-W. et al. 2004, ApJ Suppl., 152, 163 Sackett, P.D., Rix, H.-W., Jarvis, B.J., Freeman, K.C. 1994, , 436, 629 Sackett, P.D., Pogge, R.W. 1995, Dark Matter, eds. S.S. Holt & C.L. Bennett. AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 336, p. 141 436, 629 Sackett, P.D. 1999, Galaxy Dynamics, eds. D.R. Merritt, M. Valluri & J.A. Sellwood, ASP Conf. Ser. 182, 393 Sand, D.J., Treu, T., Ellis, R.S. 2002, , 574, 129 Sparke, L.S. 1986, , 219, 657 Tormen, G., Bouchet, F.R., White, S.D.M. 1997, , 286, 865 Warren, M.S., Quinn, P.J., Salmon, J.K., Zurek, W.H. 1992, , 399, 405 Weinberg, M.D., Katz, N. 2002, , 580, 627
[^1]: We also use the term ‘asymmetric’ concurrently with ‘triaxial’
[^2]: We define the halo flatness as $f=1-c/a$ and its prolateness (i.e., equatorial ellipticity) as $\epsilon_{\rm H}=1-b/a$
[^3]: The triaxiality is defined here as $T=[1-(b/a)^2]/[1-(c/a)^2]$, where $c/a$ is halo’s polar-to-longest equatorial axis ratio and $b/a$ – equatorial axis ratio. $T=1$ corresponds to a prolate halo, while $T=0$ to an oblate one
[^4]: By ‘fast rotating bar’ we mean a bar which extends to about its corotation radius
[^5]: We are interested only in this property of spherical halos and refer to them as axisymmetric
[^6]: As defined in the footnote of section 1
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Deep learning has shown state-of-art classification performance on datasets such as ImageNet, which contain a single object in each image. However, multi-object classification is far more challenging. We present a unified framework which leverages the strengths of multiple machine learning methods, viz deep learning, probabilistic models and kernel methods to obtain state-of-art performance on Microsoft COCO, consisting of non-iconic images. We incorporate contextual information in natural images through a conditional latent tree probabilistic model (CLTM), where the object co-occurrences are conditioned on the extracted fc7 features from pre-trained Imagenet CNN as input. We learn the CLTM tree structure using conditional pairwise probabilities for object co-occurrences, estimated through kernel methods, and we learn its node and edge potentials by training a new 3-layer neural network, which takes fc7 features as input. Object classification is carried out via inference on the learnt conditional tree model, and we obtain significant gain in precision-recall and F-measures on MS-COCO, especially for difficult object categories. Moreover, the latent variables in the CLTM capture scene information: the images with top activations for a latent node have common themes such as being a grasslands or a food scene, and on on. In addition, we show that a simple k-means clustering of the inferred latent nodes alone significantly improves scene classification performance on the MIT-Indoor dataset, without the need for any retraining, and without using scene labels during training. Thus, we present a unified framework for multi-object classification and unsupervised scene understanding.'
author:
- |
Tejaswi Nimmagadda\
University of California, Irvine\
`[email protected]` Anima Anandkumar\
University of California, Irvine\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: ' Multi-Object Classification and Unsupervised Scene Understanding Using Deep Learning Features and Latent Tree Probabilistic Models'
---
Introduction
============
Deep learning has revolutionized performance on a variety of computer vision tasks such as object classification and localization, scene parsing, human pose estimation, and so on. Yet, most deep learning works focus on simple classifiers at the output, and train on datasets such as ImageNet which consist of single object categories. On the other hand, multi-object classification is a far more challenging problem.
Currently many frameworks for multi-object classification use simple approaches: the multi-class setting, which predicts one category out of a set of mutually exclusive categories (e.g. ILSVRC [@ILSVRC15]), or binary classification, which makes binary decisions for each label independently (e.g. PASCAL VOC [@pascal]). Both models, however, do not capture the complexity of labels in natural images. The labels are not mutually exclusive, as assumed in the multi-class setting. Independent binary classifiers, on the other hand, ignore the relationships between labels and miss the opportunity to transfer and share knowledge among different label categories during learning. More sophisticated classification techniques based on structured prediction are being explored, but in general, they are computationally more expensive and not scalable to large datasets (see related works for a discussion).
In this paper, we propose an efficient multi-object classification framework by incorporating contextual information in images. The context in natural images captures relationships between various object categories, such as co-occurrence of objects within a scene or relative positions of objects with respect to a background scene. Incorporating such contextual information can vastly improve detection performance, eliminate false positives, and provide a coherent scene interpretation.
We present an efficient and a unified approach to learn contextual information through probabilistic latent variable models, and combine it with pre-trained deep learning features to obtain state-of-art multi-object classification system. It is known that deep learning produces transferable features, which can be used to learn new tasks, which differ from tasks on which the neural networks were trained [@transferable; @oquab2014learning]. Here, we demonstrate that the transferability of pre-trained deep learning features can be further enhanced by capturing the contextual information in images.
We model the contextual dependencies using a conditional latent tree model (CLTM), where we condition on the pre-trained deep learning features as input. This allows us to incorporate the joint effects of both the pre-trained features and the context for object classification. Note that a hierarchical tree structure is natural for capturing the groupings of various object categories in images; the latent or hidden variables capture the “group” labels of objects. Unlike previous works, we do not impose a fixed tree structure, or even a fixed number of latent variables, but learn a flexible structure efficiently from data. Moreover, since we make these “group” variables latent, there is no need to have access to group labels during training, and we learn the object groups or scene categories in a unsupervised manner. Thus, in addition to efficient multi-object classification, we also learn latent variables that capture semantic information about the scene in a unsupervised manner.
Summary of Results
------------------
We propose a unified framework for multi-object classification and scene understanding that combines the strengths of multiple machine learning techniques, viz deep learning, probabilistic models, and kernel methods. We demonstrate significant improvement over state-of-art deep learning methods, especially on challenging objects. We learn a conditional latent tree model, where we condition on pre-trained deep learning features. We employ kernel methods to learn the structure of the hierarchical tree model, and we train a new smaller neural network to learn the node and edge potentials of the model. Multi-object classification is carried out via inference on the tree. All these steps are efficient and scalable to large datasets with a large number of object categories.
We extract features using pre-trained ImageNet CNN [@imagenet] from Caffe [@caffe], and use it as input to the conditional latent tree model (CLTM), a type of conditional random field (CRF). The tree dependency structure for this model is recovered using distance based methods [@LTM], which requires pairwise conditional probabilities of object co-occurrences, conditioned on the input features. We employ the kernel conditional embedding framework [@song] to compute these pairwise measures. Using a feed-forward neural network, we train the above energy based model; the outputs of this neural network yield the node and edge potentials of the CLTM. We test performance of multi-object classification on a non-iconic image set Microsoft COCO [@MSCOCO] and we test its unsupervised scene learning capabilities on the MIT Indoor dataset [@objectbank].
We recover a natural coherent tree structure on the MS COCO data-set, using training images, each of which contain only few object categories. For instance, objects (e.g. table, chair and couch) that appear in a given scene (living room) are grouped together. Using our approach, precision-recall performance and F-measures are significantly improved compared to the baseline of a 3-layer neural network with independent binary classifiers, which also takes in fc7 features as input. We see across the board improvement for all object categories over the entire precision-recall curve. The overall relative gain in F-measure for our method is 7%. For difficult objects like couch, frisbee, cup, bowl, remote, fork, and wine-glass, the F-measure relative gain is 41%, 48%, 50%, 53%, 113%, 122%, and 171% respectively. Thus, we combine pre-trained deep learning features and the learnt contextual model to obtain state-of-art multi-object classification performance.
We also demonstrate how latent nodes can be used for unsupervised scene understanding, without using any scene labels during training. We observe that latent nodes capture high-level semantic information common to images, based on the neighborhoods of object categories in the latent tree. When we consider the top images with largest activations of node potential for a given latent node, we find diverse images with different objects, but with a unifying common theme. For instance, for one of the latent variables, the top images capture a grassland scene but with different animals in different images. Similarly, the latent variable representing an outdoor scene contains diverse images with traffic, beaches, and buildings. As another example, the latent variable representing the food scene shows foods of various different kinds. Thus, we present a flexible framework for capturing thematic information in images in a unsupervised manner.
We also quantitatively show that the latent variables yield efficient scene classification performance on the MIT-Indoor dataset, without any re-training, and without using any scene labels during training. We use the marginal probabilities of the latent variables in our model on test images, and perform $k$-means clustering. For validation, we match these clusters to ground truth scene categories using maximum weight matching [@ahuja1989network]. We obtain 20% improvement in misclassification rate of the scenes, compared to the neural network baseline. Note that we assume that the scene labels are not present during training for both our method, and for the neural network baseline. Thus, we demonstrate that our model is capable of capturing rich semantic information about the scenes, without using any scene labels during the training process.
Thus, we present a carefully engineering unified framework for multi-object classification that combines the strengths of diverse machine learning techniques. While general non-parametric methods are computationally expensive, and not scalable to large datasets, we employ kernel methods only to estimate pairwise conditional probabilities, which can be carried out efficiently using randomized matrix techniques [@nystorm]. Our tree structure estimation is scalable to large datasets using recent advances in parallel techniques for structure estimation [@scalableLTM]. Instead of training a large neural network from scratch, we train a smaller one, and we use a energy-based model at its output to obtain the node and edge potentials of the latent tree model. Finally, at test time, we have “lightning” fast inference using message passing on the tree model. Thus, we present an efficient and a scalable framework for handling large image datasets with a large number of object categories.
Related Work
------------
Correlations between labels have been explored for detecting multiple object categories before. [@myungjin; @outofcontext] learn contextual relations between co-occurring objects using a tree structure graphical model to capture dependencies among different objects. In this model, they incorporate dependencies between object categories, and outputs of local detectors into one probabilistic framework. However, using simple pre-trained object detectors are typically noisy and lead to performance degradation. In contrast, we employ pre-trained deep learning features as input, and consider a conditional model for context, given the features. This allows us to incorporate both deep learning features and context into our framework.
In many settings, the hierarchical structure representing the contextual relations between different objects is fixed and is based on semantic similarity [@grauman2011learning], or may rely on text, in addition to image information [@li2010building]. In contrast, we learn the tree structure from data efficiently, and thus, the framework can be adapted to settings where such a tree may not be available, and even if available, may not give the best classification performance for multi-object classification.
Using pre-trained ImageNet features for other computer vision tasks has been popular in a number of works recently, e.g. [@transferable; @girshick2014rich; @oquab2014learning]. [@girshick2014rich] term this as [*supervised pre-training*]{} and employ them to train regional convolutional neural networks (R-CNN) for object localization. We note that our framework can be extended to localization and we plan to pursue it in future. While [@girshick2014rich] employ independent SVM classifiers for each class, we believe that incorporating our probabilistic framework for multi-object localization can significantly improve performance. Recently, [@zhang2015improving] propose improving object detection using Bayesian optimization for fine grained search and a structured loss function that aims at both classification and localization. We believe that incorporating probabilistic contextual models can further improve performance in these settings.
Recent papers also incorporate deep learning for scene classification. [@zhou2014learning; @zhou2014object] introduce the places dataset and use CNNs for scene classification. In this framework, scene labels are available during training, while we do not assume access to these labels during our training process. We demonstrate how introducing latent variables can automatically capture semantic information about the scenes, without the need for labeled data.
Scene understanding is a very rich and an active area of computer vision and consists of a variety of tasks such as object localization, pixel labeling, segmentation and so on, in addition to classification tasks. [@li2009towards] propose a hierarchical generative model that performs multiple tasks in a coherent manner. [@li2011theta] also consider the use of context by taking into account the spatial location of the regions of interest. While there is a large body of such works which use contextual information (see for instance [@li2011theta]), they mostly do not incorporate latent variables in their modeling. In future, we plan to extend our framework for these various scene understanding tasks and expect significant improvement over existing methodologies.
There have been some recent attempts to combine neural networks with probabilistic models. For example, [@ammar2014conditional] propose to combine CRF and auto-encoder frameworks for unsupervised learning. Markov random fields are employed for pose estimation to encode the spatial relationships between joint locations in [@tompson2014joint]. [@chen2014learning] propose a joint framework for deep learning and probabilistic models. They learn deep features which take into account dependencies between output variables. While they train a 8-layer deep network from scratch to learn the potential functions of a MRF, we exhibit how a simpler network can be used if we employ pre-trained features as an input to the conditional model. Moreover, we incorporate latent variables that allow us to use a simple tree model, leading to faster training and inference. Finally, while many works have used MS-COCO for captioning and joint image-text related tasks [@karpathy2014deep; @vinyals2014show], there have been no attempts to improve multi-object classification over standard deep learning techniques, using images alone on MS-COCO and not the text data, to the best of our knowledge.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:2\] presents overview of the model. Section \[sec:3\] presents structure learning method using input distribution of fc7 features. In Section \[sec:4\], we discuss how we train CLTM using neural networks. In Section \[sec:5\], we evaluate the proposed model on MS COCO dataset and discuss the results. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Overview of The Model And Algorithm {#sec:2}
===================================
Labeled image-set $\mathcal{I} = \{(I^{1},y^{1}),\cdots,(I^{n},y^{n})\}$
Given a test image $T$: $x^{t} \leftarrow$ ExtractFc7Features($T$) Potentials $\leftarrow$ FeedForward(W,$x^{t}$) Prediction: $y \leftarrow {\arg\min}_{ Y } Energy(Y,Potentials)$
We consider pre-trained ImageNet [@imagenet] as a fixed feature extractor by considering the fc7 layer (4096-D vector) as the feature vector for a given input image. We denote this extracted feature as $x^{i}$ for $i^{th}$ image. It is also demonstrated in [@transferable] that such feature vectors can be effectively used for different tasks with different labels. The goal here is to learn models which can label an image to multiple-object categories present in a given image. Our model predicts a structured output $y \in \{0,1\}^{L}$. To achieve this goal ,we use a dependency structure that relates different object labels. Such dependency structure should able to capture pair-wise probabilities of object labels conditioned on input features. We model this dependency structure using a latent tree. Firstly, these type of structures allow for more complex structures of dependence compared to a fully observed tree. Secondly, inference on it is tractable.
We estimate probabilities of object co-occurrences conditioned on input fc7 features. We then use distance-based algorithm to recover the structure using estimated distance matrix. Once we recover the structure, we model the distribution of observed labels and latent nodes for a given input covariates as a discriminative model. We use conditional latent Tree Model, a class of CRF that belongs to exponential family of distributions to model distribution of output variables given an input. Instead of restricting the potentials(factors) to linear functions of covariates, we generalize potentials as functions represented by outputs of a neural network. For a given architecture of neural network which takes $X$ as input, we learn weights $W$ by backpropogating the gradient of marginalized log-likelihood of output binary variables. Once we train the given neural network, we consider the outputs of neural network as potentials for estimating marginal node beliefs conditioned on input covariates $X$. Our model also results in MAP configuration for a given input covariates $X$. Algo.\[algo:overview\] gives overview of our framework.
\[i\] \[i\][ ]{} \[l\][ ]{} \[l\][ ]{} \[l\][ ]{} \[l\][ ]{} \[l\][ ]{} \[l\][ ]{} ![ Our Model takes input as fc7 features and generates node potentials at the output layer of a given neural network. Using these node potentials, our model outputs MAP configuration and marginal probabilities of observed and latent nodes[]{data-label="neuralnet"}](drawing1.eps "fig:"){width=".5\linewidth"}
Use of non-parametric methods for end-end tasks on large datasets is computationally expensive. So, we restrict using kernel methods to only evaluate pairwise conditional probabilities, and here, we can use randomized matrix methods to efficiently scale the computations [@nystorm]. The tree structure is estimated through CL grouping algorithm from [@LTM]. Although the method in [@LTM] is serial, we note that recently there have been parallel versions of this method in [@scalableLTM]. Finally, we train neural networks to output node and edge potentials for CLTM. Finally, detection is carried out via inference on the tree model through message passing algorithms. Thus, we have an efficient procedure for multi-object detection in images.
Conditional Latent Tree Model {#sec:3}
=============================
We denote given labeled training set as $D =\{(x^{1},y^{1}),\cdots,(x^{n},y^{n})\}$ and $ x^{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{4096} , y^{i} \in \{0,1\}^L$ $\forall$ i $\in (1,2,\cdots,n)$. We denote extracted tree by $ \mathcal{T} = (\mathcal{Z}, \mathcal{E})$ where $\mathcal{Z}$ indicates the set of observed and latent nodes and $\mathcal{E}$ denotes edge set. Once we recover the structure, we use conditional latent tree model to model $P( \mathcal{Z}|X)$. Conditioned on input $X$, we model distribution of $\mathcal{Z}$ using in the below Eqn. $$P(\mathcal{Z} | X) = \exp\left(-\sum_{k \in \mathcal{Z}}\phi_{k}(X, \theta)z_{k}+ \sum_{(k,t) \in \mathcal{E}}\phi_{(k,t)}(X,\theta)z_{k}z_{t} - \mathcal{A}(\theta,X)\right)$$
where $\mathcal{A}(X, \theta)$ is the term that normalizes the distribution, also known as the log partition function. $\phi_{k}(X, \theta)$ and $\phi_{(k,t)}(X, \theta)$ indicate the node and edge potentials of the exponential family distribution, respectively. Instead of restricting the potentials to linear functions of covariates, we generalize potentials as functions represented by outputs of a neural network. Sec.\[sec:4\] explains how we learn the weights of such a neural network.
We learn the dependency structure among object labels from a set of fully labeled images. Traditional distance-based methods use only empirical co-occurrences of objects to learn the structure. Learning a structure that involves strong pair-wise relations among objects requires training images to contain many instances of different object categories. In this section, we propose a new structure recovery method without the need of such training sets. This method involves both empirical co-occurrences and the distribution of fc7 features to calculate distances between labels.
Since there are very few positive sample images with multiple object-categories, training just based on co-occurrence is not sufficient to recover a coherent tree structure. We leverage on extracted features to estimate moments by conditioning on them. We propose a new method to calculate the distance matrix by using a RKHS framework to estimate moments. The estimated distance matrix is then used by distance-based methods for structure recovery [@LTM].
### Kernel Embedding of Conditional Distribution {#kernel-embedding-of-conditional-distribution .unnumbered}
The kernel conditional embedding framework, described in [@song] gives us methods for modeling conditional and joint distributions. These methods are effective in high-dimensional settings with multi-modal components such as the current setting .
In the general setting, given transformations $\phi(X)$ and $\Psi(Y)$ on X,Y to the RKHS using kernel functions $K(x,.)$, $K^{'}(y,.)$, the above framework provides us with the following empirical operators to embed joint distributions into the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). Define $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{C}}_{XX} &= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N\phi(x^{n})\otimes \phi(x^{n}) \\
\hat{\mathcal{C}}_{XY} &= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N\phi(x^{n})\otimes \Psi(y^{n}),\end{aligned}$$ and $\hat{\mathcal{C}}_{Y|X} := \hat{\mathcal{C}}_{YX}\hat{C}_{XX}^{-1} $. We have following results that can be used to evaluate $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_{i}Y_{j}|X}[y_{i} \otimes y_{j}|x]$ for a given data-set. $$ \Psi(y)^{\top}\hat{\mathcal{C}}_{Y|X} \phi(x) = \Psi (y)^{\top} \Psi_{Y} ( K_{XX} + \lambda N I)^{-1} \phi _{X}^{\top} \phi(x)
$$ We employ Gaussian RBF kernels and use the estimated conditional pairwise probabilities for learning the latent tree structure.
Learning Latent Tree Structure
------------------------------
Input data-set $D =\{(x^{1},y^{1}),\cdots,(x^{n},y^{n})\}$
Compute Gram matrix $K_{n\times n}$ using hyper-parameter $ \gamma$
$G = (K + \lambda I)^{-1} \times K(:,i)$. $\hat{\mathbb{E}}[Y_{k} \otimes Y_{t} | X =x^{i}] = [y^{1}_{k} \otimes y^{1}_{t}, y^{2}_{k} \otimes y^{2}_{t}, \cdots, y^{n}_{k} \otimes y^{n}_{t}]^{\top} G$ $S_{k,t} = |\operatorname{det}(\hat{\mathbb{E}}[Y_{k} \otimes Y_{t}| X = x^{i}] )|$ Compute $D^{i}$ where $D^{i}[k,t] = -\log(\frac {S_{k,t}}{\sqrt{S_{k,k} \times S_{t,t}}})$ $ D_{L\times L} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n D^{i} $
A significant amount of work has been done on learning latent tree models. Among the available approaches for latent tree learning, we use the information distance based algorithm CLGrouping [@LTM] which has provable computational efficiency guarantees. These algorithms are based on a measure of statistical additive tree distance. For our conditional setting, we use the following form of the distance function: $$\hat{d}_{kt}= \\ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n-\log\left(\frac {| \operatorname{det}(\hat{\mathbb{E} }[Y_{k} \otimes Y_{t}| X=x^{i}])|}{\sqrt{S_{k,k}\cdot S_{t,t}}}\right),$$ where $S_{k,k}:=| \operatorname{det}(\hat{\mathbb{E} }[Y_{k} \otimes Y_{k}| X=x^{i}])|$, and similarly for $S_{t,t}$, for observed nodes $k,t$ using $N$ samples. We employ the CL grouping to learn the tree structure from the estimated distances.
Learning CLTM Using Neural Networks {#sec:4}
====================================
Energy-based learning provides a unified framework for many probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to structured output tasks [@lossfunctions], particularly for non-probabilistic training of graphical models and other structured models. Furthermore, the absence of the normalization condition allows for more flexibility in the design of learning machines. Most probabilistic models can be viewed as special types of energy-based models in which the energy function satisfies certain normalizability conditions, and in which the loss function, optimized by learning, has a particular form.
Inference
---------
Consider observed variable X and output variable Y. Define an energy function $\mathcal{E}(X,Y)$ that is minimized when $X$ and $Y$ are compatible. The most compatible $Y^{*}$ given an observed $X$ can be expressed as $${ Y }^{ * }={\arg\min}_{ Y } \mathcal{E}(Y,X)$$ The energy function can be expressed as a factor graph, i.e. a sum of energy functions (node and edge potentials) that depend on input covariates x. Efficient inference procedures for factor graphs can be used to find the optimum configuration $Y^{*}$. In the below Eqn., we define the energy function which is used to model loss function.
$$\mathcal{E}(x,z,\theta)= \sum_{k \in \mathcal{Z}}\phi_{k}(x, \theta)z_{k} + \sum_{(k,t) \in \mathcal{E}}\phi_{(k,t)}(x,\theta)z_{k}z_{t}
$$
Training Energy Based Models using Neural Networks
--------------------------------------------------
Training an energy based model (EBM) consists of finding an energy function that produces the best Y for any X. The search for the best energy function is performed within a family of energy functions indexed by a parameter W. The architecture of the EBM is the internal structure of the parameterized energy function $\mathcal{E}(W,Y,X)$. In the case of neural networks the family of energy functions are the set of neural net architectures and weight values.
For a given neural network architecture, weights are learned by backpropagating the gradient through some loss function [@lossfunctions]. In the case of structures involving latent variables h, we use negative marginal log-likelihood loss for training. $$\mathcal{L}=\mathbb{E}\left[\mathcal{E}(W,x,y,h)|y,x \right] - \mathbb{E}\left[\mathcal{E}(W,y,x,h)|x\right]
\label{loss}$$
And the gradient is evaluated using below Eqn. $$\frac { \partial \mathcal{L}} { \partial W } = \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac { \partial \mathcal{E}(W,y,x,h) }{ \partial W } |x,y \right] - \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac { \partial \mathcal{E}(W,y,x,h) }{ \partial W } |x \right]$$
Experiments {#sec:5}
===========
In this section, we show experimental results of (a) classifying an image to multiple-object categories simultaneously and (b) identifying scenes from which images emerged. We use the non-iconic image data-set MS COCO [@MSCOCO] to evaluate our model. This data-set contains 83K training images with images labeled with 80 different object classes. The validation set contains 40K images. We use an independent classifier trained using 3 layer neural network (Indep. Classifier) as a baseline, and compare precision-recall measures with our proposed conditional latent tree model.
Implementation {#implementation .unnumbered}
--------------
We use our conditional latent tree model as a standalone layer on top of a neural network. The layer takes as input a set of scores $\phi(x,W) \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$. These scores correspond to node potentials of the energy function. To avoid over-fitting we make edge potentials independent of input covariates. Using these potentials, our model outputs marginal probabilities of all the labels along with the MAP configuration. During learning, we use stochastic gradient descent and compute $ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \phi}$ , where $ \mathcal{L}$ is loss function defined in Eqn.. This derivative is then back propagated to the previous layers represented by $\phi(x;w)$. Using a mini-batch size of 250 and dropout, we train the model. We use the Viterbi message passing algorithm for exact inference on conditional latent tree model.
\[l\][ ]{} \[l\][ ]{} \[l\][ ]{} {width="\linewidth"}
--------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Model Precision Recall F-Measure
\[0.3ex\] 1 Layer (Indep. Classifier) 0.715 0.421 0.529
1 Layer (CLTM) 0.742 0.432 0.546
2 Layer (Indep. Classifier) 0.722 0.425 0.535
2 Layer (CLTM) 0.763 0.437 0.556
3 Layer (Indep. Classifier) 0.731 0.428 0.539
3 Layer (CLTM) **0.769** **0.449** **0.567**
--------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: F-Measure Comparison
\[table:nonlin\]
Structure Recovery
------------------
We use 40k images randomly selected from the training set to learn the tree structure using the distance based method proposed in Section \[sec:3\]. We have the recovered tree structure relating 80 different objects and 22 hidden nodes in \[appendix\] Appendix. From the learned tree structure, we can see that hidden nodes take the role of dividing the tree according to the scene category. For instance, the nodes connected to hidden nodes $h19$, $h22$, $h9$ and $h17$ contain objects from the kitchen, bathroom, wild animals and living room respectively. Similarly, all the objects that appear in outdoor traffic scenes are clustered around the observed node car. Note that most training images contain fewer than 3 instances of different object categories.
Classification Performance on MS COCO
-------------------------------------
Table \[table:nonlin\] shows the comparison of precision, recall and F-measure between 3 layer neural network independent classifier and Conditional Latent Tree Model trained using 1,2 and 3 layer feed forward neural networks respectively. For 3 layer neural network independent classifier, we use a threshold of 0.5 to make binary decisions for different object labels. For CLTM, we use the MAP configuration to make binary decisions. Note that CLTM improves F-measure significantly. Fig.\[fig:f-measure\] shows the comparison of F-measure for each object category between baseline and CLTM trained using a 3 layer neural network. Over-all the gain in F-measure using our model is 7-percent compared to 3 Layer neural network. Note that F-measure gain for indoor objects is more significant. For difficult objects like skateboard, keyboard, laptop, bowl, cup and wine-glass, F-measure gain is 19-percent, 20-percent, 27-percent, 56-percent, 50-percent and 171-percent respectively. Fig. \[fig:prcomparision\] shows the precision recall curves for a) entire test image set b) a subset of test images that contain 2 different object categories c) a subset of test images that contain 3 different object categories. We consider marginal probabilities of each observed class that our model produced to measure precision-recall curves for varying threshold values. Fig.\[fig:classwise\] shows comparison of plots of precision-recall curves of a subset of object classes: tennis racket, bed, keyboard and baseball glove.
Qualitative Analysis
--------------------
In this section, we investigate the class of images that triggered highest activation of node potentials for different latent nodes. Fig. \[fig:topkimages\] shows the top-12 images from test set that resulted in the highest activation of different latent nodes. It is observed that different latent nodes effectively capture different semantic information common to images containing neighboring object classes. For instance, the top-12 images of latent nodes $h9$ , $h12$, $h4$, $h21$, $h3$ and $h5$ resulted in a class of images appearing in scenes of forest, dining table, kitchen, living room, traffic and belonging to fruit category.
Scene Classification on MIT-Indoor Dataset
------------------------------------------
The hidden nodes in CLTM model capture scene relevant information which can be used to perform scene classification tasks. In this section, we demonstrate scene classification capabilities of CLTM model. We use 529 images from MIT-Indoor data-set belonging to 4 different scenes: Kitchen, Bathroom, Living Room and Bedroom. We perform k-means on outputs of CLTM model and 3 layer neural network independent classifier to cluster images. We then optimally match these clusters to scenes to evaluate misclassification rate. Note that we never trained our model using scene labels and we just use them for validating the performance. In our experiments, we use marginal probabilities of observed and hidden nodes of CLTM , marginal probabilities of hidden nodes of CLTM and probabilities of individual classes resulted from 3 layer neural network conditioned on input features. Table \[table:k-means\] shows misclassification rates of different input features used for clustering. With out the need of object presence knowledge, clustering on marginal probabilities of hidden nodes alone resulted in the least misclassification rate.
----------------------------- ----------- -----------
Model k=4 k=6
\[0.3ex\] Observed + Hidden 0.326 0.242
3 layer neural network 0.390 0.301
Hidden **0.314** **0.238**
----------------------------- ----------- -----------
: Misclassification Rate
\[table:k-means\]
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
In conclusion, with the proposed structure recovery method we could recover the structure of latent tree. This tree has natural hierarchy of related objects placed according to their co-appearance in different scenes. We use neural networks of different architectures to train conditional latent tree models. We evaluate CLTM on MS COCO data-set and there is a significant gain in precision, recall and F-measure compared to 3 layer neural network independent classifier. Latent nodes captured different semantic information to distinguish high level class information of images. Such an information is used for scene labeling task in an unsupervised manner. In future, we aim to model both spatial and co-occurance knowledge and apply the model to object localisation tasks using CNN (like RCNN).
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulations is used to study the motion of a $C_{60}$ molecule on a graphene sheet subjected to a temperature gradient. The $C_{60}$ molecule is actuated and moves along the system while it just randomly dances along the perpendicular direction. Increasing the temperature gradient increases the directed velocity of $C_{60}$. It is found that the free energy decreases as the $C_{60}$ molecule moves toward the cold end. The driving mechanism based on the temperature gradient suggests the construction of nanoscale graphene-based motors.\
author:
- |
A. Lohrasebi$^{1}$, M. Neek-Amal$^{2}$, and M. R. Ejtehadi$^{3}$\
$^1$Department of Physics, University of Isfehan, Isfehan, Iran.\
$^2$Department of Physics, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Lavizan, Tehran 16788, Iran.\
[$^3$ Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran P.O.Box 1155-9161, Iran.]{}
title: '**Directed motion of $C_{60}$ on a graphene sheet subjected to a temperature gradient**'
---
Introduction
============
Since graphene has been discovered [@novoselov], many properties of this two-dimensional material have been studied both experimentally [@geim] and theoretically [@geim2; @geim3]. In a recent experimental research the dynamic of light atoms deposited on a single-layer garphene has been studied by the mean of transmission electron microscopy (TEM) technic [@mayer2008]. The two-dimensional structure of graphene suggests the possibility of motion with just two degrees of freedom. The free energy surface for a particle moving above a graphene sheet explains different motion-related phenomena at nanoscale as well as the various directed motions on the carbon nanotube-based motors [@neek; @science2008].
A net motion can be obtained from a nanoscale system subjected to a thermal gradient [@10; @11]. Recently the motion of an experimentally designed nanoscale motor consisting of a capsule-like carbon nanotube inside a host carbon nanotube has been explained successfully with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations [@Somada]. The capsule travels back and forth between both ends of the host carbon nanotube along the axial direction. Barreiro *et al.* have designed an artificial nanofabricated motor in which one short carbon nanotube travels relative to another coaxial carbon nanotube [@science2008]. This motion is actuated by a thermal gradient as high as 1Knm$^{-1}$ applied to the ends of the coaxial carbon nanotubes.
Since graphene has a very high thermal conductivity (3000-5000WK$^{-1}$m$^{-1}$ [@thermalgraphene; @thermalgraphene2]), as high as diamond and carbon nanotubes [@thermalcnt; @prb2002; @prb2004; @osman], it is a good candidate for heat transferring designs in nano-electromechanical systems. Because of strong covalent bonds in graphene, thermal lattice conduction dominates the electrons contribution [@thermalgraphene]. Recently Yang *et al.* [@Hu] have studied the thermal conductivity and thermal rectification of trapezoidal and rectangular graphene nanoribbons and found a significant thermal rectification effect in asymmetric graphene ribbons [@Hu].
Here we study the motion of a nanoscale object, e.g. $C_{60}$, on a graphene sheet, in the presence of a temperature gradient. We show that the graphene is a good two-dimensional substrate for thermal actuation due to its high thermal conductivity, however as it is expected, in the absence of a thermal gradient, the $C_{60}$ molecule randomly diffuses on the graphene sheet [@neek]. The average velocity along the temperature gradient direction and the free energy change throughout the system are calculated.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we will introduce the atomistic model and the simulation method. Sec. 3 contains the main results including those for the produced temperature gradient, the trajectory of the $C_{60}$ molecule over the graphene sheet and the free energy change. A brief summary and conclusions are included in Sec. 4.
The model and method
====================
The system was composed of a graphene sheet as a substrate, with dimensions $L_x\times L_y = 70\times$5nm$^2$ and a $C_{60}$ molecule above the sheet. The graphene sheet with $N = 14\,400$ carbon atoms was divided into 12 equal rectangular segments. Each segment with $N_{l} = 1200$ carbon atoms was arranged in 40 atomic rows (along armchair or $x$-direction). Each row has 30 atoms which were arranged along zigzag direction. The system was equilibrated for 300ps at $T = 300$K before the temperature gradient was applied. Once the system was equilibrated, the first (hot spot) and last (cold end) segments of the graphene sheet were kept at $T_{h}$ and $T_{c}$, respectively. A temperature gradient between the two ends was then produced, i.e. $(T_{h}-T_{c})/L_x$ (top panel of Fig. \[figmode\]). To make the model more efficient and prevent crumpling (see Fig. \[figcrump\](a)) of the ends, we fixed the $z$-components of the first atomic row in the first segment and the last row of the last segment (see Fig. \[figcrump\](b)).
![(Color online) Top: The model which shows applied temperature gradient along $x$-direction. Bottom: Produced four temperature gradients after 450 ps of a nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulation. Delta symbols are related to $\Delta T$ = 100 K, and for square symbols $\Delta T$ = 80 K, circle symbols $\Delta
T$ = 60 K and for gradient symbols $\Delta T$ = 40 K, respectively. \[figmode\] ](fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"} ![(Color online) Top: The model which shows applied temperature gradient along $x$-direction. Bottom: Produced four temperature gradients after 450 ps of a nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulation. Delta symbols are related to $\Delta T$ = 100 K, and for square symbols $\Delta T$ = 80 K, circle symbols $\Delta
T$ = 60 K and for gradient symbols $\Delta T$ = 40 K, respectively. \[figmode\] ](fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"}
![(Color online) (a) A snapshot of a not-constrained system shows the effect of the ends crumpling. (b) Fixing $z$-components of the atoms at the first and last rows (see the text) prevents the crumpling. The black dots show a typical trajectory of the motion of a C$_{60}$ molecule over the graphene sheet from the hot spot toward the cold spot.[]{data-label="figcrump"}](fig1c.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
We carried out MD simulations employing two types of the interatomic potentials: 1) the covalent bonds between the carbon atoms in the graphene sheet and in the $C_{60}$ molecule are described by Brenner potential [@brenn] and 2) the non-bonded Van der Waals interactions between the graphene atoms and those of the $C_{60}$ molecule. Brenner potential has been parameterized to model $sp^2$ covalent bonds in the graphene, carbon nanotube and $C_{60}$ structures. For the non-bonded potential a Lennard-Jones (LJ) potential gives reasonable results [@Hendrick]. Here we choose the LJ parameters as $\epsilon = 2.413$meV and $\sigma = 3.4$Å [@stan] which represent the depth and range of the LJ potential energy, respectively. Note that the LJ potential is a simple and commonly used potential for modeling the interaction between carbon nanostructures [@Gravil; @prlrefereepre]. The equations of motion were integrated using a velocity-Verlet algorithm with a time step $\Delta t = 0.5$fs. The temperature of the hot end ($T_{h}$) and the cold end ($T_{c}$) were held constant by a Nosé-Hoover thermostat. The temperature of the inner segments were not controlled by the thermostat. Periodic boundary condition was applied only in the $y$-direction. Due to the applied temperature gradient, the system can no longer be described by equilibrium methods and we shall thus employ nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulations. A temperature gradient were produced across the system during 450ps and a stationary state was established. The $C_{60}$ molecule was put above the second segment at $z_{cm} = 8$Å (here index $cm$ refer to the center of mass). During the production runs of 750ps both the $x$ and $y$ positions of the center of mass of the $C_{60}$ molecule were recorded. Moreover the temperature of each segment was calculated by measuring the total kinetic energy of that segment. In our simulations a typical value for the relative standard deviation of the total energy of the extended system is about $3.5\times 10^{-5}$. A full simulation run takes about 50h CPU time on a 3.2GHz Pentium IV processor with 4GB RAM.
In order to compute the change in the free energy, one can employ the commonly used thermodynamic integration and perturbation methods [@freeenergyfasolino]. A good estimation for the absolute value of the free energy requires sampling the whole phase space which is not feasible. Jarzynski’s method removes this difficulty for nonequilibrium simulations [@jar]. There is an equality between the change of the free energy $F$ and the work $W$ applied on the system (here the $C_{60}$ molecule) [@jar] $$\Delta F = -\beta^{-1}\ln\overline{\exp(-\beta W)},\label{jeq}$$ where $\beta = 1/k_{B}\,T$ ($T$ is the temperature in each segment), and the average is taken over different configurations with different initial conditions. In fact, Eq. (\[jeq\]) connects the change of the free energy (between two equilibrium state) and the applied work on the system in a nonequilibrium process.
{width="0.325\linewidth"} {width="0.325\linewidth"} {width="0.325\linewidth"}
![(Color online) Mean square displacement for $y$-component of the center of mass of C$_{60}$ molecule over the graphene. The inset shows the velocity autocorrelation function for the $y$-component of the motion as a function of time. \[figMSD\] ](fig4.eps){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Results and discussion
======================
Producing temperature gradient
------------------------------
The temperature profiles for different temperature gradients with $\Delta T =40,~60,~80,~100$K are shown in Fig. \[figmode\] (bottom panel). In this figure, the local temperatures of each segment which were obtained by averaging over 500 data are indicated by symbols. Corresponding error bars indicate the statistical errors and are in the range 4-6K. Notice that the temperature profiles are nonlinear which is a commonly observed behavior in nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulation of thermal conductivity [@prb2002; @prb2004; @osman]. It is a consequence of the strong phonon scattering caused by the heat source or heat sink and can be explained by partly diffusive and partly ballistic energy transport along the system [@prb2002; @Oligschleger]. Also, ripples in the graphene (Fig. \[figcrump\](b)) are the other important source for phonon scattering [@fasolino; @nima]. Therefore, these mechanisms cause a non-linear temperature profile in the middle segments.
![(Color online) (a) Total work performed on C$_{60}$ molecules and (b) the change of free energy during C$_{60}$ motion from the hot end to the cold end. The thick curve is the average over six simulations with different initial conditions. \[figwork\] ](fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"} ![(Color online) (a) Total work performed on C$_{60}$ molecules and (b) the change of free energy during C$_{60}$ motion from the hot end to the cold end. The thick curve is the average over six simulations with different initial conditions. \[figwork\] ](fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Trajectory in the $x-y$ plane
-----------------------------
The graphene ribbon is a two-dimensional way for the motion of the C$_{60}$ molecule along it. C$_{60}$ attempts to find its equilibrium state and looks for the local minimum of the free energy. In other words, in the presence of a temperature gradient, the phonon waves created in the hot spot travel through the system, interact and transfer momentum to the C$_{60}$ molecule which results a net motion [@science2008]. The time series for the $x$ and $y$ coordinates, separately, are shown in Figs. \[figxt\](a,b). The trajectories of the six C$_{60}$ molecules (from the six different simulations) in $x-y$ plane over a time interval of 750ps are depicted in Fig. \[figxt\](c). In all three cases the thick curve is the average of the six others.
The motion along the $x$-direction is almost a linear uniform motion with velocities $v_{x} = 53,~56,~59$ and 63m/s for $\Delta T =
40,~60,~80,~100$K respectively (see inset of Fig. \[figxt\](a)). There are two computational methods that can be used to show that the motion along the $y$-direction is diffusive (Fig. \[figxt\](c)). First, one can use the Einstein relation to find the diffusion constant $D_y$ by measuring the slope of the mean square displacement (MSD) of the $y$-components of the position, i.e. $\langle(y(t)-y(0))^2\rangle$. To show that the motion along the $y$-direction is driftless, we look at the MSD of $y$-component of the position of the C$_{60}$ molecule. For a driftless motion the MSD should grows linearly with time, i.e. $<(y(t)-y(0))^2>\,=\,2D_yt$. We depict the MSD in Fig. \[figMSD\] for a long time simulation. As we see from this figure the slope of the MSD is almost one (after equilibration) which is a signature of diffusive regime. Alternatively one can use the Green-Kubo relation which makes use of the velocity autocovariance function (VACF). More specifically, one can take the integral over the autocovariance of the $y$-components of the position of the velocity of C$_{60}$ as $D_y = \int_0^{\infty} \langle v_y(0)v_y(\tau) \rangle d\tau$, which gives the diffusion constant of random walk motion along the $y$-axis. The inset of Fig. \[figMSD\] shows the VACF versus time. We have tested both methods in order to compute $D_y$. The result **f**or the diffusion constant is about $4\times10^{-9}$m$^2$/s.
The directed motion resulted from the temperature gradient along the graphene sheet, provides a nanoscale motor for the material transferring. Notice that in the absence of temperature gradient, when the system is equilibrated at $T$ = 300K, we found a diffusive motion on the graphene sheet [@neek].
Free energy reduction
---------------------
Figures \[figwork\](a,b) show the variation of the total work and the changes in the free energy with time, respectively. The C$_{60}$ loses on average almost 12eV of free energy after 750ps during the motion towards the cooler region. Note that here, the condition $\overline{W}>\Delta F$ is always satisfied which is a well known criterion for a nonequilibrium (irreversible) thermodynamics evolution [@jar]. This method for calculating the change of the free energy is a well known method in computational soft condensed matter [@hui] but it turns out to be useful also for studying various physical properties of graphene, particularly investigating the stability of new designs for nanoscale molecular devices as studied here.
Conclusions
===========
In summary, C$_{60}$ moves directly toward the cold end of the graphene sheet when a temperature gradient is applied along armchair direction. It is found that the lateral motion (along zigzag direction) is a diffusive motion. The reduction of the free energy of the system along the molecule motion is an indicative of the drifted motion. Comparing the free energy difference with the work performed on C$_{60}$ shows that the process is indeed thermodynamically irreversible. The proposed mechanism for driving nanoparticles on a graphene sheet may be used in the design of novel nanoscale motors.
Acknowledgment
==============
We gratefully acknowledge valuable comments from Hamid Reza Sepangi and Ali Naji.
[99]{} K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science [**306**]{}, 666 (2004) . A. K. Geim, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Mater. [**6**]{}, 183 (2007). A. K. Geim and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Today [**60**]{}, 35 (2007). A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 109 (2009). J. C. Meyer, C. O. Girit, M. F. Crommie and A. Zettl, Nature [**454**]{}, 319-322 (2008). M. Neek-Amal, N. Abedpour, S. N. Rasuli, A. Naji, and M. R. Ejtehadi, Phys. Rev. E, [**82**]{}, 051605 (2010). A. Barreiro, R. Rurali, E.R. Hernandez, J. Moser, T. Pichler, L. Forro, and A. Bachtold, Science [**320**]{}, 775 (2008). P. A. E. Schoen, J. H. Walther, S. Arcidiacono, D. Poulikakos, P. Koumoutsakos, Nano Lett. [**6**]{}, 1910 (2006). P. A. E. Schoen, J. H. Walther, D. Poulikakos, P. Koumoutsakos, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**90**]{}, 253116 (2007). H. Somada, K. Hirahara, S. Akita, and Y. Nakayama, Nano Lett. [**9**]{}, 62 (2009). A. A. Balandin, S. Ghosh, W. Bao, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, F. Miao, C. N. Lau, Nano Lett. [**8**]{}, 902 (2008). S. Ghosh, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, E. P. Pokatilov, D. L. Nika, A. A. Balandin, W. Bao, F. Miao, C. N. Lau, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**92**]{}, 151911 (2008). S. Berber, Y-K Kwon, and D. Tomanek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 4613 (2000). P. K. Schelling, S. R. Phillpot, and P. Keblinski, Phys. Rev. B. [**65**]{}, 144306 (2002). E. Gonzalez Noya, D. Srivastava, Leonid A. Chernozatonskii, M. Menon, Phys. Rev. B. [**70**]{}, 115416 (2004). M. A. Osman and D. Srivastava, Nanotechnology, [**12**]{} 21 (2001). N. Yang, G. Zhang, and B. Li, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**95**]{}, 033107 (2009). D. W. Brenner, Phys. Rev. B. [**42**]{}, 9458 (1990). H. Ulbricht, G. Moos, and T. Hertel, Phys Rev Lett. [**7**]{}, 095501 (2003). G. Stan, M. J. Bojan, S. Curtarolo, S. M. Gatica, and M. W. Cole, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 2173 (2000). P. A. Gravil, M. Devel, Ph. Lambin, X. Bouju, Ch. Girard, and A. A. Lucas, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 1622 (1996). A. N. Kolmogorov, and V. H. Crespi, Phys. Rev. Lett [**85**]{}, 4727 (2000). F. Colonna, J. H. Los, A. Fasolino, and E. J. Meijer, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 134103 (2009). C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett [**78**]{}, 2690 (1997). C. Oligschleger and J. C. Schon, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 4125 (1999). K. V. Zakharchenko, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. Fasolino, Phys. Rev. Lett [**102**]{}, 046808 (2009). N. Abedpour, M. Neek-Amal, R. Asgari, F. Shahbazi, N. Nafari, and M. R. Tabar, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 195407 (2007). H. Xiong, A. Crespo1, M. Marti, D. Estrin, and A. E. Roitberg, Theor. Chem. Acc. [**116**]{}, 338 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- |
High Energy Physics Institute, Tbilisi State University\
University St 9, 380086 Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia
- |
Department of Chemistry and Physics\
P.O. Box 419, Arkansas State University\
State University, Arkansas 72467-0419, USA
author:
- '**L. Chkhaidze, T. Djobava[^1], L. Kharkhelauri**'
- '**Bao-An Li[^2]**'
title: '**Differential Transverse Flow in Central C-Ne and C-Cu Collisions at 3.7 GeV/nucleon**'
---
> Differential transverse flow of protons and pions in central C-Ne and C-Cu collisions at a beam energy of 3.7 GeV/nucleon was measured as a function of transverse momentum at the SKM-200-GIBS setup of JINR. In agreement with predictions of a transversely moving thermal model, the strength of proton differential transverse flow is found to first increase gradually and then saturate with the increasing transverse momentum in both systems. While pions are preferentially emitted in the same direction of the proton transverse flow in the reaction of C-Ne, they exhibit an anti-flow to the opposite direction of the proton transverse flow in the reaction of C-Cu due to stronger shadowing effects of the heavier target in the whole range of transverse momentum.
PACS numbers: 25.70.-z; 25.75.Ld
INTRODUCTION
=============
The ultimate goal of high energy heavy-ion studies is to investigate nuclear matter under extreme conditions of high density and temperature. In particular, extensive experimental and theoretical efforts have been devoted to probe the nuclear Equation of State (EOS), to identify the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) phase transition and to study properties of the Guark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) which is a novel form of matter. New information extracted from these studies is critical to many interesting questions in both nuclear physics and astrophysics. It is thus fundamentally important to find sensitive experimental probes of hot and dense nuclear matter. The collective phenomena found in heavy-ion collisions, such as the transverse (sideward directed) and elliptic flow of nuclear matter, have been shown to be among the most sensitive probes of the nuclear EOS. The transverse flow is the sideward deflection of nuclear matter moving forward and backward in the reaction plane. The transverse flow has been observed for nucleons, nuclear fragments and newly produced particles, such as pions and kaons, in heavy-ion collisions at all available energies ranging from the Fermi energy to the highest RHIC energy[@gary; @hhg; @reis; @ogi; @rai; @rhic]. Especially, around 4 GeV/nucleon where a transition from “squeeze-out" perpendicular to the reaction plane to the in-plane flow is expected, a number of flow measurements have been carried out at the AGS/BNL[@eos; @e917] and the JINR/DUBNA[@dubna1; @dubna2; @dubna3; @dubna4; @dubna5]. Clear evidence of the transverse and elliptic flow effects for protons and $\pi^{-}$ mesons have been obtained in central C-Ne and C-Cu collisions at energy of 3.7 GeV/nucleon by SKM-200-GIBS Collaboration at JINR/DUBNA. In C-Ne interactions the transverse flow of $\pi^{-}$ mesons is in the same direction as for the protons, while in C-Cu collisions pions show antiflow behabiour. From the transverse momentum and azimuthal distributions of protons and $\pi^{-}$ mesons with respect to the reaction plane defined by participant protons, the flow $F$ (a measure of the collective transverse momentum transfer in the reaction plane) and the parameter $a_{2}$ (a measure of the anisotropic emission strength) have been extracted. The flow effects increase with the mass of the particle and the mass number of target $A_{T}$. The scaled flow $F_{s}=F/(A_{P}^{1/3}+A_{T}^{1/3})$ have been used for comparison of transverse flow results of SKM-200-GIBS with flow data for various energies and projectile/target configurations. The $F_{s}$ demonstrates a common scaling behaviour of protons flow values for different energies (Bevalac, GSI/SIS, Dubna, AGS, SPS) and systems. Focusing on the total transverse flow, i.e., integrated over transverse momentum, these studies have revealed much interesting physics. In the present work, we report results of a differential transverse flow analysis as a function of transverse momentum for protons and pions in central C-Ne and C-Cu collisions at a beam energy of 3.7 Gev/nucleon measured at the SKM-200-GIBS setup of JINR.
EXPERIMENT
==========
The SKM-200-GIBS setup consists of a 2 m streamer chamber with volume $2 \times 1 \times 0.6~ m^{3}$, placed in a magnetic field of 0.8 Tesla, and a triggering system. The streamer chamber was exposed to a beam of C nuclei accelerated in the synchrophasotron up to a momentum of 4.5 GeV/c/nucleon (beam energy $E_{beam}= 3.7$ GeV/nucleon). The thickness of the solid target Cu (in the form of a thin disc) was 0.2 g/cm$^{2}$. Neon gas filling of the chamber also served as a nuclear target. Photographs of the events were taken using an optical system with three objectives. The experimental set-up and the logic of the triggering system are presented in Fig. 1.
The triggering system allowed the selection of “inelastic" and “central" collisions. The “inelastic" trigger, consisting of two sets of scintillation counters mounted upstream (S$_{1}$ - S$_{4}$) and downstream (S$_{5}$, S$_{6}$) the chamber, has been selecting all inelastic interactions of incident nuclei on a target. The “central" triggering system was consisting of the same upstream part as in the “inelastic" system and of scintillation veto counters (S$_{ch}$, S$_{n}$), registering a projectile and its charged and neutral spectator fragments, in the downstream part. All counters were made from the plastic scintillators and worked with photomultipliers PM-30. The S$_{1}$ counter with the scintillator of 20$\times$20$\times$0.5 cm$^{3}$ size, worked in the amplitude regime and identified the beam nuclei by the charge. The nuclei from the beam, going to the target, has been selected using the profile counters S$_{2}$, S$_{3}$ with the plastic of 15 mm diameter and 3 mm thickness and “thin" counter S$_{4}$ (15 mm and 0.1 mm correspondly). The S$_{ch}$ counters (two counters with plastic of 25$\times$25$\times$0.5 cm$^{3}$ size) were placed at a distance of 6 m downstream the target and registered the secondary charged particles, emitted from the target within a cone of half angle $\Theta_{ch}$=$2.4^{0}$, $2.9^{0}$ (the trigger efficiency was 99$\%$ for events with a single charged particle in the cone). The S$_{n}$ counters registered the neutrons, emitted from the target in the solid angle $\Theta_{n}$=$1.8^{0}$, $2.8^{0}$ (the trigger efficiency was 80$\%$ for one neutron). The S$_{n}$ telescope consists from the five counters of 40$\times$40$\times$2 cm$^{3}$ size, layered by iron blocks of 10 cm thickness. The trigger selected central C-Ne and C-Cu collisions defined as those without charged projectile spectator fragments (with $p_Z>3$ GeV/c ) within a cone of half angle $\Theta_{ch}$ = 2.4$^{0}$.
The streamer chamber pictures were scanned twice, and a subsequent third scan resolved ambiguities or discrepancies between two scans. Primary results of scanning and measurements were biased due to several experimental effects and appropriate corrections were introduced [@exp1; @exp2]:\
1) The triggering system selected required projectile nuclei from a primary beam with an efficiency higher than $99\%$. The contamination due to interactions of other projectile nuclei with charge less than required biased the values of average multiplicities of secondary particles only insignificantly (the correction value $\leq 0.5 \%$).\
2) A trigger bias for central collisions arises whenever a projectile fragment hits the minimum bias veto-counter system and thus simulates a projectile-nucleus fragment. The effect was studied by simulating trajectories of secondary particles generated within the framework of the cascade model [@gud]. The geometry of the experimental set-up and magnetic field distribution were taken into account. The biases thus estimated turned out to be below statistical errors in multiplicity, $p_{t}$ and $y$ distributions.\
3) The corrections due to secondary interactions within a solid target turned out to be negligible (the correction value $\leq 0.5 \%$).\
4) Pion detection was biased against low momenta. Pions were registered with practically no bias when their momenta were $p \geq$ 40 MeV/c for the solid targets and $p \geq$ 20 MeV/c for gaseous $Ne$. Pions with lower momenta were also registered, however their detection efficiency depends on the path length in the target. The corrections could be delivered properly only for colliding with equal masses under the requirement of the symmetry $y - p_{t}$ plots in the c.m. system ( $\sim 0.6 \%$ in average multiplicity). A very rough estimation for asymmetric pairs of colliding nuclei showed that the correction values are $(0.5- 2)\%$.\
5) The samples of negative secondaries include $K^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{-}$ tracks. The contamination was estimated from $pp$ data [@ben] and from our results on strange particle production [@anik] (the correction value $\leq 0.5 \%$).\
6) Corrections for scanning losses originate from two sources:\
a) scanning inefficiency ($\sim 2\%$);\
b) losses of the tracks with a small projection length (which may be screened by the target container or a flash around the vertex) and/or a small track curvature ( $\sim 1-4 \%$) The corrections were estimated under the requirement of azimuthal symmetry for each emission angle interval for all groups of the measured interactions separately. The correction values are $0.5-3.5 \%$.\
7) The measurement precision essentially depends on the track length and its dip angle. In the samples of events considered $\sim 5- 15\%$ of $\pi^{-}$ mesons turned out to be unmeasurable or were rejected because of large errors. The measurement losses of $\pi^{-}$ mesons concerned practically only well determined intervals of emission angles, and, consequently, appropriate corrections, based on azimuthal symmetry, could be introduced in the spectra. Inaccuracy of the corrections was calculated, and systematic uncertainties of these corrections were found to be less than statistical ones. The ratio $\sigma_{cent}$/$\sigma_{inel}$ (that characterizes the centrality of selected events) is (9$\pm$1)$\%$ for C-Ne and (21$\pm$3)$\%$ for C-Cu. The average errors in measuring the momentum and production angle are $<\Delta p/p>$= (8-10)$\%$ and $\Delta$$\Theta$ =1$^{0}-2^{0}$, respectively, for protons, while for pions $<\Delta p/p>$= 5$\%$ and $\Delta$$\Theta$ =0.5$^{0}$, respectively.
DIFFERENTIAL FLOW OF NUCLEONS AND PIONS IN C-Ne AND C-Cu COLLISIONS
====================================================================
Several different methods have been utilized for analyzing flow effects in relativistic nuclear collisions, among them the transverse momentum analysis [@pawel] and Fourier expansion of particle azimuthal angle distributions [@ell1; @ell2] have been most widely used. More recently, it has been found that the differential analysis of the flow strength as a function of transverse momentum is more useful in revealing detailed properties of the hot and dense matter, see, e.g. [@rhic; @bali1; @bali2; @gyu; @fopi]. In this work, we adopt the method of differential flow analysis first used by the E877 collaboration in ref. [@e877]. Let $N^{+}(N^{-})$ be the number of particles emitted in the same (opposite) direction of the transverse flow near projectile rapidity, then the ratio $R(p_{t})=(dN^{+}/dp_{t})/(dN^{-}/dp_{t})$ as a function of $p_{t}$ is a direct measure of the strength of differential flow near the projectile rapidity. It has been shown experimentally that more detailed information about the collective flow can be obtained by studying this ratio [@e877]. The differential flow data also provides a much more stringent test ground for relativistic heavy-ion reaction theories. It was shown theoretically by Li et al in ref. [@bali3] and Voloshin in ref. [@vio] that the ratio $R(p_t)$ at high $p_{t}$ is particularly useful in studying the EOS of dense and hot matter formed in relativistic heavy-ion collisions.
The data have been analysed event by event using the transverse momentum technique of P.Danielewicz and G.Odyniec [@pawel]. The reaction plane have been defined for the paricipant protons i.e. protons which are not fragments of the projectile ($p/z >3$ GeV/c , $\Theta < 4^{0}$) and target ($p/z <0.2$ GeV/c). They represent the protons participating in the collision. The analysis have been carried out on 723 C-Ne and 663 events. The average multiplicities of participant protons are $<N_{p}> = 12.4 \pm 0.5$ in C-Ne and $<N_{p}> = 19.5 \pm 0.6$ in C-Cu, respectively.
The admixture of $\pi^{+}$ mesons amongst the protons is about (25$\div$27) $\%$. For the event by event analysis it is necessary to perform an identification of $\pi^{+}$ mesons and separate them from the protons. The statistical method have been used for identification of $\pi^{+}$ mesons. The main assumption is based on the similarity of spectra of $\pi^{-}$ and $\pi^{+}$ mesons ($n_{\pi}$, $p_{t}$, $p_{l}$). The two-dimentional – transverse and longitudinal momentum distribution ($p_{t}$, $p_{l}$) have been used for identification of $\pi^{+}$ mesons. It had been assumed, that $\pi^{-}$ and $\pi^{+}$ mesons hit a given cell of the plane ($p_{t}$, $p_{l}$) with equal probability. The difference in multiplicity of $\pi^{+}$ and $\pi^{-}$ in each event was required to be no more than 2. After this procedure the admixture of $\pi^{+}$ is less than (5-7)$\%$. The temperature of the identified protons agrees with our previous result [@chkha], obtained by the spectra subtraction.
In the transverse momentum analysis technique of P.Danielewicz and G.Odyniec [@pawel] the reaction plane is defined by the transverse vector $\overrightarrow{Q}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{Q}=\sum\limits_{i=1}\limits^{n}\omega_{i}
\overrightarrow{p_{{\perp}i}}\end{aligned}$$ where $i$ is a particle index, $\omega_{i}$ is a weight and $p_{{\perp}i}$ is the transverse momentum of particle $i$. The reaction plane is the plane containing $\overrightarrow{Q}$ and the beam axis. The weight $\omega_{i}$ is taken as 1 for y$_{i}$$>$ y$_{cm}$ and -1 for y$_{i}$$<$ y$_{cm}$, where y$_{cm}$ is c.m.s. rapidity and y$_{i}$ is the rapidity of particle $i$. Autocorrelations are removed by calculating $\overrightarrow{Q}$ individually for each particle without including that particle into the sum (1). $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{Q_{j}}=\sum\limits_{i\not=j}\limits^{n}\omega_{i}
\overrightarrow{p_{{\perp}i}}\end{aligned}$$ The transverse momentum of each particle in the estimated reaction plane is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
p_{xj}\hspace{0.01cm}^{\prime} = \frac{
\sum\limits_{i\not=j} \omega_{i} \cdot (
\overrightarrow{p_{{\perp}j}} \cdot \overrightarrow{p_{{\perp}i}})}
{\vert\overrightarrow{Q_{j}}\vert}\end{aligned}$$ As we study an asymmetric pair of colliding nuclei, we chose to bypass the difficulties associated with the center-of-mass determination and carried out the analysis in the laboratory frame. We have replaced the original weight $\omega_{i}$, by the continuous function $\omega_{i}$= $y_{i}$ - $<y>$ as in [@beav], where $<y>$ is the average rapidity, calculated for each event over all the participant protons.
It is known [@pawel], that the estimated reaction plane differs from the true one, due to the finite number of particles in each event. For the estimation of reaction plane resolution we divided randomly each event into two equal sub-events (1 and 2) and the reaction plane vector in both half-events have been evaluated separately, getting $\overrightarrow{Q_{1}}$ and $\overrightarrow{Q_{2}}$. Then estimated the azimuth angle difference between the vectors $\overrightarrow{Q_{1}}$ and $\overrightarrow{Q_{2}}$ $\Delta\varphi_{R}=
\Phi_{1}-\Phi_{2}$. The distributions of this $\Delta\varphi_{R}$ have been plotted for the whole experimental samples. The distributions are sharply peaked around $\Delta\varphi_{R}=0$ ( for C-Cu see Fig. 2). A uniform distributions have been recovered for the whole event ($\Phi$) and two sub-events ($\Phi_{1}$, $\Phi_{2}$) reaction planes azimuth angles. According to ref. [@pawel], the $\sigma_{r}\equiv<\Delta\varphi_{R}>/2$ is a good measure of the reaction plane resolution. We found that $\sigma_{r}=26^{0}$ for C-Ne and $\sigma_{r}=23^{0}$ for C-Cu, respectively.
First, in Fig. 3 we examine the transverse momentum spectra of protons detected on the same $(dN^{+}/dp_{t})$ and opposite $(dN^{-}/dp_{t})$ side of the transverse flow (reaction plane) in central C-Ne (window a) and C-Cu (window b) interactions, respectively. These protons are not used in the definition of the reaction plane. Here only protons emitted in the rapidity intervals of 1.7$<$ Y $<$ 2.4 for C-Ne and 1.3$<$ Y $<$ 2.7 for C-Cu, respectively, are considered. The chosen rapidity ranges are around the projectile rapidity of $Y_{proj}=2.28$. In these rapidity ranges particles with high transverse momenta must have suffered very violent collisions and thus originate most likely from the very hot and dense participant region. On the other hand, particles with low transverse momenta are mostly from cold spectators. It is seen that there is a clear excess of protons emitted to the same side of the directed flow for both C-Ne and C-Cu collisions. In both collisions the spectra show typical exponential behaviour for p$_{t} \geq $ 0.2 GeV/c. The spectra for particles in the same and opposite directions of the transverse flow are approximately parallel to each other at p$_{t}$ larger than about 0.7 GeV/c. These findings are similar to those observed by the E877 collaboration for protons in central Au-Au collisions at a beam energy of 10.8 GeV/nucleon[@e877].
The above observations can be understood qualitatively within the transversely moving thermal model of Li et al.[@bali3]. Assuming that all or a fraction of particles in a small rapidity bin around $Y_{proj}$ are in local thermal equilibrium at a local temperature $T$, and the center of mass of these particles are moving with a velocity $\beta$ along the transverse flow direction $+x$ in the reaction plane, then the transverse momentum spectrum of these particles can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{3}N}{p_{t}dp_{t}d \phi dY}=C\cdot \gamma (E- \beta \cdot p_{t}cos(\phi))
\cdot e^{-\gamma (E-\beta p_{t}cos(\phi))/T}\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a normalization constant, $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$ and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle with respect to the reaction plane. The transverse momentum spectra for particles emitted in the same ($dN^{+}/p_{t}dp_{t}$) and opposite ($dN^{-}/p_{t}dp_{t}$) directions of the transverse flow are then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spect}
\frac{dN_{\pm}}{p_{t}dp_{t}}=C_{\pm}e^{- \gamma E/T}(\gamma E \mp T\alpha)
e^{\pm \alpha}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha\equiv\gamma \beta p_{t}/T$. These distributions reduce to simple exponents $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN_{\pm}}{p_{t}dp_{t}} \propto exp(-p_{t}/T^{\pm}_{eff})\end{aligned}$$ at high transverse momenta $p_t$. In the above equation, the inverse slopes or effective temperatures $T^{\pm}_{eff}$ in the semilogarithmic plot of the spectra at high $p_{t}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T^{\pm}_{eff}}= - \lim_{p_{t}\to\infty} \biggl[\frac{d}{dp_{t}}
\cdot ln \Bigl(\frac{dN^{\pm}}{p_{t}dp_{t}} \Bigr) \biggr ]=
\frac{\gamma}{T} \Bigl (cosh (Y) \mp \beta \Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ In general, the inverse slope $1/T^{\pm}_{eff}$ reflects combined effects of the temperature $T$ and the transverse flow velocity $\beta$. For the special case of considering particles at midrapidity, $\beta$ is zero and the effective temperatures are equal to the local temperature $T$ of the thermal source. Otherwise, one normally expects $T^{+}_{eff}>T^{-}_{eff}$. For high energy heavy ion collisions in the region of 1 to 10 GeV/nucleon, $\beta$ is much smaller than $cosh(Y)$ around the projectile rapidity, thus one again expects $T^{+}_{eff}
\approx T^{-}_{eff}$ at high transverse momenta, i.e two approximately parallel spectra $dN^{+}/p_{t}dp_{t}$ and $dN^{-}/p_{t}dp_{t}$ at high $p_t$. The distributions $(dN^{+}/dp_{t})$ and $(dN^{-}/dp_{t})$ have been fitted by eq.(5). For C-Ne in the rapidity interval of 1.7$<$ Y $<$ 2.4 from the $(dN^{+}/dp_{t})$ spectra at high $p_{t}$ ( $p_{t} >0.6$ GeV/c) the temperature $T$ and flow velocity have been obtained: $T=128 \pm 5$ MeV/c, $\beta=0.016 \pm 0.004$; from the $(dN^{-}/dp_{t})$ spectra at high $p_{t}$ the following values of temperature $T$ and flow velocity have been obtained: $T=130 \pm 4$ MeV/c, $\beta=0.019 \pm 0.005$. For C-Cu in the rapidity interval of 1.3$<$ Y $<$ 2.7 respectively, from the $(dN^{+}/dp_{t})$ spectra at high $p_{t}$ ( $p_{t} >0.6$ GeV/c): $T=135 \pm 4$ MeV/c, $\beta=0.025 \pm 0.006$; from the $(dN^{-}/dp_{t})$ spectra: $T=132 \pm 6$ MeV/c, $\beta=0.023 \pm 0.007$. The results of fitting are superimposed on spectra in Fig. 3. One can see, that the values of temperatures and flow velocities from the $(dN^{+}/dp_{t})$ and $(dN^{-}/dp_{t})$ spectra coincide both for C-Ne and C-Cu.
To study the strength of differential transverse flow, we compare in Fig. 4 the ratios $R(p_{t})$ as a function of p$_{t}$ for C-Ne and C-Cu collisions. It is seen that the ratios increase gradually at low p$_{t}$ and reach a limiting value of about 1.9 and 2.5 in the reaction of C-Ne and C-Cu, respectively. The values of $R(p_t)$ are greater than one in the whole transverse momentum range, indicating that protons are emitted preferentially in the flow direction at all transverse momenta. It is an unambiguous signature of the sideward collective flow. Similar results have also been obtained by the E877 collaboration for protons in Au-Au collisions at 10.8 GeV/nucleon where the ratio $R(p_{t})$ increases with $p_{t}$ and finally saturates at about 2.
The saturation of $R(p_t)$ at high $p_t$ is also what one expects within the transversely moving thermal model. From Eq. \[spect\] one obtains readily $$\begin{aligned}
R(p_{t})=\frac{dN^{+}/p_{t}dp_{t}}{dN^{-}/p_{t}dp_{t}}=
\frac{C_{+}}{C_{-}} \cdot \frac{1- \beta \cdot \frac{p_{t}}{E}}
{1+ \beta \cdot \frac{p_{t}}{E}} \cdot e^{2p_{t} \cdot \frac{\gamma\beta}
{T}}.\end{aligned}$$ This ratio normally increases with $p_{t}$ for any given values of $T$ and $\beta$, but it becomes almost a constant at high $p_t$ for very small $\beta/T$ ratios. In relativistic heavy-ion collisions, particles are emitted continuously at different freeze-out temperatures during the whole reaction process. In particular, particles with high $p_{t}$ are mostly emitted in the early stage of the reaction from the most violent regions where the local temperatures are high. Since the ratio $R(p_{t})$ varies very slowly with $p_t$ for low $\beta/T$ ratios, one thus expects an approximately constant value of $R(p_{t})$ at high $p_t$. At low transverse momenta, however, $R(p_{t})$ is affected mostly by particles from the cold spectators, and the ratio $R(p_t)$ approaches one as $p_{t}$ goes to zero.
Now we turn to the analysis of differential transverse flow for negative pions in the C-Ne and C-Cu reactions. Shown in Fig. 5 are the $R(p_{t})$ ratios for negative pions in the rapidity range of $1.0 < Y< 2.5$. The solid lines are the linear fits to the experimental data to guide the eye. In the C-Ne collisions the ratio $R(p_t)$ is greater than one in the whole range of transverse momentum, indicating pions are flowing on average to the same direction as protons. Moreover, the strength of the pion differential transverse flow increases almost linearly with $p_{t}$ and reaches about 1.2 at $p_{t}$=0.9 GeV/c. On the contrary, it is seen that an anti-flow is observed for $\pi^{-}$ mesons in the reaction of C-Cu. Thus, in C-Ne interactions the pions are preferentially emitted in the direction of the proton transverse flow, while in C-Cu reactions pions are preferentially emitted away from the direction of the proton transverse flow. It is necessary to mention here that a similar target dependence of the pion preferential emission in asymmetric nucleus-nucleus collisions was first observed by the DIOGENE collaboration[@dio]. Our results are consistent with theirs. This target dependence of the apparent pion transverse flow was explained quantitatively by nuclear shadowing effects of the heavier target within nuclear transport models [@bali4; @bass]. Our results on the pion differential transverse flow and its dependence on the target are thus also understandable.
SUMMARY
=======
In summary, the differential transverse flow of protons and pions in central C-Ne and C-Cu collisions at a beam energy of 3.7 Gev/nucleon were measured at the SKM-200-GIBS setup of JINR. The strength of proton differential transverse flow is found to first increase gradually and then saturate with the increasing transverse momentum. >From the transverse momentum distributions of protons emitted in the reaction plane to the same and opposite side of the transverse flow the temperatures and flow velocity $\beta$ have been extracted in C-Ne and C-Cu collisions. The observations are in qualitative agreement with predictions of a transversely moving thermal model. In the whole range of transverse momentum studied, pions are found to be preferentially emitted in the same direction of the proton transverse flow in the reaction of C-Ne, while an anti-flow of pions is found in the reaction of C-Cu due to stronger shadowing effects of the heavier target. The differential flow data for both protons and pions provide a more stringent testing ground for relativistic heavy-ion reaction theories. Detailed comparisons with predictions of relativistic transport models on the differential flow will be useful to extract more reliable information about the nuclear EOS. Such an endeavor is underway and results will be published elsewhere.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
===============
We would like to thank M. Anikina, A. Golokhvastov, S. Khorozov and J. Lukstins for fruitful collaboration during the obtaining of the data. The work of B.A. Li was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0088934 and the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority under Grant No. 00-B-14.
[99]{} G.D. Westfall, Nucl. Phys. [**A630**]{}, 27c (1998); [*ibid*]{}, [**A681**]{}, 343c (2001).
H.H. Gutbrod, A.M. Poskanzer and H.G. Ritter, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**52**]{}, 1267 (1989).
W. Reisdorf and H.G. Ritter, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**47**]{}, 663 (1997); N. Hermann, J.P. Wessels and T. Wienold, [*ibid*]{}, [**49**]{}, 581 (1999).
C.Ogilvie et.al., Nucl.Phys., [**A638**]{}, 57 (1998).
G. Rai, Nucl. Phys. [**A681**]{}, 181 (2001).
H.Appelshauser et. al.(NA49 collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., [**80**]{}, 4136 (1998); M.M.Aggarwal et. al., (WA98 collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B469**]{}, 30 (1999); K.Ackermann et. al. (STAR collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., [**86**]{}, 402 (2001); K.Adcox et. al.(PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 052301 (2001).
C. Pinkenburg et al. (E895 collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1295 (1999); H.Liu et.al.(E895 collaboration), [*ibid*]{}, [**84**]{}, 548 (2000).
B. Holzman et al (E917 Collaboration), Nucl-ex/0103015, in QM01 Proc., Nucl., Phys. A (2001) in press.
L. Chkhaidze, T.Djobava et al., Phys. Lett., [**B411**]{}, 26 (1997). L. Chkhaidze, T.Djobava et al., Phys. Lett., [**B479**]{}, 21 (2000). Lj. Simic and J. Milosevic, J. Phys., [**G27**]{}, 183(2001). B. Bannik et al., J. Phys., G14, 949 (1988). M. Adamovich et al., Eur. Phys. J., [**A6**]{}, 427 (1999).
M. Anikina et al., JINR Dubna Report E1-84-785 (1984).
M. Anikina et al., Phys. Rev. C[**33**]{}, 895(1986).
K. Gudima, V.Toneev, Nucl. Phys. A[**400**]{}, 895(1983).
O. Benary, R.Price G. Alexander, UCRL -20000 NN report, 1970.
M. Anikina et al., Z. Phys. C[**25**]{}, 1(1984).
P. Danielewicz and G. Odyniec, Phys. Lett., [**B157**]{}, 146 (1985).
J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D[**46**]{}, 229 (1992).
S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Z. Phys., C[**70**]{}, 665 (1996); A.M. Poskanzer and S.A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev., C[**58**]{}, 1671 (1998).
B.A. Li and A.T. Sustich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 5004 (1999); B.A. Li, [*ibid*]{}, [**85**]{}, 4224 (2000).
B.A. Li, A.T. Sustich and B. Zhang, nucl-th/0108047, Phys. Rev. C[**64**]{}, 054604 (2001).
M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2537 (2001).
A. Andronic et al. (FOPI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C[**64**]{}, 041604 (2001).
J. Barrette et al. (E877 collaboration), Nucl. Phys. [**A590**]{}, 259c (1995).
B.A. Li, C.M. Ko and G.Q. Li, Phys. Rev. C[**55**]{}, 844(1996).
S.A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C[**55**]{}, R1630 (1997).
L. Chkhaidze al., Z. Phys. C[**54**]{}, 179(1992).
O. Beavis, Phys. Rev. C[**45**]{}, 299 (1992).
J. Gosset et al. (DIOGENE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., [**62**]{}, 1251 (1989); M. Demoulins et al. (DIOGENE Collaboration), Phys. Lett., [**B241**]{}, 476 (1990).
B.A. Li, W. Bauer and G.F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev., C[**44**]{}, 2095 (1991); B.A. Li, Nucl. Phys. [**A570**]{}, 797 (1994).
S.A. Bass, R. Mattiello, H. Stöcker, W. Greiner and C.Hartnack, Phys. Lett., [**B302**]{}, 381 (1994).
Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
[Fig. 1.]{} SKM-200-GIBS experimental set-up. The trigger and the trigger distances are not to scale.
[Fig. 2.]{} Reaction plane resolution for C-Cu collisions. The curve is the result of data approximation by the polynom of 4-th order to guide the eye.
[Fig. 3.]{} The transverse momentum distributions of protons emitted in the reaction plane to the same ($\circ$) and opposite ($\bigtriangleup$) side of the transverse flow in a) C-Ne and b) C-Cu collisions. The lines are results of fitting by eq.(5) at high $p_t$.
[Fig. 4.]{} Ratios of the yield of protons emitted to the same and opposite side of the transverse flow as a function of $p_{t}$ in C-Ne ($\circ$) and C-Cu ($\bigtriangleup$) collisions. The curves are logarithmic fits to guide the eye.
[Fig. 5.]{} Ratios of the yield of $\pi^{-}$ mesons emitted to the same and opposite side of the transverse flow as a function of $p_{t}$ in C-Ne ($\circ$) and C-Cu ($\bigtriangleup$) collisions. The lines are linear fits to the data to guide the eye.
[^1]: email: [email protected]
[^2]: email: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
For $n\geq 2$, the open and closed *symmetrized polydisc* (or, *symmetrized $n$-disc*) are the following subsets of $\mathbb C^n$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb G_n &=\left\{ \left(\sum_{1\leq i\leq n} z_i,\sum_{1\leq
i<j\leq n}z_iz_j,\dots,
\prod_{i=1}^n z_i \right): \,|z_i|< 1, i=1,\dots,n \right \}, \\
\Gamma_n & =\left\{ \left(\sum_{1\leq i\leq n} z_i,\sum_{1\leq
i<j\leq n}z_iz_j,\dots, \prod_{i=1}^n z_i \right): \,|z_i|\leq 1,
i=1,\dots,n \right \}.\end{aligned}$$ We prove that every distinguished variety in the symmetrized polydisc $\mathbb G_n$ has complex dimension $1$ and can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:1}
\Lambda= &\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb G_n \,: \nonumber
\\& \quad (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1}) \in \sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1}\,,\,
F_2^*+pF_{n-2}\,,\,\dots\,, F_{n-1}^*+pF_1) \},\end{aligned}$$ where $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ are commuting square matrices of same order satisfying
- $[F_i^*,F_{n-j}]=[F_j^*,F_{n-i}]$ for $1\leq i<j\leq
n-1$,
- $\sigma_T(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})\subseteq \mathbb
G_{n-1}$.
The converse also holds, i.e, a set of the form (\[eqn:1\]) is always a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$. We show that for a tuple of commuting operators $\Sigma = (S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ having $\Gamma_n$ as a spectral set, there is a distinguished variety $\Lambda_{\Sigma}$ in $\mathbb G_n$ such that the von-Neumann’s inequality holds on $\overline{\Lambda_{\Sigma}}$, i.e, $$\|f(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)\|\leq \sup_{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in
\overline{\Lambda_{\Sigma}}}\, |f(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)|,$$ for any holomorphic polynomial $f$ in $n$ variables, provided that $P^n\rightarrow 0$ strongly as $n\rightarrow \infty$. The variety $\Lambda_\Sigma$ has been shown to have representation like (\[eqn:1\]), where $F_i$ is the unique solutions of the operator equation $$S_i-S_{n-i}^*P=(I-P^*P)^{\frac{1}{2}}X_i(I-P^*P)^{\frac{1}{2}}\,,\,i=1,\dots,n-1.$$ We provide some operator theory on $\Gamma_n$. We produce an explicit dilation and a concrete functional model for such a triple $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and the unique operators $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ play central role in this model. Also we describe a connection between distinguished varieties in $\mathbb
G_2$ and $\mathbb G_{3}$.
address: 'Mathematics Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, India.'
author:
- Sourav Pal
title: 'Operator theory and distinguished varieties in the symmetrized $n$-disk'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Throughout the paper all operators are bounded linear operators defined on complex Hilbert spaces unless and otherwise specified. A contraction is an operator with norm not greater than one. We shall define Taylor joint spectrum and spectral set for a tuple of commuting operators and distinguished boundary of a compact subset in $\mathbb C^n$ in Section 2.
Motivation
----------
In 2005, Agler and M.45exCarthy published a very influential paper [@AM05], where they established the fact that for any pair of commuting contractive matrices $(T_1,T_2)$, there is a one-dimensional complex algebraic variety $V$ inside the unit bidisc $\mathbb D^2$ such that for any holomorphic polynomial $p$ in two complex-variables, the von-Neumann’s inequality $$\| p(T_1,T_2) \|\leq \sup_{(z_1,z_2)\in V} |p(z_1,z_2)|,$$ holds, provided that none of $T_1,T_2$ have eigenvalues of unit modulus. The variety $V$ exits the bidisc $\mathbb D^2$ through its distinguished boundary, the torus $\mathbb T^2$, without intersecting any other part of the topological boundary of $\mathbb D^2$. Such an algebraic variety $V$ is called a distinguished variety in $\mathbb D^2$ and has the following determinantal representation $$V=\{ (z,w)\in \mathbb D^2\,:\, \det (\Psi(z)-wI)=0 \}$$ for some analytic matrix-valued function $\Psi$ on the unit disc $\mathbb D$ that is unitary on the unit circle $\mathbb T$. Few decades back Ando described a pair of commuting contractions $(T_1,T_2)$ as a pair of commuting operators for which $\overline{\mathbb D^2}$ is a spectral set [@ando], that is, $$\| p(T_1,T_2) \|\leq \sup_{(z_1,z_2)\in\overline{\mathbb D^2}}
|p(z_1,z_2)|.$$ So, in the language of complex geometry, a pair of commuting contractions is described as a pair of commuting operators that lives inside the closed bidisc. Therefore, the obvious reason one should single out distinguished varieties from other bordered varieties is that when $T_1,T_2$ are commuting matrices, the pair $(T_1,T_2)$ lives inside a distinguished variety which is a one-dimensional algebraic curve lying within the two-dimensional bidisc. Also a distinguished variety exits the domain through the distinguished boundary which is the smallest boundary in the sense that it is the smallest closed subset of the closure of the domain on which every complex-valued rational function (defined on the domain) attains its supremum. In [@pal-shalit], the author and Shalit found an analogue of this result for the symmetrized bidisc $$\mathbb G_2 = \{ (z_1+z_2,z_1z_2):\,, |z_i|<1, \, i=1,2 \}.$$ The aim of this paper is to generalize the results for the symmetrized polydisc $$\mathbb G_n =\left\{ \left(\sum_{1\leq i\leq n} z_i,\sum_{1\leq
i<j\leq n}z_iz_j,\dots, \prod_{i=1}^n z_i \right): \,|z_i|< 1,
i=1,\dots,n \right \}.$$
An algebraic variety $V_S$ in $\mathbb C^n$, where $S$ is a set of polynomials in complex $n$-variables $z_1,\dots,z_n$, is a subset of $\mathbb C^n$ defined by $$V_S= \{ (z_1,\hdots,z_n)\in\mathbb C^n \,:\, p(z_1,\hdots,z_n)=0,
\quad \forall \, p\in S \}.$$ A variety $W$ in a domain $G\subseteq \mathbb C^n$ is the part of a variety lies inside $G$, i.e, $W=V_S\cap G$ for some set $S$ of polynomials in $n$-variables. A [*distinguished variety*]{} in a domain $G\subseteq \mathbb C^n$ is a variety that intersects the topological boundary of $\overline{G}$ at its distinguished boundary. Therefore, in particular a distinguished variety in the symmetrized tridisc is defined in the following way.
A set $\Lambda \subseteq \mathbb G_n$ is said to be a distinguished variety in the symmetrized polydisc if $\Lambda$ is an algebraic variety in $\mathbb G_n$ such that $$\label{eqn01}
\overline{\Lambda}\cap \partial \Gamma_n = \overline{\Lambda}\cap
b\Gamma_n\,,$$ where $\partial \Gamma_n$ and $b\Gamma_n$ are respectively the topological and distinguished boundary of $\Gamma_n \,
(=\overline{\mathbb G_n})$.
We denote by $\partial \Lambda$ the set described in (\[eqn01\]). It is evident from the definition that a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ has complex dimension less than $n$.
Literature and brief description of main results
------------------------------------------------
For $n\geq 2$, the symmetrization map in $n$-complex variables $z=(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ is the following proper holomorphic map $$\pi_n(z)=(s_1(z),\dots, s_{n-1}(z), p(z))$$ where $$s_i(z)= \sum_{1\leq k_1 \leq k_2 \dots \leq k_i \leq n}
z_{k_1}\dots z_{k_i} \;,\; i=1,\dots,n-1 \quad \text{ and } \quad
p(z)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}z_i\,.$$ The closed *symmetrized* $n$-*disk* (or simply closed *symmetrized polydisc*) is the image of the closed unit $n$-disc $\overline{\mathbb D^n}$ under the symmetrization map $\pi_n$, that is, $\Gamma_n := \pi_n(\overline{\mathbb D^n})$. Similarly the open symmetrized polydisc $\mathbb G_n$ is defined as the image of the open unit polydisc $\mathbb D^n$ under $\pi_n$. For our convenience we write down explicitly the set $\Gamma_n$ for $n=2$ and $3$. $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_2 &=\{ (z_1+z_2,z_1z_2): \,|z_i|\leq 1, i=1,2 \} \\
\Gamma_3 & =\{ (z_1+z_2+z_3,z_1z_2+z_2z_3+z_3z_1,z_1z_2z_3):
\,|z_i|\leq 1, i=1,2,3 \}.\end{aligned}$$ The set $\Gamma_n$ is polynomially convex but not convex (see [@BSR]). We obtain from the literature [@edi-zwo; @BSR] that the distinguished boundary of the symmetrized polydisc is the symmetrization of the distinguished boundary of the $n$-dimensional polydisc, which is $n$-torus $\mathbb T^n$. Hence the distinguished boundary for $\Gamma_n$ is the set $$b\Gamma_n =\left\{ \left(\sum_{1\leq i\leq n} z_i,\sum_{1\leq
i<j\leq n}z_iz_j,\dots, \prod_{i=1}^n z_i \right): \,|z_i|= 1,
i=1,\dots,n \right \}$$
The symmetrized polydisc in several dimensions have attracted considerable attention in past two decades because of its rich function theory [@costara1; @jarnicki; @MSZ; @PZ], complex geometry [@AY04; @edi-zwo], associated operator theory [@ay-jfa; @ay-jot; @tirtha-sourav; @tirtha-sourav1; @BSR; @sourav; @pal-shalit] and its connection with the most appealing and difficult problem of $\mu$-synthesis (e.g, see [@ALY13]).
A commuting triple of operators $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ that has $\Gamma_n$ as a spectral set is called a $\Gamma_n$-*contraction*, i.e, a $\Gamma_n$-contraction is a commuting triple $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ such that $\sigma_T(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)\subseteq \Gamma_n$ and that for every polynomial $f$ in $n$-variables $$\| f(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P) \|\leq
\sup_{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\Gamma_n}\,
|f(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)|=\| f \|_{\infty, \Gamma_n}.$$
It is evident from the definition that if $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction then so is the adjoint $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ and $P$ is a contraction. A $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is said to be *pure*, if $P$ is a pure contraction, that is, ${P^*}^n
\rightarrow 0$ strongly as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Unitaries, isometries and co-isometries are special types of contractions. There are natural analogues of these classes for $\Gamma_n$-contractions in the literature.
Let $S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P$ be commuting operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. We say that $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is
- a $\Gamma_n$-*unitary* if $S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P$ are normal operators and the Taylor joint spectrum $\sigma_T(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is contained in $b\Gamma_n$ ;
- a $\Gamma_n$-*isometry* if there exists a Hilbert space $\mathcal K$ containing $\mathcal H$ and a $\Gamma_n$-unitary $(\tilde{S_1},\dots,\tilde{S_{n-1}},\tilde{P})$ on $\mathcal K$ such that $\mathcal H$ is a common invariant subspace for $\tilde{S_1},\dots,\tilde{S_{n-1}},\tilde{P}$ and that $S_i=\tilde{S_i}|_{\mathcal H}$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and $\tilde{P}|_{\mathcal H}=P$;
- a $\Gamma_n$-*co-isometry* if $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-isometry;
- a *completely non-unitary* $\Gamma_n$-*contraction* if $P$ is a completely non-unitary contraction.
A $\Gamma_3$-isometry $(S_1,S_2,P)$ is said to be *pure* if $P$ is a pure isometry, i.e, equivalent to a shift operator.
Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction on $\mathcal H$. A commuting triple $(Q_1,\dots,Q_{n-1},V)$ on $\mathcal K$ is said to be a $\Gamma_n$-isometric dilation of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ if $\mathcal H \subseteq \mathcal K$, $(Q_1,\dots,Q_{n-1},V)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-isometry and $$P_{\mathcal H}(Q_1^{m_1}\dots Q_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}V^n)|_{\mathcal
H}=S_1^{m_1}\dots S_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}P^n, \; m_1,\dots, m_{n-1},n
\in\mathbb N \cup \{0\}.$$ Here $P_{\mathcal H}:\mathcal K \rightarrow \mathcal H$ is the orthogonal projection of $\mathcal K$ onto $\mathcal H$. Moreover, the dilation is called [*minimal*]{} if $$\mathcal K=\overline{\textup{span}}\{ Q_1^{m_1}\dots,
Q_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}V^n h\,:\; h\in\mathcal H \textup{ and
}m_1,\dots,m_{n-1},n\in \mathbb N \cup \{0\} \}.$$
In [@sourav1], the author of this article has shown that to every $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$, there are unique operators $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ on $\mathcal D_{P}$ such that $$S_i-S_{n-i}^*P=D_{P}F_iD_{P} \text{ for } i=1,\dots, n-1.$$ For a contraction $T$, denote by $D_T$ the positive operator $(I-T^*T)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\mathcal D_T=\overline{Ran}\,D_T$. These two unique operators $F_1,F_2$ play central role in determining the failure of rational dilation on the symmetrized tridisc and also in the construct dilation in special cases [@sourav1]. For such pivotal role in operator theory, the operator tuple $(F_1,\dots, F_{n-1})$ is called the *fundamental operator tuple* of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$.\
In our first main result Theorem \[thm:DVchar\], we show that every distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ has complex dimension one and can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\mathbb G_n\,: &\,
(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})\\
& \in \sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1},F_2^*+pF_{n-2},\dots,
F_{n-1}^*+pF_1) \},\end{aligned}$$ where $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is a tuple of commuting matrices such that
- $[F_i^*,F_{n-j}]=[F_j^*,F_{n-i}]$ and
- $\sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1},F_2^*+pF_{n-2} \dots,
F_1^*+pF_{n-1}^*)\subseteq \mathbb G_{n-1}$.
Here $[A,B]=AB-BA$ for any two operators defined on the same space and $\sigma_T(S_1,\dots,S_n)$ is the Taylor joint spectrum of a commuting $n$-tuple of operators $(S_1,\cdots,S_n)$ which consists of joint eigenvalues of $S_1,\cdots,S_n$ when they are matrices. Note that condition-(ii) in the representation of a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ is a refinement of our earlier corresponding result for $\mathbb G_2$. There the condition was given in terms of numerical radius of $F$ and needless to mention that our present $n$-variable generalization provides a sharper condition which is necessary and sufficient for the representation. Further, we show that every distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ is polynomially convex. Thus the study of complex geometry of $\mathbb
G_n$ leads us to the matrix theory.\
Our second main result Theorem \[thm:VN\] shows that for a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $\Sigma=(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ with fundamental operator pair $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$, if $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ is pure, $\dim \mathcal D_{P} <
\infty$ and if $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ satisfies the following: $$\begin{aligned}
& (1)\left( \dfrac{n-1}{n}(F_1^*+F_{n-1}z),\dots,
\dfrac{1}{n}(F_{n-1}^*+F_1z) \right) \notag \\ & \text{ is a }
\Gamma_{n-1} \text{-contraction for all } z\in
\overline{\mathbb D}\,, \notag \\
& (2)\; \sigma_T( F_1^*,\dots, F_{n-1}^*)\subseteq
\overline{\mathbb G}=\Gamma_{n-1}\,, \label{eqn:In-01}\end{aligned}$$ then $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ lives on the closure following distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_{n-1}$: $$\Lambda_{\Sigma} = \{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p) \in \mathbb G_n :
(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})\in \sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1},\dots,
F_{n-1}^*+pF_1)\}.$$ Actually, we construct a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometric extension of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ that naturally lives on $\Lambda$. So, operator theory on $\Gamma_n$ forces us to go back to the complex geometry of $\Gamma_n$.\
In Theorem \[dilation-theorem\], another main result of this paper, we construct a $\Gamma_n$-isometric dilation to a pure $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ such that the fundamental operator pair $({F_1}_*,\dots,{F_{n-1}}_*)$ of the adjoint $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ satisfies (\[eqn:In-01\]). We show further that the dilation is minimal. As a consequence of thie dilation, we obtain a functional model in Theorem \[modelthm\] for such pure $\Gamma_n$-contractions in terms of commuting Toeplitz operators on the vectorial Hardy space $H^2(\mathcal D_{P^*})$. Also in Corollary \[dv11\], we show that a pair of operators $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ on a Hilbert space $E$ that satisfies (\[eqn:In-01\]), is the fundamental operator tuple of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction defined on the vectorial Hardy space $H^2(E)$. This can be treated as a partial converse to the existence-uniqueness theorem of fundamental operator pair of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction. Therefore, Theorem \[thm:DVchar\] can be rephrased in the following way: every distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ can be represented as $$\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\mathbb G_n\,:\, (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})\in
\sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1},\dots, F_{n-1}^*+pF_1) \}$$ where $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction. We also provide some more operator theory in the same section.\
In section 5, we describe a connection between the distinguished varieties in the symmetrized tridisc with that in the bidisc $\mathbb D^2$ and in the symmetrized bidisc $\mathbb G$. Indeed, in Theorem \[connection\], we show that every distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_3$ gives rise to a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_2$ and also a distinguished variety in $\mathbb D^2$.\
In Section 2, we provide preliminaries and recall from the literature some results about $\Gamma_n$-contractions which will be used in sequel.
Preliminaries and few results from the literature
=================================================
Taylor joint spectrum
---------------------
Here we briefly describe the Taylor joint spectrum of a commuting tuple of operators and show how in case of commuting matrices it becomes just the set of joint eigenvalues.\
Let $\Lambda$ be the exterior algebra on $n$ generators $e_1,...e_n$, with identity $e_0\equiv 1$. $\Lambda$ is the algebra of forms in $e_1,...e_n$ with complex coefficients, subject to the collapsing property $e_ie_j+e_je_i=0$ ($1\leq i,j
\leq n$). Let $E_i: \Lambda \rightarrow \Lambda$ denote the creation operator, given by $E_i \xi = e_i \xi $ ($\xi \in
\Lambda, 1 \leq i \leq n$). If we declare $ \{ e_{i_1}... e_{i_k} : 1 \leq i_1 < ... < i_k \leq n \}$ to be an orthonormal basis, the exterior algebra $\Lambda$ becomes a Hilbert space, admitting an orthogonal decomposition $\Lambda = \oplus_{k=1} ^n \Lambda^k$ where $\dim \Lambda ^k = {n \choose k}$. Thus, each $\xi \in \Lambda$ admits a unique orthogonal decomposition $ \xi = e_i \xi' + \xi''$, where $\xi'$ and $\xi ''$ have no $e_i$ contribution. It then follows that that $ E_i ^{*} \xi = \xi' $, and we have that each $E_i$ is a partial isometry, satisfying $E_i^*E_j+E_jE_i^*=\delta_{i,j}$. Let $\mathcal X$ be a normed space, let $\underline{T}=(T_1,...,T_n)$ be a commuting $n$-tuple of bounded operators on $\mathcal X$ and set $\Lambda(\mathcal
X)=\mathcal X\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} \Lambda$. We define $D_{\underline T}: \Lambda (\mathcal X) \rightarrow \Lambda
(\mathcal X)$ by
$$D_{\underline T} = \sum_{i=1}^n T_i \otimes E_i .$$
Then it is easy to see $D_{\underline T}^2=0$, so $Ran
D_{\underline T} \subset Ker D_{\underline T}$. The commuting $n$-tuple is said to be *non-singular* on $\mathcal X$ if $Ran D_{\underline T}=Ker D_{\underline T}$.
The Taylor joint spectrum of ${\underline T}$ on $\mathcal X$ is the set $$\sigma_T({\underline T},\mathcal X) = \{
\lambda=(\lambda_1,...,\lambda_n)\in \mathbb{C}^n : {\underline
T}-\lambda \text{ is singular} \}.$$
The decomposition $\Lambda=\oplus_{k=1}^n \Lambda^k$ gives rise to a cochain complex $K({\underline T},\mathcal X)$, known as the Koszul complex associated to ${\underline T}$ on $\mathcal X$, as follows: $$K({\underline T},\mathcal X):0 \rightarrow \Lambda^0(\mathcal
X)\xrightarrow{D_{\underline T}^0}... \xrightarrow{D_{\underline
T}^{n-1}} \Lambda^n(\mathcal X) \rightarrow 0 ,$$ where $D_{\underline T}^{k}$ denotes the restriction of $D_{\underline T}$ to the subspace $\Lambda^k(\mathcal X)$. Thus, $$\sigma_T({\underline T},\mathcal X) = \{ \lambda\in \mathbb{C}^n :
K({\underline T}-\lambda ,\mathcal X)\text{ is not exact} \}.$$
For a further reading on Taylor joint spectrum an interested reader is referred to Taylor’s works, [@Taylor; @Taylor1].
Spectral and complete spectral set
----------------------------------
We shall follow Arveson’s terminologies about the spectral and complete spectral sets. Let $X$ be a compact subset of $\mathbb
C^n$ and let $\mathcal R(X)$ denote the algebra of all rational functions on $X$, that is, all quotients $p/q$ of polynomials $p,q$ for which $q$ has no zeros in $X$. The norm of an element $f$ in $\mathcal R(X)$ is defined as $$\|f\|_{\infty, X}=\sup \{|f(\xi)|\;:\; \xi \in X \}.$$ Also for each $k\geq 1$, let $\mathcal R_k(X)$ denote the algebra of all $k \times k$ matrices over $\mathcal R(X)$. Obviously each element in $\mathcal R_k(X)$ is a $k\times k$ matrix of rational functions $F=(f_{i,j})$ and we can define a norm on $\mathcal
R_k(X)$ in the canonical way $$\|F\|=\sup \{ \|F(\xi)\|\;:\; \xi\in X \},$$ thereby making $\mathcal R_k(X)$ into a non-commutative normed algebra. Let $\underline{T}=(T_1,\cdots,T_n)$ be an $n$-tuple of commuting operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. The set $X$ is said to be a *spectral set* for $\underline T$ if the Taylor joint spectrum $\sigma_T (\underline T)$ of $\underline T$ is a subset of $X$ and $$\label{defn1}
\|f(\underline T)\|\leq \|f\|_{\infty, X}\,, \textup{ for every }
f\in \mathcal R(X).$$ Here $f(\underline T)$ can be interpreted as $p(\underline
T)q(\underline T)^{-1}$ when $f=p/q$. Moreover, $X$ is said to be a *complete spectral set* if $\|F(\underline T)\|\leq
\|F\|$ for every $F$ in $\mathcal R_k(X)$, $k=1,2,\cdots$.
The the $\check{\textup{S}}$ilov boundary and the distinguished boundary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\mathcal A(X)$ be an algebra of continuous complex-valued functions on $X$ which separates the points of $X$. A *boundary* for $\mathcal A(X)$ is a closed subset $\delta
X$ of $X$ such that every function in $\mathcal A(X)$ attains its maximum modulus on $\delta X$. It follows from the theory of uniform algebras that the intersection of all the boundaries of $X$ is also a boundary for $\mathcal A(X)$ (see Theorem 9.1 in [@wermer]). This smallest boundary is called the $\check{\textup{S}}$*ilov boundary* for $\mathcal A(X)$. When $\mathcal A(X)$ is the algebra of rational functions which are continuous on $X$, the $\check{\textup{S}}$*ilov boundary* for $\mathcal A(X)$ is called the *distinguished boundary* of $X$ and is denoted by $bX$.\
We now show that $\sigma_T(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ is just the set of joint eigenvalues of $(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ when $T_1,\dots,T_n$ are commuting matrices. We need the following results before that.
\[spectra\] Let $X_1,X_2$ are Banach spaces and $A,D$ are bounded operators on $X_1$ and $X_2$. Let $B\in\mathcal B(X_2,X_1)$. Then $$\sigma \left(\begin{bmatrix} A&B\\ 0&D \end{bmatrix}
\right)\subseteq \sigma(A)\cup \sigma(D)\,.$$
See Lemma 1 in [@hong] for a proof of this result.
\[spectra1\] Let $\underline{T}=(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ be a commuting pair of matrices on an $N$-dimensional vector space $X$. Then there exists $N+1$ subspaces $L_0,L_1,\hdots,L_N$ satisfying:
1. $\{0\}=L_0\subseteq L_1 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq L_N=X$ ,
2. $L_k$ is $k$-dimensional for $k=1,\hdots,N$ ,
3. each $L_k$ is a joint invariant subspace of $T_1,\dots, T_n$.
It is merely mentioned that for a tuple $(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ of commuting matrices, the set of joint eigenvalues is non-empty. Therefore, there exists a vector $x_1\in X$ such that $x_1$ is a joint eigenvector of $T_1,\dots,T_n$. Let $L_1$ be the one-dimensional subspace spanned by $x_1$. Then $L_1$ is invariant under $T_1,\dots,T_n$. Next consider the vector space $Y=X/L_1$ and the linear transformations $\tilde{T_1},\dots,\tilde{T_n}$ on $Y$ defined by $\tilde{T_i}(x+L_1)=T_ix+L_1$. Then $\tilde{T_1},\dots,\tilde{T_n}$ are commuting matrices and again they have a joint eigenvalue, say $(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)$ and consequently a joint eigenvector, say $x_2+L_1$. Thus $\tilde{T_i}(x_2+L_1)=\mu_ix_2+L_1$ for $i=1,\dots,n$ which means that $T_ix_2=\mu_ix_2+z$ for some $z\in L_1$. Hence the subspace spanned by $x_1,x_2$ is invariant under $T_1,\dots,T_n$. We call this subspace $L_2$ and it is two-dimensional with $L_1\subseteq
L_2$. Now applying the same reasoning to $X/L_2$ and so on, we get for each $i=1,\dots,N-1$ the subspace $L_i$ spanned by $x_1,\dots,x_i$. These subspaces satisfy the conditions of the theorem. Finally, to complete the proof we define $L_N=X$.
Let us choose an arbitrary $x_N\in L_N\setminus L_{N-1}$. Then $\{x_1,\hdots,x_N\}$ is a basis for $X$ and with respect to this basis the matrices $T_1,\dots,T_n$ are upper-triangular, i.e., of the form $$\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda_{11} & \ast & \ast & \ast \\
0&\lambda_{12} & \ast & \ast \\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & \lambda_{1N}
\end{pmatrix}\,,\,\dots \,,
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda_{n1} & \ast & \ast & \ast \\
0&\lambda_{n2} & \ast & \ast \\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & \lambda_{nN}
\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ where each $(\lambda_{1k},\dots,\lambda_{nk})$ is called a *joint diagonal co-efficient* of $(T_1,\dots,T_{n})$ for $k=1,\dots,N$. Let us denote $\sigma_{dc}(T_1,\dots,T_{n})=\{(\lambda_{1k},\dots,\lambda_{nk})\,:\,
k=1,\cdots,N \}$.\
The following result is well known and an interested reader can see [@curto] for further details. We present here a simple and straight forward proof to this.
Let $(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ be a tuple of commuting matrices of order $N$ and $\sigma_{pt}(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ be the set of joint eigenvalues of $(T_1,\dots,T_n)$. Then $$\sigma_T(T_1,\dots,T_n)=\sigma_{pt}(T_1,\dots,T_n)=\sigma_{dc}(T_1,\dots,T_n).$$
We prove this Theorem by repeated application of Lemma \[spectra\] to the simultaneous upper-triangularization of Lemma \[spectra1\]. It is evident that each $(\lambda_{1k},\dots,\lambda_{nk})$ is a joint eigenvalue of $(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ and for each $(\lambda_{1k},\dots,\lambda_{nk})$, $Ker(T_1-\lambda_{1k})\cap
\dots \cap Ker(T_n-\lambda_{nk}) \neq \emptyset$ which means that the Koszul complex of $(T_1-\lambda_{1k},\dots,T_n-\lambda_{nk})$ is not exact at the first stage and consequently $(T_1-\lambda_{1k},\dots,T_n-\lambda_{nk})$ is not Taylor-regular. Therefore, $(\lambda_{1k},\dots,\lambda_{nk})\in\sigma_T(T_1,\dots,T_n)$. Therefore, $$\sigma_{dc}(T_1,\dots,,T_n)\subseteq
\sigma_{pt}(T_1,\dots,T_n)\subseteq \sigma_T(T_1,\dots,T_n).$$ Now let $X_2$ be the subspace spanned by $x_2,\cdots,x_N$. Then $X_2$ is $N-1$ dimensional and $X=L_1\oplus X_2$. For $i=1,\dots,n$ we define $D_i$ on $X_2$ by the $(N-1)\times (N-1)$ matrices $$D_i=\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda_{i2} & \ast & \ast & \ast \\
0&\lambda_{i3} & \ast & \ast \\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & \lambda_{iN}
\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ Then $(D_1,\dots,D_n)$ is a commuting tuple as $(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ is a commuting tuple. Now we apply Lemma \[spectra\] and get $\sigma_T(T_1,\dots,T_n)\subseteq
\{(\lambda_{11},\dots,\lambda_{n1})\}\cup
\sigma_T(D_1,\dots,D_n)$. Repeating this argument $N$ times we obtain $\sigma_T(T_1,\dots,T_n)\subseteq
\sigma_{dc}(T_1,\dots,T_n)$. Hence we are done.
Background material and preparatory results
-------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we recall from [@costara1], [@BSR] and [@sourav1] a few results that characterize the sets $\mathbb
G_n, \Gamma_n$ and the distinguished boundary $b\Gamma_n$. These results will be frequently used in the coming sections.
\[char-G\] For $x=(s_1,\dots, s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb C^n$ the following are equivalent\
1. $ x\in \Gamma_n ($ respectively $\in\mathbb G_n)$ ;
2. $ |p|\leq 1$, $($ respectively, $<1)$ and there exists $ (c_1,\dots, c_{n-1}) \in \Gamma_{n-1} $ (respectively $(c_1,\dots,c_{n-1})\in\mathbb G_{n-1}$) such that $$s_i = c_i + \bar{c}_{n-i}p \,,\, \text{ for } i=1,\dots, n-1.$$
The next theorem from [@BSR] provides a set of characterizations for the points of the distinguished boundary of $\Gamma_n$.
\[thm:DB\] For $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb C^n$ the following are equivalent:
1. $(s_1,\dots, s_{n-1},p)\in b\Gamma_n$;
2. $(s_1,\dots,
s_{n-1},p)\in\Gamma_n$ and $|p|=1$;
3. $|p|=1$, $s_i=\bar{s}_{n-i}p$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and $$\left( \dfrac{n-1}{n}s_1,\dfrac{n-2}{n}s_2,\dots,
\dfrac{n-({n-1})}{n}s_{n-1} \right)\in \Gamma_{n-1}\,;$$
4. $|p|=1$ and there exist $(c_1,\dots,c_{n-1})\in\Gamma_{n-1}$ such that $$s_i=c_i+\bar{c}_{n-i}p \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1.$$
For a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$, let us define $n-1$ operator pencils $\Phi_1,\dots,\Phi_{n-1}$ in the following way. These operator functions will play central role in the canonical decomposition of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$. $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{i}(S_1,\dots, S_{n-1},P) &=
(n-S_i)^*(n-S_i)-(nP-S_{n-i})^*(nP-S_{n-i}) \notag
\\&
=n^2(I-P^*P)+(S_i^*S_i-S_{n-i}^*S_{n-i})-k(S_i-S_{n-i}^*P) \notag \\
& \quad \quad -k(S_i^*-P^*S_{n-i}) \label{eq:1a}.\end{aligned}$$ So in particular when $S_1,\dots,S_{n-1}, P$ are scalars, i.e, points in $\Gamma_3$, the above operator pencils take the following form for $i=1,\dots, n-1$: $$\Phi_{i}(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p) =
n^2(1-|p|^2)+(|s_i|^2-|s_{n-i}|^2)-n(s_i-\bar{s}_{n-i}p)-n(\bar{s}_i-\bar{p}s_{n-i}).
\label{eqn:2a}$$
\[prop:sc1\] Let $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\mathbb C^n$. Then in the following $(1)\Rightarrow (2) \Leftrightarrow (3)$.
1. $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\Gamma_n$;
2. for $i=1,\dots,n-1$, $\Phi_i(\alpha s_1,\dots,
\alpha^{n-1}s_{n-1},\alpha^n p)\geq 0$ for all $\alpha
\in\overline{\mathbb D}$;
3. for $i=1,\dots,n-1$, $|n \alpha^n
p - \alpha^{n-i}s_{n-i}|\leq |n-\alpha^is_i|$ for all $\alpha
\in\overline{\mathbb D}$.
\[lem:3\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction. Then for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ $\Phi_i(\alpha
S_1,\dots,\alpha^{n-1}S_{n-1},\alpha^n P)\geq 0$ for all $\alpha
\in\overline{\mathbb D}$.
Since $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction, $\sigma_T(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)\subseteq \Gamma_n$. Let $f$ be a holomorphic function in a neighbourhood of $\Gamma_n$. Since $\Gamma_n$ is polynomially convex, by Oka-Weil Theorem (see [@Gamelin], Theorem 5.1) there is a sequence of polynomials $\{p_k\}$ in $n$-variables such that $p_k\rightarrow f$ uniformly over $\Gamma_n$. Therefore, by Theorem 9.9 of CH-III in [@vasilescu], $$p_k(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)\rightarrow f(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$$ which by the virtue of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ being a $\Gamma_n$-contraction implies that $$\| f(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P) \|=\displaystyle \lim_{k\rightarrow
\infty}\| p_k(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P) \|\leq \displaystyle
\lim_{k\rightarrow
\infty}\|p_k\|_{\infty,\Gamma_n}=\|f\|_{\infty,\Gamma_n}.$$ We fix $\alpha \in \mathbb D$ and choose $$f(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)=\frac{n\alpha^np-\alpha^{n-i}s_{n-i}}{n-\alpha^i
s_i}\,.$$ It is evident that $f$ is well-defined and is holomorphic in a neighborhood of $\Gamma_n$ and has norm not greater than $1$, by part-(3) of Proposition \[prop:sc1\]. So we get $$\|(n\alpha^nP-\alpha^{n-i}S_{n-i})(n-\alpha^i S_i)^{-1} \|\leq
\|f\|_{\infty,\Gamma_n}\leq 1.$$ Thus $${(n-\alpha^i
S_i)^*}^{-1}(n\alpha^nP-\alpha^{n-i}S_{n-i})^*(n\alpha^nP-\alpha^{n-i}S_{n-i})(n-\alpha^i
S_i)^{-1}\leq I$$ which is equivalent to $$(n-\alpha^i S_i)^*(n-\alpha^i S_i)\geq
(n\alpha^nP-\alpha^{n-i}S_{n-i})^*(n\alpha^nP-\alpha^{n-i}S_{n-i}).$$ By the definition of $\Phi_{i}$, this is same as saying that $$\Phi_{i}(\alpha S_1,\dots,\alpha^{n-1} S_{n-1},\alpha^n P)\geq 0
\text{ for all } \alpha \in \mathbb D.$$ By continuity we have that $$\Phi_{i}(\alpha S_1,\dots,\alpha^{n-1} S_{n-1},\alpha^nP)\geq 0
\quad \text{ for all } \alpha\in \overline{\mathbb D}.$$
Here is a set of characterizations for the $\Gamma_n$-unitaries.
\[thm:tu\] Let $(S_1,\dots, S_{n-1}, P)$ be a commuting tuple of bounded operators. Then the following are equivalent.
1. $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-unitary,
2. $P$ is a unitary and $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction,
3. $P$ is a unitary, $(\frac{n-1}{n}S_1,\frac{n-2}{n}S_2,\dots,\frac{1}{n}S_{n-1})$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction and $S_i = S_{n-i}^* P$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$.
We recall from [@sourav1], the existence-uniqueness theorem for the fundamental operator pair of a $\Gamma_3$-contraction.
\[funda-exist-unique\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction. Then there are unique operators $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ in $\mathcal B(\mathcal D_{P})$ such that $$\label{basiceqn} S_i-S_{n-i}^*P=D_{P}F_iD_{P}\textup{ for }
i=1,\dots,n-1.$$
The following result is a structure theorem for $\Gamma_n$-isometries.
\[thm:ti\] Let $S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P$ be commuting operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. Then the following are equivalent:
1. $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-isometry ;
2. $P$ is isometry, $S_i=S_{n-i}^*P$ for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and $$(\frac{n-1}{n}S_1,\frac{n-2}{n}S_2,\dots,\frac{1}{n}S_{n-1})$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction ;
3. $($ Wold-Decomposition $)$: there is an orthogonal decomposition $\mathcal H=\mathcal H_1
\oplus \mathcal H_2$ into common invariant subspaces of $S_1,\dots,S_{n-1}, P$ such that $(S_i|_{\mathcal
H_1},\dots,S_{n-1}|_{\mathcal H_1},P|_{\mathcal H_1})$ is a $\Gamma_n$-unitary and $$(S_1|_{\mathcal
H_2},\dots,S_{n-1}|_{\mathcal H_2},P|_{\mathcal H_2})$$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry ;
4. $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction and $P$ is an isometry;
5. $$(\frac{n-1}{n}S_1,\frac{n-2}{n}S_2,\dots, \frac{1}{n}S_{n-1})$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction and $$\Phi_{k}(\omega S_1,\dots,\omega^{n-1}S_{n-1},\omega^3P)= 0,
\; \forall \;\omega\in \mathbb T \text{ and } \forall \; k
=1,\dots,n-1.$$
The following theorem, which appeared in [@BSR], gives an explicit model for pure $\Gamma_n$-isometries.
\[model1\] Let $(\hat{S_1},\dots,\hat{S_{n-1}},\hat{P})$ be a commuting triple of operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. If $(\hat{S_1},\dots,\hat{S_{n-1}},\hat{P})$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry then there is a unitary operator $U:\mathcal H \rightarrow H^2(\mathcal
D_{{\hat{P}}^*})$ such that $$\hat{S_i}=U^*T_{\varphi_i}U, \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1 \text{ and
} \hat{P}=U^*T_zU\,.$$ Here each $T_{\varphi_i}$ is the Toeplitz operator on the vectorial Hardy space $H^2(\mathcal D_{{\hat{P}}^*})$ with the symbol $\varphi_i(z)= F_i^*+F_{n-i}z$, where $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of $(\hat{S_1}^*,\dots,\hat{S_{n-1}}^*,\hat{P}^*)$ such that $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}(F_1^*+F_{n-1}z),\frac{n-2}{n}(F_2^*+F_{n-2}z),\dots, \frac{1}{n}(F_{n-1}^*+F_1z) \right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction for every $z\in\overline{\mathbb D}$.\
Conversely, if $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ are two bounded operators on a Hilbert space $E$ such that $$\left( \frac{n-1}{n}(F_1^*+F_{n-1}z),\frac{n-2}{n}(F_2^*+F_{n-2}z),\dots,
\dfrac{1}{n}(F_{n-1}^*+F_1z) \right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction for every $z\in \overline{\mathbb D}$, then $(T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z},\dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z},T_z)$ on $H^2(E)$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry.
\[dv11\] Let $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ be a tuple of operators on a Hilbert space $E$ such that $$\left( \frac{n-1}{n}(F_1^*+F_{n-1}z),\frac{n-2}{n}(F_2^*+F_{n-2}z),\dots,
\dfrac{1}{n}(F_{n-1}^*+F_1z) \right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction for every $z\in \overline{\mathbb D}$. Then $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction on $H^2(E).$
It is evident from the previous theorem that such a tuple $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of $(T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z}^*,\dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z}^*,T_z^*)$ on $H^2(E)$.
Operator theory on the symmetrized polydisc
===========================================
In this section we shall show that corresponding to every $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ there are $n-1$ unique operators $A_1,\dots,A_{n-1}$ defined on the closure of the range of $(I-P^*P)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ such that
$$\label{eqn:13}
S_i - S_{n-i}^*P = D_P A_i D_P \text{ for all } i=1,\dots,n-1.$$
Here $ D_p = (I-P^*P)^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Let us recall that the [*numerical radius*]{} of an operator $A$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is defined by $$\omega(A) = \sup \{|\langle Ax,x \rangle|\; : \;
\|x\|_{\mathcal{H}}= 1\}.$$ It is well known that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nradius}
r(A)\leq \omega(A)\leq \|A\| \textup{ and } \frac{1}{2}\|A\|\leq
\omega(A)\leq \|A\|, \end{aligned}$$ where $r(A)$ is the spectral radius of $A$. We state a basic lemma on numerical radius whose proof is a routine exercise. We shall use this lemma in sequel.
\[basicnrlemma\] The numerical radius of an operator $A$ is not greater than $n$ if and only if Re $\alpha A \leq nI$ for all complex numbers $\alpha$ of modulus $1$.
[**(Existence and Uniqueness).**]{}\[existence-uniqueness\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. Then there are unique operators $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}\in\mathcal B(\mathcal D_P)$ such that $S_i-S_{n-i}^*P=D_PF_iD_P$ for all $i=1,\dots,n-1$. Moreover, $\omega (F_i+F_{n-i}z)\leq n$ for all $z\in\mathbb T$.
We shall see in the next section a partial converse to the existence-uniqueness of FOT. If an almost normal operator pair $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ satisfies $\omega(F_i+F_{n-i}z)\leq n$ for all $z\in\mathbb T$, then there exists a $\Gamma_3$-contraction for which $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the FOT (see Theorem \[converse\]). We mention here that not every FOT is almost normal.
Since the FOT is defined on the space $\mathcal D_P$, it is evident that $S_i-S_{n-i}^*P$ is equal to $0$ on the orthogonal complement of $\mathcal D_P$ in $\mathcal H$.
The FOT of a $\Gamma_n$-isometry or a $\Gamma_n$-unitary $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is defined to be $(0,\dots,0)$ because the FOT is defined on the space $\mathcal D_P$ and in such cases $\mathcal D_P=\{0\}$.
\[end-prop\] If two $\Gamma_n$-contractions are unitarily equivalent then so are their FOTs.
Let $(S_{11},\dots,S_{1(n-1)},P_1)$ and $(S_{21},\dots,S_{2(n-1)},P_2)$ be two unitarily equivalent $\Gamma_n$-contractions on Hilbert spaces $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$ respectively with FOTs $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ and $(G_1,\dots,G_{n-1})$. Then there is a unitary $U$ from $\mathcal
H_1$ to $\mathcal H_2$ such that $$US_{11}=S_{21}U \;,\dots , US_{1(n-1)}=S_{2(n-1)}U \text{ and }\;
UP_1=P_2U\,.$$ Obviously $UP_1^*=P_2^*U$ and consequently $$UD_{P_1}^2=U(I-P_1^*P_1)=U-P_2^*P_2U=D_{P_2}^2U\,.$$ Therefore, $UD_{P_1}=D_{P_2}U$. Let $V=U|_{\mathcal D_{P_1}}$. Then $V\in\mathcal L(\mathcal D_{P_1},\mathcal D_{P_2})$ and $VD_{P_1}=D_{P_2}V$. Thus, using the fact that $S_{1i}-S_{1(n-i)}^*P_1$ and $S_{2i}-S_{2(n-i)}^*P_2$ are equal to $0$ on the orthogonal complement of $\mathcal D_{P_1}$ and $\mathcal D_{P_2}$ respectively we have $$\begin{aligned}
D_{P_2}VF_iV^*D_{P_2} &= VD_{P_1}F_iD_{P_1}V^* \\& =
V(S_{1i}-S_{1(n-i)}^*P_1)V^* \\& = S_{2i}-S_{2{n-i}}^*P_2 \\&
=D_{P_2}G_iD_{P_2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ So, $F_i$ and $G_i$ are unitarily equivalent for $i=1,\dots,n-1$.
The converse to the above result does not hold, i.e, two non-unitarily equivalent $\Gamma_n$-contractions can have unitarily equivalent FOTs. For example if we consider a $\Gamma_n$-isometry on a Hilbert space which is not a $\Gamma_n$-unitary, then its FOT is $(0,0)$ which is same as the FOP of any $\Gamma_n$-unitary on the same Hilbert space.
A partial converse to the Existence-Uniqueness Theorem of Fundamental operator tuple
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existence and uniqueness of FOT is in the centre of all results of this article (Theorem \[existence-uniqueness\]). Here we provide a partial converse to the existence-uniqueness theorem for FOT.
\[converse\] Let $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ be operators defined on a Hilbert space $E$ such that $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is almost normal and $$\left(
\dfrac{n-1}{n}(F_1^*+F_{n-1}z),\dfrac{n-2}{n}(F_2^*+F_{n-2}z),\dots,\dfrac{1}{n}(F_{n-1}^*+F_1z)
\right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction for any $z\in\mathbb T$. Then there is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction for which $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the FOT.
Let us consider the Hilbert space $H^2(E)$ and the commuting operator tuple $(T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z},\dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z},T_z)$ acting on it. We shall show that $$(T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z}^*,\dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z}^*,T_z^*)$$ is a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometry and $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the FOT of it. Since the pair $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is almost normal, $(T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z},\dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z},T_z)$ is a commuting tuple and $F_{n-i}^*+F_iz$ is normal for all $z$ of unit modulus. Clearly for each $i$ we have that $$T_{{F_i}^*+{F_{n-i}}z}=T_{{F_{n-i}}^*+{F_i}z}^*T_z$$ and $T_z$ is an isometry. Again since $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}(F_1^*+F_{n-1}z),\frac{n-1}{n}(F_2^*+F_{n-2}z),\dots,
\frac{1}{n}(F_{n-1}^*+F_1z) \right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction, so is $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}M_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z},\frac{n-1}{n}M_{F_2^*+F_{n-2}z},
\dots,\frac{1}{n}M_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z} \right),$$ where the multiplication operators are defined on $L^2(E)$. Also it is obvious that the restriction of $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}M_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z},\frac{n-1}{n}M_{F_2^*+F_{n-2}z},
\dots,\frac{1}{n}M_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z} \right)$$ to the common invariant subspace $H^2(E)$ is $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z},\frac{n-1}{n}T_{F_2^*+F_{n-2}z},
\dots,\frac{1}{n}T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z} \right).$$ Therefore, $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z},\frac{n-1}{n}T_{F_2^*+F_{n-2}z},
\dots,\frac{1}{n}T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z} \right).$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction. Hence, by part-(2) of Theorem \[thm:ti\], $$\left( T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z},
\dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z}, T_z \right)$$ is a $\Gamma_n$-isometry and consequently $$\left( T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z}^*,
\dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z}^*, T_z^* \right)$$ is a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometry. We now compute the FOT of $$\left(
T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z}, \dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z}, T_z \right).$$ Clearly $I-T_zT_z^*$ is the projection onto the space $\mathcal
D_{T_z^*}$. Now for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$, $$T_{F_i^*+F_{n-i}z}^*- T_{F_{n-i}^*+F_iz}T_z^*=T_{F_i+F_{n-i}^*
\bar z}- T_{F_{n-i}^*+F_iz}T_{\bar z}=
T_{F_i}=(I-T_zT_z^*)F_1(I-T_zT_z^*).$$ Therefore, $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the FOT of $(T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z}^*,\dots,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z}^*,T_z^*)$.
In this section we describe few important properties of the fundamental operator pair and also find a necessary and sufficient condition under which two pairs of operators become fundamental operator pair of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction and its adjoint. Also we shall see in the next section that the fundamental operator pair plays central role in determining a functional model and a complete unitary invariant for pure $\Gamma_n$-contractions.
Properties of the fundamental operator tuple
--------------------------------------------
\[tetra\] A tuple of operators $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ defined on $\mathcal
D_P$ is the fundamental operator pair of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ if and only if $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ satisfy the following operator equations in $X_1,\dots,X_{n-1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
D_PS_i = X_iD_P + X_{n-i}^*D_PP \;,\quad i=1,\dots,n-1.\end{aligned}$$
First let $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ be the fundamental operator pair of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$. Then $$S_i - S_{n-i}^*P = D_P A_i D_P \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1.$$ Now $$\begin{aligned}
D_P(A_iD_P+A_{n-i}^*D_PP) &=(S_i-S_{n-i}^*P)+(S_{n-i}^*-P^*S_i)P
\\&=(I-P^*P)S_i \\&=D_P^2S_i.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if $J=D_PS_i - A_iD_P-A_{n-i}^*D_PP$ then $J:\mathcal H
\rightarrow \mathcal D_P$ and $D_PJ=0$. Now $$\langle Jh,{D}_Ph' \rangle=\langle {D}_PJh,h' \rangle=0 \quad
\text{ for all }h,h'\in\mathcal{H}.$$ This shows that $J=0$ and hence $A_i {D}_P+A_{n-i}^* {D}_P P=
{D}_PS_i$.\
Conversely, let $(X_1,\dots,X_{n-1})$ be a tuple of operators on $\mathcal D_P$ such that $$D_P S_i = X_iD_P + X_{n-i}^* D_P P \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1\,.$$ Also suppose that $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$. We need to show that $(X_1,\dots,X_{n-1}) = (F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$. Since we just proved that $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ satisfies the above mentioned operator equations, we have $$F_i {D}_P + F_{n-i}^* {D}_P P = {D}_P S_i = X_i D_P + X_{n-i}^*
D_P P.$$ and consequently $$(X_i - F_i) D_P + (X_{n-i} - F_{n-i})^* D_P P = (X_{n-i} -
F_{n-i}) D_P + (X_i - F_i)^* D_P P=0.$$ Let for each $i$ $$Y_i = X_i - F_i \,,\, Y_{n-i}=X_{n-i}-F_{n-i}.$$ Then for each $i$ $$\label{eq:11}
Y_iD_P + Y_{n-i}^* D_P P = Y_{n-i}D_P+Y_i^*D_PP =0.$$ To complete the proof, we need to show that $Y_1=\dots =Y_{n-1} =
0$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & Y_iD_P + Y_{n-i}^* D_P P = 0 \nonumber \\
\mbox{ or } & & Y _iD_P = -Y_{n-i}^*D_P P \nonumber \\
\mbox{ or } & & D_P Y_i D_P = - D_P Y_{n-i}^* D_P P \nonumber \\
\mbox{ or } & & D_PY_i^*D_P= P^* D_P Y_i^* D_P P = P^{*2} D_P
Y_i^* D_P P^2 = \cdots \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We obtained the equalities in the last line by applying (\[eq:11\]). Thus we have $$D_P Y_i^* D_P = P^{*n} D_P
Y_i^* D_P P^n \label{iterate}$$ for all $n=1,2,
\ldots$. Now consider the series $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \| D_P P^n h\|^2 & = & \sum_{n=0}^\infty \langle D_P P^n h , D_P P^n h \rangle \\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^\infty \langle P^{*n} D_P^2 P^n h , h \rangle \\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^\infty \langle P^{*n} (I - P^*P) P^n h , h \rangle \\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^\infty \langle (P^{*n} P^n - P^{*n+1} P^{n+1}h , h \rangle \\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^\infty ( \| P^nh \|^2 - \| P^{n+1} h \|^2 ) \\
& = & \| h \|^2 - \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \| P^n h\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ $$\| h \| \ge \| Ph \| \ge \| P^2 h\| \ge \cdots \ge \| P^n h \| \ge
\cdots \ge 0.$$ So $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \| P^n h\|^2$ exists. Therefore, the series is convergent and so $ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \|
D_P P^n h\|^2 =0$. So $$\begin{aligned}
\| D_P Y_i^* D_P h \| & = & \| P^{*n} D_P Y_i^* D_P P^n h \| \mbox{ by } (\ref{iterate}) \\
& \le & \| P^{*n} \| \| D_p Y_i^* \| \| D_P P^n h \| \\ & \le & \|
D_p Y_i^* \| \| D_P P^n h \| \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$ So $
D_P Y_i^* D_P= 0$ and hence $Y_i = 0$ for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$.
The next few results will provide some beautiful algebra of $\Gamma_n$-contractions and their fundamental operator tuples.\
\[tetralem6\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction with commuting fundamental operator tuple $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$. Then for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$ we have $$S_i^*S_i-S_{n-i}^*S_{n-i} = D_P(A_i^*A_i-A_{n-i}^*A_{n-i})D_P.$$
We have that $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ is a commuting tuple satisfying $$\label{eqn:12}
S_i-S_{n-i}^*P=D_PA_iD_P \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1.$$ By the commutativity of $S_1,\dots, S_{n-1}$ we have $S_i^*S_{n-i}^*P=S_{n-i}^*S_i^*P$. Using (\[eqn:12\]) we see that $$S_i^*(S_i-D_PA_iD_P) =S_{n-i}^*(S_{n-i}-D_PA_{n-i}D_P)\,,$$ which further implies that for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
S_i^*S_i-S_{n-i}^*S_{n-i} &= S_i^*D_PA_iD_P-S_{n-i}^*D_PA_{n-i}D_P \\
& = (D_PA_i^*+P^*D_PA_{n-i})A_iD_P-(D_PA_{n-i}^*+P^*D_PA_i)A_{n-i}D_P \\
& = D_P(A_i^*A_i-A_{n-i}^*A_{n-i})D_P\,.\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the last two equalities we have used the commutativity of $A_1,\dots,A_{n-i}$ and the two identities $$D_PS_i=A_iD_P+A_{n-i}^*D_PP \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1,$$ from the previous theorem. Hence the proof is complete.
\[tetralem2\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ be respectively the fundamental operator tuples of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ respectively. Then $$D_PA_i=(S_iD_P-D_{P^*}B_{n-i}P)|_{\mathcal{D}_P} \text{ for }
i=1,\dots,n-1.$$
For $h \in \mathcal{H}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(S_iD_P-D_{P^*}B_{n-i}P)D_Ph &=&
S_i(I-P^*P)h-(D_{P^*}B_{n-i}D_{P^*})Ph
\\
&=& S_ih-S_iP^*Ph-(S_{n-i}^*-S_iP^*)Ph
\\
&=& S_ih-S_iP^*Ph-S_{n-i}^*Ph+S_iP^*Ph
\\
&=&(S_i-S_{n-i}^*P)h=(D_P A_i)D_Ph.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$D_PA_i=(S_iD_P-D_{P^*}B_{n-i}P)|_{\mathcal{D}_P}.$$
\[tetralem4\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-i},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(A_1,\dots, A_{n-1})$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ be respectively the fundamental operator tuples of $(S_1,\dots,S_2,P)$ and $(S_1^*,\dots,S_2^*,P)^*$ respectively. Then $$PA_i=B_i^*P|_{\mathcal{D}_P}, \text{ for } i=1,\dots, n-1.$$
We observe here that the operators on both sides are defined from $\mathcal{D}_P$ to $\mathcal{D}_{P^*}$. Let $h,h' \in \mathcal{H}$ be any two elements. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle (PA_i-B_i^*P)D_Ph, D_{P^*}h' \rangle
\\
&=& \langle D_{P^*}PA_iD_Ph,h' \rangle- \langle
D_{P^*}B_i^*PD_{P}h,h' \rangle
\\
&=& \langle P(D_P A_iD_P)h,h' \rangle - \langle
(D_{P^*}B_i^*D_{P^*})Ph,h'\rangle
\\
&=& \langle P(S_i-S_{n-i}^*P)h,h' \rangle - \langle
(S_i-PS_{n-i}^*)Ph,h' \rangle
\\
&=& \langle (PS_i-PS_{n-i}^*P-S_iP+PS_{n-i}^*P)h,h' \rangle =0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $PA_i=B_i^*P|_{\mathcal{D}_P}$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and the proof is complete.
\[tetralem3\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ be the fundamental operator tuples of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ respectively. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&(A_i^*D_PD_{P^*}-A_{n-i}P^*)|_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}}=D_PD_{P^*}B_i-P^*B_{n-i}^*
\text{ and }
\\
&&(A_{n-i}^*D_PD_{P^*}-A_iP^*)|_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}}=D_PD_{P^*}B_{n-i}-P^*B_i^*.\end{aligned}$$
For $h \in \mathcal{H}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&(A_i^*D_PD_{P^*}-A_{n-i}P^*)D_{P^*}h
\\
&=& A_i^*D_P(I-PP^*)h-A_{n-i}P^*D_{P^*}h
\\
&=& A_i^*D_Ph-A_i^*D_PPP^*h-A_{n-i}D_PP^*h
\\
&=& A_i^*D_Ph-(A_i^*D_PP+A_{n-i}D_P)P^*h
\\
&=& A_i^*D_Ph-D_PS_{n-i}P^*h \;\;\quad [\text{ by Lemma
}(\ref{tetra})]
\\
&=& (S_iD_P-D_{P^*}B_{n-i}P)^*h-D_PS_{n-i}P^*h \;\;\;\;[\text{by
Lemma \ref{tetralem2}}]
\\
&=& D_PS_i^*h-P^*B_{n-i}^*D_{P^*}h-D_PS_{n-i}P^*h
\\
&=& D_P(S_i^*-S_{n-i}P^*)h-P^*B_{n-i}^*D_{P^*}h
\\
&=& D_PD_{P^*}B_iD_{P^*}h-P^*B_{n-i}^*D_{P^*}h
\\
&=& (D_PD_{P^*}B_i-P^*B_{n-i}^*)D_{P^*}h.\end{aligned}$$ One can similarly prove the other relation.
Now we present the main result of this section.\
\[sthm0\] Let $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ be the fundamental operator tuples of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and its adjoint $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ respectively. If $[A_i,A_{n-i}]=0$ for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and if $P$ has dense range, then the following identities hold for $i=1,\dots,n-1$:
1. $[A_i^*,A_i]=[A_{n-i}^*,A_{n-i}]$
2. $[B_i,B_{n-i}]=0$
3. $[B_i^*,B_i]=[B_{n-i}^*,B_{n-i}]$.
Let the operators $S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P$ be defined on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. We shall prove the operator identities one by one.
1. By Theorem \[tetra\], we have for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$ that $D_PS_i = A_iD_P + A_{n-i}^*D_PP $ . Multiplying by $D_PA_{n-i}$ from the left we get $$\begin{aligned}
& D_PA_{n-i}D_PS_i=D_PA_{n-i}A_iD_P + D_PA_{n-i}A_{n-i}^*D_PP
\\
\Rightarrow & (S_{n-i}-S_i^*P)S_i=D_PA_{n-i}A_iD_P +
D_PA_{n-i}A_{n-i}^*D_PP
\\
\Rightarrow & S_{n-i}S_i-S_i^*S_iP = D_PA_{n-i}A_iD_P +
D_PA_{n-i}A_{n-i}^*D_PP.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, multiplying $ D_P S_{n-i} = A_{n-i}D_P + A_i^*D_PP$ by $D_PA_i$ from the left we get $$S_iS_{n-i}-S_{n-i}^*S_{n-i}P=D_PA_iA_{n-i}D_P+D_PA_iA_i^*D_PP.$$ On subtraction we get
$$\begin{aligned}
&& (S_i^*S_i-S_{n-i}^*S_{n-i})P
=D_P[A_i,A_{n-i}]D_P+D_P(A_iA_i^*-A_{n-i}A_{n-i}^*)D_PP
\\
&\Rightarrow & D_P(A_i^*A_i-A_{n-i}^*A_{n-i})D_PP
=D_P[A_i,A_{n-i}]D_P+D_P(A_iA_i^*-A_{n-i}A_{n-i}^*)D_PP
\\
&\Rightarrow & D_P([A_i^*,A_i]-[A_{n-i}^*,A_{n-i}])D_PP=0 \;
[\text{ since for each $i\,,\;[A_i,A_{n-i}]=0$.}]
\\
&\Rightarrow & D_P([A_i^*,A_i]-[A_{n-i}^*,A_{n-i}])D_P=0 ; [\text{
since $RanP$ is dense in $\mathcal{H}$}.]
\\
&\Rightarrow & [A_i^*,A_i]=[A_{n-i}^*,A_{n-i}]\end{aligned}$$
Thus the proof of part-$(i)$ of the theorem is complete.\
2. From Lemma \[tetralem4\], we have that $PA_i=B_i^*P|_{\mathcal{D}_P}$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&& PA_iA_{n-i}D_P=B_i^*PA_{n-i}D_P \\
&\Rightarrow & PA_{n-i}A_iD_P=B_i^*PA_{n-i}D_P
\\
&\Rightarrow & B_{n-i}^*B_i^*PD_P=B_i^*B_{n-i}^*PD_P
\\
&\Rightarrow & [B_i^*,B_{n-i}^*]D_{P^*}P=0 \\
&\Rightarrow & [B_i,B_{n-i}]=0\end{aligned}$$
Here we have used the commutativity of $A_i,A_{n-i}$, the density of range of $P$ in $\mathcal{H}$ and Lemma \[tetralem4\].\
3. From Lemma \[tetralem2\], we have $D_PA_i=(S_iD_P-D_{P^*}B_{n-i}P)|_{\mathcal{D}_P}$. On multiplication by $A_{n-i}D_P$ from right we get $$\begin{aligned}
&& D_PA_iA_{n-i}D_P=S_iD_PA_{n-i}D_P-D_{P^*}B_{n-i}PA_{n-i}D_P
\\
&\Rightarrow & D_PA_iA_{n-i}D_P = S_i(S_{n-i}-S_i^*P) -
D_{P^*}B_{n-i}B_{n-i}^*PD_P \;[\text{ by Lemma \ref{tetralem4}}.]
\\
&\Rightarrow & D_PA_iA_{n-i}D_P =
S_iS_{n-i}-S_iS_i^*P-D_{P^*}B_{n-i}B_{n-i}^*PD_P.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, multiplying $D_PA_{n-i}=(S_{n-i}D_{P}-D_{P^*}B_iP)|_{\mathcal{D_P}}$ by $A_iD_P$ from right we get $$D_PA_{n-i}A_iD_P =
S_{n-i}S_i-S_{n-i}S_{n-i}^*P-D_{P^*}B_iB_i^*PD_P.$$ Subtracting those two equations we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&D_P[A_i,A_{n-i}]D_P = D_{P^*}(B_iB_i^*-B_{n-i}B_{n-i}^*)D_{P^*}P
- (S_iS_i^*-S_{n-i}S_{n-i}^*)P
\\
&\Rightarrow& D_P[A_i,A_{n-i}]D_P =
D_{P^*}([B_i,B_i^*]-[B_{n-i},B_{n-i}^*])D_{P^*}P
\\
&\Rightarrow& D_{P^*}([B_i^*,B_i]-[B_{n-i}^*,B_{n-i}])D_{P^*}P=0
\\
&\Rightarrow& [B_i^*,B_i]=[B_{n-i}^*,B_{n-i}].\end{aligned}$$
This holds for $i=1,\dots,n-1$. We obtained the implications by the density of the range of $P$ in $\mathcal{H}$ and Lemma \[tetralem6\]. Hence the proof is complete.
Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ such that $P$ is invertible. Let $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ be as in Theorem \[sthm0\]. Then $[A_i,A_{n-i}]=0$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ if and only if $[B_i,B_{n-i}]=0$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$.
Suppose that $[A_i,A_{n-i}]=0$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$. Since $P$ has dense range, by part (ii) of Theorem \[sthm0\], we get $[B_i,B_{n-i}]=0$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$. Conversely, let $[B_i,B_{n-i}]=0$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$. Since $P$ is invertible, $P^*$ has dense range too. So applying Theorem \[sthm0\] for the $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$, we get $[A_i,A_{n-i}]=0$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$.
Admissibility of fundamental operator tuple
-------------------------------------------
For two tuples of operators $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ defined on some certain Hilbert spaces, it is natural to ask when there exists a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ such that $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator pair of its adjoint $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$. In this subsection, we shall answer this question.\
We recall from [@nagy] the famous notion of characteristic function of a contraction introduced by Sz.-Nagy and Foias. For a contraction $P$ defined on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$, let $\Lambda_P$ be the set of all complex numbers for which the operator $I-zP^*$ is invertible. For $z\in \Lambda_P$, the characteristic function of $P$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e0} \Theta_P(z)=[-P+zD_{P^*}(I-zP^*)^{-1}D_P]|_{\mathcal D_P}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the operators $D_P$ and $D_{P^*}$ are the defect operators $(I-P^*P)^{1/2}$ and $(I-PP^*)^{1/2}$ respectively. By virtue of the relation $PD_P=D_{P^*}P$ (section I.3 of [@nagy]), $\Theta_P(z)$ maps $\mathcal
D_P=\overline{\textup{Ran}}D_P$ into $\mathcal
D_{P^*}=\overline{\textup{Ran}}D_{P^*}$ for every $z$ in $\Lambda_P$. Since for each $z\in\mathbb D,\; \Theta_P(z)$ maps $\mathcal{D}_P$ into $\mathcal{D}_{P^*}$, $\Theta_P$ induces a multiplication operator $M_{\Theta_P}$ from $H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P}$ into $H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P^*}$, defined by $$M_{\Theta_P}f(z)=\Theta_P(z)f(z), \text{ for all } f \in
H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P} \text{ and } z \in
\mathbb{D}.$$ Note that $M_{\Theta_P}(M_z \otimes I_{\mathcal{D}_P})=(M_z
\otimes I_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}})M_{\Theta_P}$.
\[scor1\] Let $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ be the fundamental operator tuples of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and its adjoint $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ respectively. Then for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t1}(A_i^*+A_{n-i}z)\Theta_{P^*}(z)=\Theta_{P^*}(z)(B_i+B_{n-i}^*z)
\text{ for all }z \in \mathbb{D}.\end{aligned}$$
We have that $$\begin{aligned}
&&(A_i^*+A_{n-i}z)\Theta_{P^*}(z)
\\
&=& (A_i^*+A_{n-i}z) (-P^* +
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^{n+1}D_PP^nD_{P^*})
\\
&=& (-A_i^*P^*+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}z^{n}A_i^*D_PP^{n-1}D_{P^*}) \\
& & + (-zA_{n-i}P^* +
\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}z^{n}A_{n-i}D_PP^{n-2}D_{P^*} )
\\
&=& -A_i^*P^*+z(A_i^*D_PD_{P^*}-A_{n-i}P^*) \\
& & + \sum_{n=2}^{\infty}
z^n(A_i^*D_PP^{n-1}D_{P^*}+A_{n-i}D_PP^{n-2}D_{P^*})
\\
&=& -A_i^*P^*+z(A_i^*D_PD_{P^*}-A_{n-i}P^*)+ \sum_{n=2}^{\infty}
z^n (A_i^*D_PP+A_{n-i}D_P)P^{n-2}D_{P^*}
\\
&=& -P^*B_i+z(D_PD_{P^*}B_i-P^*B_{n-i}^*) + \sum_{n=2}^{\infty}
z^nD_PS_2P^{n-2}D_{P^*}.\end{aligned}$$ The last equality follows by using Theorem \[tetra\], Lemma \[tetralem4\] and Lemma \[tetralem3\]. Also we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Theta_{P^*}(z)(B_i+B_{n-i}^*z)
\\
&=& (-P^* +
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^{n+1}D_PP^nD_{P^*})(B_i+B_{n-i}^*z)
\\
&=& (-P^*B_i + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}z^{n}D_PP^{n-1}D_{P^*}B_i) +
(-zP^*B_{n-i}^*+\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}z^{n}D_PP^{n-2}D_{P^*}B_{n-i}^*)
\\
&=& -P^*B_i + z(D_PD_{P^*}B_i-P^*B_{n-i}^*) \\
& & +
\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}z^{n}(D_PP^{n-1}D_{P^*}B_i+D_PP^{n-2}D_{P^*}B_{n-i}^*)
\\
&=& -P^*B_i + z(D_PD_{P^*}B_i-P^*B_{n-i}^*) +
\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}z^{n}D_PP^{n-2}(PD_{P^*}B_i+D_PB_{n-i}^*)
\\
&=& -P^*B_i + z(D_PD_{P^*}B_i-P^*B_{n-i}^*) +
\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}z^{n}D_PP^{n-2}S_{n-i}D_{P^*}
\\
&=& -P^*B_i+z(D_PD_{P^*}B_i-P^*B_{n-i}^*) + \sum_{n=2}^{\infty}
z^nD_PS_{n-i}P^{n-2}D_{P^*}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ we have $(A_i^*+A_{n-i}z)\Theta_{P^*}(z)=\Theta_{P^*}(z)(B_i+B_{n-i}^*z)$ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$ and the proof is complete.
We are now in a position to answer the question asked in the beginning of this subsection.
\[tetrathm\] Let $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ be respectively the fundamental operator pairs of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and its adjoint $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$. Then for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{adeq3}
(B_i^*+B_{n-i}z)\Theta_{P}(z)=\Theta_{P}(z)(A_i+A_{n-i}^*z) \text{
for all }z \in \mathbb{D}.\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, let $P$ be a pure contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Let $A_1,\dots,A_{n-1} \in
\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{D}_{P})$ and $B_1,\dots,B_{n-1} \in
\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{D}_{P^*})$ be such that $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}(A_1^*+A_{n-1}z),\frac{n-2}{n}(A_2^*+A_{n-2}z),\dots,\frac{1}{n}(A_{n-1}^*+A_1z)
\right)$$ and $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}(B_1^*+B_{n-1}z),\frac{n-2}{n}(B_2^*+B_{n-2}z),\dots,\frac{1}{n}(B_{n-1}^*+B_1z)
\right)$$ are $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contractions for all $z\in {\mathbb D}$. If $A_1,\dots,A_{n-1}$ and $B_1,\dots,B_{n-1}$ satisfy the equations (\[adeq3\]), then there exists a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ such that $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$.
We apply Lemma \[scor1\] to the $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ to obtain the forward implication.\
For the converse, let us define $W: \mathcal{H} \to
H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P^*} $ by $$W(h)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} z^n \otimes D_{P^*}{P^*}^nh \text{ for
all $h \in \mathcal{H}$}.$$ It is evident that $$\begin{aligned}
||W h||^2 = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} ||D_{P^*}{P^*}^nh||^2 & =
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left(||{P^*}^nh||^2 -
||{P^*}^{n+1}h||^2\right) \\ & =||h||^2 - \lim_{n \to
\infty}||{P^*}^nh||^2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $W$ is an isometry if $P$ is a pure contraction. It is obvious that $$W^*(z^n \otimes \xi) = P^nD_{P^*} \xi \text{ for all $\xi \in
\mathcal{D}_{P^*}$ and $n \geq 0$.}$$ Also if $M_z$ is the multiplication operator on $H^2(\mathbb D)$ and if $M=M_z\otimes I$ on $H^2(\mathbb D)\otimes \mathcal
D_{P^*}$, then we have $$M^*Wh=T_z^*\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^nD_{P^*}{P^*}^nh\right)=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}z^nD_{P^*}{P^*}^{n+1}h=WP^*h.$$ Therefore $M^*W=WP^*$. Since $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}(B_1^*+B_{n-1}z),\frac{n-2}{n}(B_2^*+B_{n-2}z),\dots,\frac{1}{n}(B_{n-1}^*+B_1z)
\right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction for all $z\in\mathbb D$, it follows from Theorem \[model1\] that the Toeplitz operator tuple $(T_{B_1^*+B_{n-1}z},\dots,T_{B_{n-1}^*+B_1z},T_z)$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry on the vectorial Hardy space $H^2({\mathcal
D_{P^*}})$. Again since $H^2({\mathcal D_{P^*}})$ and $H^2(\mathbb
D)\times \mathcal D_{P^*}$ are isomorphic, the replica of the triple $$(T_{B_1^*+B_{n-1}z},\dots,T_{B_{n-1}^*+B_1z},T_z) \text{ for the
space }H^2(\mathbb D)\times \mathcal D_{P^*}$$ is $$(I\otimes B_1^*+M_z \otimes B_{n-1},\dots, I \otimes
B_{n-1}^*+M_z\otimes B_1, M_z\otimes I),$$ which is also a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry on $H^2(\mathbb D)\otimes
\mathcal D_{P^*}$. Let us define $$S_i=W^*M_iW \text{ for } i=1,\dots, n-1\,,$$ where $$M_i=I\otimes B_i^*+M_z \otimes B_{n-i} \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1.$$ Equations (\[adeq3\]) tell us that $RanM_{\Theta_P}$ is invariant under $M_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ which is same as saying that $RanW=(RanM_{\Theta_P})^\perp$ is invariant under $M_i^*$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$.\
Since $(M_1,\dots,M_{n-1},M)$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry, so is $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ being unitarily equivalent to $(M_1,\dots,M_{n-1},M)$. We now show that $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator pair of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$. For each $i=1,\dots,n-1$ we have that
$$\begin{aligned}
S_i^*-S_{n-i}P^*&= W^*M_i^*W-W^*M_{n-i}WW^*M^*W \\
&= W^*M_i^*W - W^*M_{n-i}M^*W \\
&= W^*[ (I \otimes B_i) \\
& \quad + (M_z^* \otimes B_{n-i}^*) -(M_z^*
\otimes B_{n-i}^*)- (M_z M_z^* \otimes B_i) ]W \\
&= D_{P^*}B_iD_{P^*}.\end{aligned}$$
To obtain the equalities above, we used the fact that $RanW$ is invariant under $M_z^*$ and that $I-M_zM_z^*$ is a rank one projection. By the uniqueness of fundamental operator tuple of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction, we conclude that $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$. Let $(Y_1,\dots,Y_{n-1})$ be the fundamental operator tuple of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$. Then we have, by first part of this theorem, we have for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$ that $$\begin{aligned}
(B_i^*+B_{n-i}z)\Theta_{P}(z)=\Theta_{P}(z)(Y_i+Y_{n-i}^*z)
\text{ for all }z \in \mathbb{D}.\end{aligned}$$ By this and the fact that all $B_i$ satisfy equations (\[adeq3\]), for some operators $A_1,\dots,A_{n-1} \in
\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{D}_{P})$, we have that $$A_i+A_{n-i}^*z=Y_i+Y_{n-i}^*z \text{ for all } i=1,\dots,n-1$$ and for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$. Therefore, $Y_i=A_i$ for each $i$ and consequently $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and the proof is complete.
A non-commutative model for pure $\Gamma_n$-contractions
--------------------------------------------------------
We recall from previous section that the characteristic function $\Theta_P$ of a contraction $P$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is defined by $$\Theta_P(z)=[-P+zD_{P^*}(I_\mathcal{H}-zP^*)^{-1}D_P]|_{\mathcal{D}_P},\;\;
z \in \mathbb{D}.$$ Let us define $$\mathcal{H}_P=(H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P^*}) \ominus
M_{\Theta_P}(H^2(\mathbb{D}) \otimes \mathcal{D}_P).$$ In [@nagy], Sz.-Nagy and Foias showed that every pure contraction $P$ defined on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is unitarily equivalent to the operator $P_{\mathcal{H}_P}(M_z
\otimes I_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}})_{\mathcal{H}_P}$ on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_P$ defined above, where $P_{\mathcal{H}_P}$ is the projection of $H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P^*}$ onto $\mathcal{H}_P$.\
Before going to the main result we state and prove a lemma.
\[L0\] For every contraction $P$, the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L1}
WW^*+M_{\Theta_P}M_{\Theta_P}^*=I_{H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes
\mathcal{D}_{P^*}}\end{aligned}$$ holds, where $W$ is the isometry mentioned in the proof of Theorem \[tetrathm\].
The operator $W^*$ satisfies the identity $$W^*(k_z \otimes \xi)= (I - \bar{z}P)^{-1}D_{P^*}\xi \text{ for } z
\in \mathbb{D} \text{ and } \xi \in \mathcal{D}_{P^*},$$ where $k_z(w):=(1-\langle w,z\rangle)^{-1}$ for all $w \in
\mathbb{D}$. For a proof one can see Theorem 1.2 in [@arveson2]. Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle (WW^*+M_{\Theta_P}M_{\Theta_P}^*)(k_z \otimes \xi), (k_w
\otimes \eta) \rangle
\\
&=& \langle W^*(k_z \otimes \xi),W^*(k_w \otimes \eta) \rangle +
\langle M_{\Theta_P}^*(k_z \otimes \xi), M_{\Theta_P}^*(k_w
\otimes \eta) \rangle
\\
&=& \langle (I - \bar{z}P)^{-1}D_{P^*}\xi, (I -
\bar{w}P)^{-1}D_{P^*}\eta \rangle + \langle k_z \otimes
\Theta_P(z)^*\xi, k_w \otimes \Theta_P(w)^*\eta \rangle
\\
&=& \langle D_{P^*}(I - wP^*)^{-1}(I - \bar{z}P)^{-1}D_{P^*}\xi,
\eta \rangle + \langle k_z, k_w \rangle \langle
\Theta_P(w)\Theta_P(z)^*\xi, \eta \rangle
\\
&=& \langle k_z \otimes \xi, k_w \otimes \eta \rangle \text{ for
all $z ,w \in \mathbb{D}$ and $\xi, \eta \in \mathcal{D}_{P^*}$}.\end{aligned}$$ Where the last equality follows from the following well-known identity $$I - \Theta_P(w)\Theta_P(z)^* = (1 - w\bar{z})D_{P^*}(I -
wP^*)^{-1}(I - \bar{z}P)^{-1}D_{P^*}.$$ Now using the fact that $\{k_z: z \in \mathbb{D}\}$ forms a total set of $H^2(\mathbb{D})$, the assertion follows.
No we come to the main result of this section.
\[fm\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a pure $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Then the operators $S_i$ and $P$ are unitarily equivalent to $P_{\mathcal{H}_P}(I \otimes B_i^* + M_z
\otimes B_{n-i})|_{\mathcal{H}_P}, P_{\mathcal{H}_P}(I \otimes
B_{n-i}^* + M_z \otimes B_i)|_{\mathcal{H}_P}$ and $P_{\mathcal{H}_P}(M_z \otimes
I_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}})|_{\mathcal{H}_P}$ respectively, where $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ is the fundamental operator tuple of\
$(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$.
Since $W$ is an isometry, $WW^*$ is the projection onto $RanW$ and since $P$ is pure, $M_{\Theta_P}$ is also an isometry. So by Lemma \[L0\], we have that $$W(\mathcal{H}_P)=(H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes
\mathcal{D}_{P^*}) \ominus M_{\Theta_P}(H^2(\mathbb{D}) \otimes
\mathcal{D}_P).$$
Now $$\begin{aligned}
&&W^*(I \otimes B_i^* + M_z \otimes B_{n-i})(z^n \otimes \xi)
\\
&=& W^*(z^n \otimes B_i^* \xi) + W^*(z^{n+1} \otimes B_{n-i} \xi)
\\
&=& P^nD_{P^*}B_i^* \xi + P^{n+1}D_{P^*}B_{n-i} \xi
\\
&=& P^n(D_{P^*}B_i^*+PD_{P^*}B_{n-i}) \xi
\\
&=& P^nS_iD_{P^*} \xi \;\;[\text{ by Theorem \ref{tetra}}]
\\
&=& S_iP^nD_{P^*} \xi = S_i W^*(z^n \otimes \xi).\end{aligned}$$ So for each $i$, we have $W^*(I \otimes B_i^* + M_z \otimes
B_{n-i})=S_i W^*$ for the vectors of the form $z^n \otimes \xi$, for all $n \geq 0$ and $\xi \in \mathcal{D}_{P^*}$, which span $H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P^*}$. Hence we have $W^*(I
\otimes B_i^* + M_z \otimes B_{n-i})=S_i W^*$, which implies that $W^*(I \otimes B_i^* + M_z \otimes B_{n-i})W=S_i$. Therefore, $S_i$ is unitarily equivalent to $P_{\mathcal{H}_P}(I \otimes
B_i^* + M_z \otimes B_{n-i})|_{\mathcal{H}_P}$. Again $$\begin{aligned}
W^*(M_z \otimes I)(z^n \otimes \xi)=W^*(z^{n+1} \otimes \xi)=
P^{n+1}D_{P^*}\xi= PW^*(z^n \otimes \xi).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore by the same argument as above, $P$ is unitarily equivalent to $P_{\mathcal{H}_P}(M_z \otimes
I_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}})|_{\mathcal{H}_P}$.
A complete unitary invariant for pure $\Gamma_n$-contractions
-------------------------------------------------------------
A complete unitary invariant for a class of operator tuples, defined on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$, is nothing but a set of necessary and sufficient conditions under which two such tuples are unitarily equivalent in the sense that there is a unitary on $\mathcal H$ that intertwines corresponding components of the two operator tuples. For two contractions $P$ and $P'$ defined on Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{H'}$ respectively, we say that the characteristic functions of $P$ and $P'$ coincide if there are unitary operators $u: \mathcal{D}_P \to
\mathcal{D}_{P'}$ and $u_{*}: \mathcal{D}_{P^*} \to
\mathcal{D}_{{P'}^*}$ such that the following diagram commutes for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$,
$$\begin{CD}
\mathcal{D}_P @>\Theta_P(z)>> \mathcal{D}_{P^*}\\
@Vu VV @VVu_{*} V\\
\mathcal{D}_{P'} @>>\Theta_{{P'}}(z)> \mathcal{D}_{{P'}^*}
\end{CD}.$$
Before few decades, Sz.-Nagy and Foias proved that the characteristic function is a complete unitary invariant for completely non-unitary contractions.
\[nf\] Two completely non-unitary contractions are unitarily equivalent if and only if their characteristic functions coincide.
The following theorem provides a complete unitary invariant for pure $\Gamma_3$-contractions.
\[unitary inv\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and $(S_1',\dots,S_{n-1}',P')$ be two pure $\Gamma_n$-contractions defined on $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{H'}$ respectively. Suppose $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ and $(B_1',\dots,B_{n-1}')$ are fundamental operator tuples of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ and $(S_1'^*,\dots,S_{n-1}'^*,P'^*)$ respectively. Then $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is unitarily equivalent to $(S_1',\dots,S_{n-1}',P')$ if and only if the characteristic functions of $P$ and $P'$ coincide and $(B_1,\dots,B_{n-1})$ is unitarily equivalent to $(B_1',\dots,B_{n-1}')$ by the same unitary that is involved in the coincidence of the characteristic functions of $P$ and $P'$.
First let us assume that $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and $(S_1',\dots,S_{n-1}',P')$ be unitarily equivalent and let $U:\mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H'}$ be a unitary such that $US_i=S_i'U$ for each $i$ and $UP=P'U$. Since $P$ is a pure contraction, it is a completely non-unitary contraction and hence by Theorem \[nf\], the characteristic functions of $P$ and $P'$ coincides. The unitary that is involved in the coincidence of the characteristic functions $\Theta_P$ and $\Theta_{P'}$ is nothing but the restriction of $U$ to $\mathcal D_P$ that takes $\mathcal
D_P$ to $\mathcal D_{P'}$. An interested reader can see Chapter-VI of [@nagy] for a proof of this fact. We now prove that the same unitary intertwines the fundamental operator pairs of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ and ${(S_1'}^*,\dots,{S_{n-1}'}^*,{P'}^*)$. We have $$UD_P^2=U(I-P^*P)=U-{P'}^*PU=D_{P'}^2U,$$ which gives $UD_P=D_{P'}U$. Let $\tilde{U}=U|_{\mathcal{D}_P}$. Then note that $\tilde{U}\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{D}_P,
\mathcal{D}_{P'})$ and $\tilde{U}D_P=D_{P'}\tilde{U}$. Let $(A_1,\dots,A_{n-1})$ and $(A_1',\dots,A_{n-1}')$ be respectively the fundamental operator tuples of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and $(S_1',\dots,S_{n-1}',P')$. Then for each $i$, $$\begin{aligned}
D_{P'}\tilde{U}A_i\tilde{U}^*D_{P'}=\tilde{U}D_PA_iD_P\tilde{U}^*
&=& \tilde{U}(S_i-S_{n-i}^*P)D_P{\tilde{U}}^*
\\
&=& S_i'-S_{n-i}'^*P'=D_{P'}A_i'D_{P'}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore we have $\tilde{U}A_i\tilde{U}^*=A_i'$ for each $i=1,\dots,n-1$.\
We prove the converse part. Let $u: \mathcal{D}_P \to
\mathcal{D}_{P'}$ and $u_{*}: \mathcal{D}_{P^*} \to
\mathcal{D}_{{P'}^*}$ be unitary operators such that for each $i$ $$u_{*}B_i=B_i'u_{*} \text{ and } u_{*} \Theta_P(z) = \Theta_{P'}(z)
u \text{ for all $z \in \mathbb{D}$}.$$ The unitary operator $u_{*}: \mathcal{D}_{P^*} \to
\mathcal{D}_{{P'}^*}$ induces the following unitary operator $$\begin{gathered}
U_{*}: H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P^*} \to
H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P'^*} \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad (z^n \otimes \xi) \mapsto (z^n
\otimes u_{*}\xi) \xi \in \mathcal{D}_{P^*} \;,\; n \geq 0.\end{gathered}$$ We note here that $$U_{*}(M_{\Theta_P}f(z))=u_{*}\Theta_{P}(z)f(z)=\Theta_{P'}(z)uf(z)=M_{\Theta_{P'}}(uf(z)),$$ for all $f \in H^2(\mathbb{D})\otimes \mathcal{D}_{P}$ and $z \in
\mathbb{D}$. Hence $U_{*}$ takes $RanM_{\Theta_P}$ onto $RanM_{\Theta_{P'}}$. Since $U_{*}$ is unitary, we have $$U_{*}(\mathcal{H}_P) =
U_{*}((RanM_{\Theta_P})^\bot)=(U_{*}RanM_{\Theta_P})^{\bot}=(RanM_{\Theta_{P'}})^\bot=\mathcal{H}_{P'}.$$ Again from the definition of $U_{*}$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
U_{*}(I \otimes B_i^* + M_z \otimes B_{n-i})^*&=&(I \otimes
u_{*})(I \otimes B_i + M_z^* \otimes B_{n-i}^*)
\\
&=& I \otimes u_{*} B_i + M_z^* \otimes u_{*} B_{n-i}^*
\\
&=& I \otimes B_i'u_{*} + M_z^* \otimes B_{n-i}'^*u_{*}
\\
&=& (I \otimes B_i' + M_z^* \otimes B_{n-i}'^*)(I \otimes u_{*}) \\
&=&(I \otimes B_i'^* + M_z \otimes B_{n-i}')^*U_{*}.\end{aligned}$$ Similar calculation gives us $$U_{*}(I \otimes B_{n-i}^* + M_z \otimes B_i)^*=(I \otimes
B_{n-i}'^* + M_z \otimes B_i')^*U_{*}.$$ Therefore, $\mathcal{H}_{P'}=U_{*}(\mathcal{H}_P)$ is a joint co-invariant subspace of $(I \otimes B_i'^* + M_z \otimes
B_{n-i}')$ for $i=1,\dots, n-1$. Hence $ P_{\mathcal{H}_P}(I
\otimes B_i^* + M_z \otimes B_{n-i})|_{\mathcal{H}_P}$ and $P_{\mathcal{H}_{P'}}(I \otimes B_i'^* + M_z \otimes
B_{n-i}')|_{\mathcal{H}_{P'}} $ are unitarily equivalent for each $i$. It is evident that the unitary operator that intertwines them is $U_{*}|_{\mathcal{H}_P}:\mathcal{H}_P \to \mathcal{H}_{P'}$.\
Also we have $$U_{*}(M_z \otimes I_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}})=(I \otimes u_{*})(M_z
\otimes I_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}})=(M_z \otimes
I_{\mathcal{D}_{P'^*}})(I \otimes u_{*})=(M_z \otimes
I_{\mathcal{D}_{P'^*}})U_{*}.$$ So $P_{\mathcal{H}_P}(M_z \otimes
I_{\mathcal{D}_{P^*}})|_{\mathcal{H}_P}$ and $
P_{\mathcal{H}_{P'}}(M_z \otimes
I_{\mathcal{D}_{P'^*}})|_{\mathcal{H}_{P'}}$ are unitarily equivalent by the same unitary $U_{*}|_{\mathcal{H}_P}$. Therefore $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ and $(S_1',\dots,S_{n-1}',P')$ are unitarily equivalent and the proof is complete.
Dilation and a commutative functional model for a subclass of pure $\Gamma_n$-contractions
==========================================================================================
\[dilation-extension\] Let $(T_1,\dots,T_{n-1},V)$ on $\mathcal K$ be a $\Gamma_n$-isometric dilation of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ on $\mathcal
H$. If $(T_1,\dots,T_{n-1},V)$ is minimal, then $(T_1^*,\dots,T_{n-1}^*,V^*)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometric extension of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$. Conversely, the adjoint of a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometric extension of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-isometric dilation of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$.
We first prove that $S_1P_{\mathcal H}=P_{\mathcal H}T_1,\dots,
S_{n-1}P_{\mathcal H}=P_{\mathcal H}T_{n-1}$ and $PP_{\mathcal
H}=P_{\mathcal H}V$. Clearly $$\mathcal K=\overline{\textup{span}}\{ T_1^{m_1}\dots T_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}V^n h\,:\;
h\in\mathcal H \textup{ and }m_1,\dots,m_{n-1},n\in \mathbb N \cup \{0\}
\}.$$ Now for $h\in\mathcal H$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
S_1P_{\mathcal H}(T_1^{m_1}\dots T_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}V^n h) &
=S_1(S_1^{m_1}\dots S_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}P^n h) \\ & =S_1^{m_1+1}\dots
S_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}P^n h \\& =P_{\mathcal H}(T_1^{m_1+1}\dots
T_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}V^n h)\\& =P_{\mathcal H}T_1(T_1^{m_1}\dots
T_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}V^n h).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $S_1P_{\mathcal H}=P_{\mathcal H}T_1$. Similarly we can prove that $S_iP_{\mathcal H}=P_{\mathcal H}T_i$ for any $i$ and that $PP_{\mathcal H}=P_{\mathcal H}V$. Also for $h\in\mathcal H$ and $k\in\mathcal K$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle S_1^*h,k \rangle =\langle P_{\mathcal H}S_1^*h,k \rangle
=\langle S_1^*h,P_{\mathcal H}k \rangle =\langle h,S_1P_{\mathcal
H}k \rangle &=\langle h,P_{\mathcal H}T_1k \rangle \\&=\langle
T_1^*h,k \rangle .\end{aligned}$$ Hence $S_1^*=T_1^*|_{\mathcal H}$ and similarly $S_i^*=T_i^*|_{\mathcal H}$ for any $i$ and $P^*=V^*|_{\mathcal H}$. Therefore, $(T_1^*,\dots,T_{n-1}^*,V^*)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometric extension of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$. The converse part is obvious.
\[dilation-theorem\] Let $(S_1,\dots , S_{n-1},P)$ be a pure $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and let the fundamental operator tuple $(F_{1*},\dots,F_{{n-1}*})$ of\
$(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ be such that $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}(F_{1*}^*+F_{{n-1}^*}z), \dots,
\frac{1}{n}(F_{{n-1}*}^*+F_{1*}z) \right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction for all $z \in \overline{\mathbb D}$. Consider the operators $T_1,\dots,T_{n-1},V$ on $\mathcal{K}=H^2(\mathbb{D}) \otimes \mathcal{D}_{P^*}$ defined by $$T_i=I\otimes F_{i*}^*+M_z\otimes F_{{n-i}*}, \text{ for } i=1,\dots, n-1 \text{ and } V=M_z\otimes I.$$ Then $(T_1,\dots,T_{n-1},V)$ is a minimal pure $\Gamma_n$-isometric dilation of\
$(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$.
We have from Sz.-Nagy-Foias theory for pure contraction [@nagy] that $\mathcal K$ is the minimal isometric dilation space and the operator $V$ is the minimal isometric dilation of $P$. So, it suffices if we prove that $(T_1,\dots,T_{n-1},V)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-isometric dilation of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$, because, then the minimality will follow trivially. By virtue of Lemma \[dilation-extension\], it suffices if we show that $(T_1^*,\dots,T_{n-1}^*,V^*)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometric extension of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$. Since $$\left(
\frac{n-1}{n}(F_{1*}^*+F_{{n-1}^*}z),\dots, \frac{1}{n}(F_{{n-1}*}^*+F_{1*}z)
\right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}-\text{contraction for all } z\in\overline{\mathbb
D}$, it follows from Theorem \[model1\] and Corollary \[dv11\] that $(T_{F_{1*}^*+F_{{n-1}*}z},\dots,T_{F_{{n-1}*}^*+F_{1*}z},T_z)$ on $H^2(\mathcal D_{P^*})$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry with $(F_{1*},\dots,F_{{n-1}*})$ being the fundamental operator tuple of its adjoint. Again since the tuple $(T_{F_{1*}^*+F_{{n-1}*}z},\dots,T_{F_{{n-1}*}^*+F_{1*}z},T_z)$ on $H^2(\mathcal
D_{P^*})$ is unitarily equivalent to $(T_1,\dots,T_2,V)$, that is, $
(I\otimes F_{1*}^*+M_z\otimes F_{{n-1}*},I\otimes F_{{n-1}*}^*+M_z\otimes
F_{1*},M_z\otimes I) $ on $\mathcal{K}=H^2(\mathbb{D}) \otimes
\mathcal{D}_{P^*}$, therefore, $(T_1,\dots,T_{n-1},V)$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry. All we have to prove now is that $(T_1^*,\dots,T_{n-1}^*,V^*)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometric extension of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$.\
Let us define $$\begin{aligned}
W:& \mathcal{H} \rightarrow \mathcal{K} \\& h\mapsto
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} z^n\otimes D_{P^*}{P^*}^n h.\end{aligned}$$
Now $$\begin{aligned}
\|Wh\|^2 &= \|\displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{z^n\otimes
D_{P^*}{P^*}^n h}\|^2 \\&= \langle \displaystyle
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{z^n\otimes D_{P^*}{P^*}^n h}\;,\;\displaystyle
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}{z^m\otimes D_{P^*}{P^*}^m h} \rangle
\\& = \displaystyle \sum_{m,n=0}^{\infty} \langle z^n,z^m \rangle
\langle D_{P^*}{P^*}^nh\;,\;D_{P^*}{P^*}^mh \rangle \\&
=\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{\langle P^n D_{P^*}^2
{P^*}^nh,h \rangle}\\&= \displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\langle
P^n(I-PP^*){P^*}^nh,h \rangle\\& = \displaystyle
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\{\langle P^n{P^*}^nh,h \rangle-\langle
P^{n+1}{P^*}^{n+1}h,h \rangle\} \\&= \|h\|^2-\lim_{n \rightarrow
\infty}\|{P^*}^nh\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Since $P$ is a pure contraction, $ \displaystyle
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|{P^*}^nh\|^2=0$ and thus $\|Wh\|=\|h\|.$ Therefore $W$ is an isometry.
For a basis vector $z^n\otimes \eta$ of $\mathcal{K}$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle W^*(z^n\otimes \eta),h \rangle = \langle z^n \otimes \eta
, \displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{z^k \otimes D_{P^*}{P^*}^kh}
\rangle &= \langle \eta , D_{P^*}{P^*}^nh \rangle \\& = \langle
P^n D_{P^*}\xi , h \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\label{001}
W^*(z^n\otimes \eta)=P^n D_{P^*} \eta, \quad \text{ for }
n=0,1,2,3,\hdots$$ and hence $$PW^*(z^n \otimes \eta)=P^{n+1} D_{P^*} \eta, \text{ for }
n=0,1,2,3,\hdots.$$ Again by (\[001\]), $$\begin{aligned}
W^*V(z^n \otimes \eta)=W^*(M_z \otimes I)(z^n \otimes \eta) =
W^*(z^{n+1} \otimes \eta) &= P^{n+1}D_{P^*}\eta \\&
=PW^*(z^n\otimes \eta).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $W^*V = PW^*$, i.e, $V^*W=WP^*$ and hence $V^*|_{W(\mathcal H)}=WP^*W^*|_{W(\mathcal H)}$.\
We now show that $W^*T_i=S_iW^*$ for each $i=1,\dots, n-1$. $$\begin{aligned}
W^*T_i(z^n \otimes \eta)&=W^*(I\otimes F_{i*}^*+M_z\otimes
F_{{n-i}*})(z^n \otimes \eta) \\&=W^*(z^n\otimes F_{i*}^*
\eta)+W^*(z^{n+1}\otimes F_{{n-i}*} \eta)\\&=P^nD_{P^*}F_{i*}^* \eta
+P^{n+1}D_{P^*}F_{{n-1}*} \eta .\end{aligned}$$ Also for each $i$, $$\label{002} S_iW^*(z^n\otimes
\eta)=S_iP^nD_{P^*} \eta=P^nS_iD_{P^*} \eta .$$ *Claim.* $S_iD_{P^*}=D_{P^*}F_{i*}^*+PD_{P^*}F_{{n-i}*}$.\
*Proof of Claim.* Since $(F_{1*}, \dots,F_{{n-1}*})$ is the fundamental operator pair of $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$, we have $$(D_{P^*}F_{i*}^*+PD_{P^*}F_{{n-i}*})D_{P^*}=(S_i-PS_{n-i}^*)+P(S_{n-i}^*-S_iP^*)=S_iD_{P^*}^2.$$ Now if $G=S_iD_{P^*}-D_{P^*}F_{i*}^*-PD_{P^*}F_{{n-i}*}$, then $G$ is defined from $\mathcal D_{P^*}$ to $\mathcal H$ and $GD_{P^*}h=0$ for every $h\in \mathcal D_{P^*}$. Hence the claim follows.\
So from (\[002\]) we have, $$S_iW^*(z^n\otimes \eta)=P^n(D_{P^*}F_{i*}^*+PD_{P^*}F_{{n-i}*}).$$ Therefore, $W^*T_i=S_iW^*$ and hence $T_i^*|_{W(\mathcal
H)}=WS_i^*W^*|_{W(\mathcal H)}$ for each $i$. Hence the proof is complete.
We recall from [@nagy], the notion of the characteristic function of a contraction $T$. For a contraction $T$ defined on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$, let $\Lambda_T$ be the set of all complex numbers for which the operator $I-zT^*$ is invertible. For $z\in \Lambda_T$, the characteristic function of $T$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e0} \Theta_T(z)=[-T+zD_{T^*}(I-zT^*)^{-1}D_T]|_{\mathcal D_T}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the operators $D_T$ and $D_{T^*}$ are the defect operators $(I-T^*T)^{1/2}$ and $(I-TT^*)^{1/2}$ respectively. By virtue of the relation $TD_T=D_{T^*}P$ (section I.3 of [@nagy]), $\Theta_T(z)$ maps $\mathcal
D_T=\overline{\textup{Ran}}D_T$ into $\mathcal
D_{T^*}=\overline{\textup{Ran}}D_{T^*}$ for every $z$ in $\Lambda_T$.
Let us recall that a pure contraction $T$ is a contraction such that ${T^*}^n \rightarrow 0$ strongly as $n \rightarrow \infty$. It was shown in [@nagy] that every pure contraction $T$ defined on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ is unitarily equivalent to the operator $\mathbb T=P_{\mathbb H_T}(M_z\otimes I)|_{\mathbb
H_T}$ on the Hilbert space $\mathbb H_T=(H^2(\mathbb D)\otimes
\mathcal D_{T^*}) \ominus M_{\Theta_T}(H^2(\mathbb D)\otimes
\mathcal D_T)$, where $M_z$ is the multiplication operator on $H^2(\mathbb D)$ and $M_{\Theta_T}$ is the multiplication operator from $H^2(\mathbb D)\otimes \mathcal D_T$ into $H^2(\mathbb
D)\otimes \mathcal D_{T^*}$ corresponding to the multiplier $\Theta_T$. Here, in an analogous way, we produce a model for a class of pure $\Gamma_3$-contractions.
\[modelthm\] Let $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a pure $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and let the fundamental operator tuple $(F_{1*},\dots,F_{{n-1}*})$ of\
$(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ be such that $$\left( \frac{n-1}{n}(F_{1*}^*+F_{{n-1}^*}z),\dots,
\frac{1}{n}(F_{{n-1}*}^*+F_{1*}z) \right)$$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction for all $z \in \overline{\mathbb D}$. Then $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ is unitarily equivalent to the tuple $(R_1,\dots,R_{n-1},R)$ on the Hilbert space $\mathbb
H_P=(H^2(\mathbb D)\otimes \mathcal D_{P^*})\ominus
M_{\Theta_P}(H^2(\mathbb D)\otimes \mathcal D_P)$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& R_i=P_{\mathbb H_P}(I\otimes F_{i*}^*+M_z\otimes
F_{{n-i}*})|_{\mathbb H_P},\; \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1 \\& \text{and }
R=P_{\mathbb H_P}(M_z\otimes I)|_{\mathbb H_P}.\end{aligned}$$
It suffices if we show that $W(\mathcal H)=\mathbb H_P$. For this, it is enough if we can prove $$WW^*+M_{\Theta_P}M_{\Theta_P}^*=I_{H^2(\mathbb D)\otimes \mathcal
D_{P^*}}.$$ Since the vectors $z^n\otimes \xi$ forms a basis for $H^2(\mathbb
D)\otimes \mathcal D_{P^*},$ it is obvious from equation (\[002\]) that $$W^*(f\otimes \xi)=f(P)D_{P^*}\xi, \text{ for all } f \in \mathbb
C[z], \text{ and } \xi \in \mathcal D_{P^*}.$$ It was shown in the proof of Theorem 1.2 of [@arveson3] by Arveson that the operator $W^*$ satisfies the identity $$W^*(k_z\otimes \xi)=
(I-\bar z P)^{-1}D_{P^*}\xi \text{ for } z\in \mathbb D, \xi \in \mathcal
D_{P^*},$$ where $k_z(w)=(1-\langle w,z \rangle)^{-1}$. Therefore, for $z,w$ in $\mathbb{D}$ and $\xi,\eta$ in $\mathcal
D_{P^*}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \langle (WW^*+M_{\Theta_P}M_{\Theta_P}^*)k_z\otimes \xi, k_w\otimes \eta
\rangle\\&
=\langle W^*(k_z\otimes \xi),W^*(k_w\otimes \eta) \rangle +
\langle M_{\Theta_P}^*(k_z\otimes \xi), M_{\Theta_P}^*(k_w\otimes \eta)
\rangle\\&
=\langle(I-\bar{z}P)^{-1}D_{P^*}\xi,(I-\bar{w}P)^{-1}D_{P^*}\eta \rangle+
\langle k_z\otimes \Theta_P(z)^*\xi,k_w\otimes \Theta_P(w)^*\eta
\rangle\\&
=\langle D_{P^*}(I-wP^*)^{-1}(I-\bar{z}P)^{-1}D_P^*\xi,\eta \rangle+
\langle k_z,k_w \rangle\langle \Theta_P(w)\Theta_P(z)^*\xi,\eta
\rangle\\&
=\langle k_z\otimes \xi, k_w\otimes \eta \rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ The last equality follows from the following identity (see page 244 in [@nagy]), $$1-\Theta_P(w)\Theta_P(z)^*=(1-w\bar{z})D_{P^*}(1-wP^*)^{-1}(1-\bar{z}P)^{-1}D_{P^*},$$ where $\Theta_P$ is the characteristic function of $P$. Using the fact that the vectors $k_z$ form a total set in $H^2(\mathbb{D})$, the assertion follows.
It is interesting to notice that the model space $\mathbb H_T$ and model operator $R$ are same as the model space and model operator of the pure contraction $P$ described in [@nagy].
Representing distinguished varieties in the symmetrized tridisc
===============================================================
Here we shall use the same notations and terminologies introduced by Agler and M$^{\textup{c}}$Carthy in [@AM05]. We say that a function $f$ is *holomorphic* on a distinguished variety $\Lambda$ in $\mathbb G_3$, if for every point of $\Lambda$, there is an open ball $B$ in $\mathbb C^3$ containing the point and a holomorphic function $F$ of three variables on $B$ such that $F|_{B\cap \Lambda}=f|_{B \cap \Lambda}$. We shall denote by $A(\Lambda)$ the Banach algebra of functions that are holomorphic on $\Lambda$ and continuous on $\overline{\Lambda}$. This is a closed unital subalgebra of $C(\partial \Lambda)$ that separates points. The maximal ideal space of $A(\Lambda)$ is $\overline{\Lambda}$.
For a finite measure $\mu$ on $\Lambda$, let $H^2(\mu)$ be the closure of polynomials in $L^2(\partial \Omega, \mu)$. If $G$ is an open subset of a Riemann surface $S$ and $\nu$ is a finite measure on $\overline G$, let $\mathcal A^2(\nu)$ denote the closure in $L^2(\partial G, \nu)$ of $A(G)$. A point $\lambda$ is said to be a *bounded point evaluation* for $H^2(\mu)$ or $\mathcal A^2(\nu)$ if evaluation at $\lambda$, *a priori* defined on a dense set of analytic functions, extends continuously to the whole Hilbert space $H^2(\mu)$ or $\mathcal A^2(\nu)$ respectively. If $\lambda$ is a bounded point evaluation, then the function defined by $$f(\lambda)=\langle f,k_{\lambda} \rangle$$ is called the *evaluation functional at* $\lambda$. The following result is due to Agler and M$^{\textup{c}}$Carthy (see Lemma 1.1 in [@AM05]).
\[basiclem1\] Let $S$ be a compact Riemann surface. Let $G\subseteq S$ be a domain whose boundary is a finite union of piecewise smooth Jordan curves. Then there exists a measure $\nu$ on $\partial G$ such that every point $\lambda$ in $G$ is a bounded point evaluation for $\mathcal A^2(\nu)$ and such that the linear span of the evaluation functional is dense in $\mathcal A^2(\nu)$.
\[basiclem2\] Let $\Lambda$ be a one-dimensional distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_3$. Then there exists a measure $\mu$ on $\partial
\Lambda$ such that every point in $\Lambda$ is a bounded point evaluation for $H^2(\mu)$ and such that the span of the bounded evaluation functionals is dense in $H^2(\mu)$.
Agler and M$^{\textup{c}}$Carthy proved a similar result for distinguished varieties in the bidisc (see Lemma 1.2 in [@AM05]); we imitate their proof here for the symmetrized tridisc. Let $f,g$ be minimal polynomials such that $$\Omega=\{(s_1,s_2,p)\in \mathbb G_3\,:\,
f(s_1,s_2,p)=g(s_1,s_2,p)=0\}.$$ Let $\mathbb Z_{fg}$ be the intersection of the zero sets of $f$ and $g$, i.e, $\mathbb Z_{fg}=\mathbb Z_f \cap \mathbb Z_g$. Let $C(\mathbb Z_{fg})$ be the closure of $\mathbb Z_{fg}$ in the projective space $\mathbb{CP}^3$. Let $S$ be the desingularization of $C(\mathbb Z_{fg})$. See, e.g., [@fischer], [@harris] and [@griffiths] for details of desingularization. Therefore, $S$ is a compact Riemann surface and there is a holomorphic map $\tau: S \rightarrow C(\mathbb Z_{fg})$ that is biholomorphic from $S^{\prime}$ onto $C(\mathbb Z_{fg})^{\prime}$ and finite-to-one from $S\setminus S^{\prime}$ onto $C(\mathbb Z_{fg})\setminus
C(\mathbb Z_{fg})^{\prime}$. Here $C(\mathbb Z_{fg})^{\prime}$ is the set of non-singular points in $C(\mathbb Z_{fg})$ and $S^{\prime}$ is the pre-image of $C(\mathbb Z_{fg})^{\prime}$ under $\tau$.
Let $G=\tau^{-1}(\Lambda)$. Then $\partial G$ is a finite union of disjoint curves, each of which is analytic except possibly at a finite number of cusps and $G$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma \[basiclem1\]. So there exists a measure $\nu$ on $\partial G$ such that every point in $G$ is a bounded point evaluation for $\mathcal A^2(\nu)$. Let us define our desired measure $\mu$ by $$\mu(E)=\nu(\tau^{-1}(E)), \text{ for a Borel subset } E \text{ of
} \partial \Lambda.$$ Clearly, if $\lambda$ is in $G$ and $\tau(\eta)=\lambda$, let $k_{\eta}\nu$ be a representing measure for $\eta$ in $A(G)$. Then the function $k_{\eta}\circ \tau^{-1}$ is defined $\mu$-almost everywhere and satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\partial \Lambda}f(k_{\eta}\circ \tau^{-1})d\mu=
\int_{\partial G}(f\circ \tau)k_{\eta}d\nu =f\circ \tau
(\eta)=f(\lambda) \text{ and}\\
\int_{\partial \Omega}g(k_{\eta}\circ \tau^{-1})d\mu=
\int_{\partial G}(g\circ \tau)k_{\eta}d\nu =g\circ \tau
(\eta)=g(\lambda).\end{gathered}$$
\[lemeval\] Let $\Lambda$ be a one-dimensional distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$, and let $\mu$ be the measure on $\partial \Lambda$ given as in Lemma . A point $(y_1,\dots,y_n) \in \mathbb G_n$ is in $\Lambda$ if and only if $(\bar y_1, \dots, \bar y_n)$ is a joint eigenvalue for $M_{s_1}^*,\dots, M_{s_{n-1}}^*$ and $M_{p}^*$.
It is a well known fact in the theory of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces that $M_f^* k_x = \overline{f(x)} k_x$ for every multiplier $f$ and every kernel function $k_x$; in particular every point $(\bar y_1, \dots, \bar y_n) \in \Lambda$ is a joint eigenvalue for $M_{s_1}^*,\dots, M_{s_{n-1}}^*$ and $M_{p}^*$.
Conversely, if $(\bar y_1, \dots, \bar y_n)$ is a joint eigenvalue and $v$ is a unit eigenvector, then $f(y_1,\dots,y_n) = \langle v,
M_f^* v\rangle$ for every polynomial $f$. Therefore, $$|f(y_1,\dots,y_n)| \leq \|M_f\| = \sup_{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p) \in
\Lambda} |f(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)|.$$ So $(y_1,\dots,y_n)$ is in the polynomial convex hull of $\Lambda$ (relative to $\mathbb G_n$), which is $\Lambda$.
\[lempure\] Let $\Lambda$ be a one-dimensional distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$, and let $\mu$ be the measure on $\partial \Lambda$ given as in Lemma . The multiplication operator tuple $(M_{s_1},\dots, M_{s_{n-1}},M_{p})$ on $H^2(\mu)$, defined as multiplication by the co-ordinate functions, is a pure $\mathbb G_n$-isometry.
Let us consider the pair of operators $(\widehat{M_{s_1}},\dots,\widehat{M_{s_{n-1}}},\widehat{M_{p}})$, multiplication by co-ordinate functions, on $L^2(\partial \Lambda,
\mu)$. They are commuting normal operators and the Taylor joint spectrum $\sigma_T(\widehat{M_{s_1}},\dots,\widehat{M_{s_{n-1}}},\widehat{M_{p}})$ is contained in $\partial \Lambda \subseteq b\Gamma_n$. Therefore, $(\widehat{M_{s_1}},\dots,\widehat{M_{s_{n-1}}},\widehat{M_{p}})$ is a $\Gamma_n$-unitary and $(M_{s_1},\dots,M_{s_{n-1}},M_{p})$, being the restriction of $(\widehat{M_{s_1}},\dots,\widehat{M_{s_{n-1}}},\widehat{M_{p}})$ to the common invariant subspace $H^2(\mu)$, is a $\Gamma_n$-isometry. By a standard computation, for every $\overline y=(y_1,\dots,y_n) \in \Lambda$, the kernel function $k_{\bar y}$ is an eigenfunction of $M_{p}^*$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\overline{y_n}$. Therefore, $$(M_{p}^*)^ik_{\overline y}=\overline{ y_n}^ik_{\overline y}
\rightarrow 0 \; \textup{ as } i \rightarrow \infty,$$ because $|y_n|<1$ by Theorem \[char-G\]. Since the evaluation functionals $k_{\overline y}$ are dense in $H^2(\mu)$, this shows that $M_{p}$ is pure. Hence $M_{p}$ is a pure isometry and consequently $(M_{s_1},\dots, M_{s_{n-1}},M_{p})$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry on $H^2(\mu)$.
\[lem:charming\]
Let $\varphi_1, \dots,\varphi_n$ be functions in $H^{\infty}(\mathcal B(E))$ for some Hilbert space $E$ and let $T_{\varphi_1},\dots,T_{\varphi_n}$ be corresponding Toeplitz operators on $H^2(E)$. Then $(T_{\varphi_1}, \dots,
T_{\varphi_n})$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction if and only if $(\varphi_1(z),\dots,\varphi_n(z))$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction for all $z\in\overline{\mathbb D}$.
It is obvious that $\|T_{\varphi}\|=\| \varphi \|_{\infty}$ for any $\varphi \in H^{\infty}(\mathcal B(E))$. For any polynomial $p(z_1,\dots,z_n)$, $$p(T_{\varphi_1},\dots,T_{\varphi_n})=T_{p(\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n)}.$$ Now $(T_{\varphi_1},\dots,T_{\varphi_n})$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction if and only if for any polynomial $p(z_1,\dots,z_n)$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \quad p(T_{\varphi_1},\dots,T_{\varphi_n}) \|\leq \|p
\|_{\infty, \Gamma_n}\\
& \Leftrightarrow \|T_{p(\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n)} \| \leq
\|p\|_{\infty, \Gamma_n}\\
& \Leftrightarrow \|{p(\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n)} \| \leq
\|p\|_{\infty, \Gamma_n}\\
& \Leftrightarrow (\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n) \text{ is a }
\Gamma_n\text{-contraction}.\end{aligned}$$
We now present the main result of this section that gives a representation of a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ in terms of the natural coordinates of $\mathbb G_n$.
\[thm:DVchar\] Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:W}
\Lambda= &\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb G_n \,: \nonumber
\\& \quad (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1}) \in \sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1}\,,\,
F_2^*+pF_{n-2}\,,\,\dots\,, F_{n-1}^*+pF_1) \},\end{aligned}$$ where $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ are commuting square matrices of same order satisfying
- $[F_i^*,F_{n-j}]=[F_j^*,F_{n-i}]$ for $1\leq i<j\leq
n-1$,
- $\sigma_T(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})\subseteq \mathbb
G_{n-1}$.
Then $\Lambda$ is a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ and has complex dimension $1$. Conversely, every distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ is one-dimensional and can be represented as (\[eq:W\]) for a pair of commuting square matrices $F_1,F_2$ of same order satisfying the above two conditions.
Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda= &\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb G_n \,: \nonumber
\\& \quad (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1}) \in \sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1}\,,\,
F_2^*+pF_{n-2}\,,\,\dots\,, F_{n-1}^*+pF_1) \},\end{aligned}$$ where $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ are commuting square matrices of same order, defined on a finite dimensional Hilbert space $E$, satisfies the given conditions. For any $i,j\in \{ 1,\dots,n-1
\}$, $F_i^*+pF_{n-i}$ and $F_j^*+pF_{n-j}$ commute for any $p\in
\mathbb C$ by given condition-(1) and consequently $$\sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1}\,,\, F_2^*+pF_{n-2}\,,\,\dots\,,
F_{n-1}^*+pF_1)\neq \emptyset.$$ We now show that if $|p|<1$ and if $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})\in\sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1}\,,\,
F_2^*+pF_{n-2}\,,\,\dots\,, F_{n-1}^*+pF_1)$ then $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb G_n$ which will establish that $\Lambda$ is non-empty and that it exits through the distinguished boundary $b\Gamma_n$. This is because proving the fact that $\Lambda$ exits through $b\Gamma_n$ is same as proving that $\overline{\Lambda}\cap (\partial \Gamma_n \setminus
b\Gamma_n)=\emptyset$, i.e, if $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\overline{\Lambda}$ and $|p|<1$ then $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb G_n$ (by Theorem \[char-G\]).\
Let $|p|<1$ and $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})$ be a joint eigenvalue of $F_1^*+pF_2, \dots, F_{n-1}+pF_1$. Then there exists a unit joint eigenvector $\nu$ such that $$(F_i^*+pF_{n-i})\nu=s_i\nu \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1.$$ Taking inner product with respect to $\nu$ we get $$c_i+\bar{c}_{n-i}p=s_i \text{ for } i=1,\dots,n-1\;,$$ where $ c_i=\langle F_i^*\nu,\nu \rangle $ for each $i$. Since $\sigma_T(F_1^*,\dots,F_{n-1}^*)\in\mathbb G_{n-1}$, $(c_1,\dots,c_{n-1})\in\mathbb G_{n-1}$. Therefore, by Theorem \[char-G\], $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\mathbb G_n$. Thus, $\Lambda$ is non-empty and it exits through the distinguished boundary $b\Gamma_n$.\
For any $p$, there is a unitary matrix $U_p$ of order $n$ (see Lemma \[spectra1\]) such that $U_p^*(F_1^*+pF_{n-1})U_p,\dots ,U_p^*(F_{n-1}^*+pF_{1})U_p,$ have the following upper triangular form:
$$\begin{aligned}
& U_p^*(F_1^*+pF_{n-1})U_p =
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{11}+\bar{c}_{(n-1)1}p & \ast & \ast & \ast \\
0&c_{12}+\bar{c}_{(n-1)2}p & \ast & \ast \\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & c_{1n}+\bar{c}_{(n-1)n}p
\end{pmatrix}\,,\\
& U_p^*(F_2^*+pF_{n-2})U_p =
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{21}+\bar{c}_{(n-2)1}p & \ast & \ast & \ast \\
0&c_{22}+\bar{c}_{(n-2)2}p & \ast & \ast \\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & c_{2n}+\bar{c}_{(n-2)n}p
\end{pmatrix}\,, \\
\\
\vdots \\ \vdots \\
& U_p^*(F_{n-1}^*+pF_{1})U_p =
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{(n-1)1}+\bar{c}_{11}p & \ast & \ast & \ast \\
0&c_{(n-1)2}+\bar{c}_{12}p & \ast & \ast \\
\vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & c_{(n-1)n}+\bar{c}_{1n}p
\end{pmatrix}\,.\end{aligned}$$
and the joint spectrum $\sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1},\dots , F_{n-1}^*+pF_1)$ can be read off the diagonal of the common triangular form. Needless to mention that for each $k$, $$\sigma(F_k^*)=\{ c_{k1},\dots,c_{kn} \}.$$
It is evident from definition that $\Lambda$ has dimension one. Thus it remains to show that $\Lambda$ is an algebraic variety in $\mathbb G_n$. We show that $\Lambda$ is a variety in $\mathbb G_n$ determined by the ideal generated by the set of polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal G =\{\det[z_1(F_1^*+pF_{n-1}-s_1I)+\dots + z_{n-1}(F_{n-1}^* & +pF_{1}-s_{n-1}I)]=0
\,:\\ &
z_1,\dots ,z_{n-1}\in\overline{\mathbb D}\}.\end{aligned}$$ This is same as showing that ${\mathbb G_n}\cap \mathbb Z(\mathcal
G)=\Lambda$, $\mathbb Z(\mathcal G)$ being the variety determined by the ideal generated by $\mathcal G$. Let $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\Lambda$. Then $$s_1=c_{1k}+\bar{c}_{(n-1)k}p\,,\, s_2=c_{2k}+\bar{c}_{(n-2)k}p\,, \dots \,,\,
s_{n-1}=c_{(n-1)k}+\bar{c}_{1k}p.$$ for some $k$ between $1$ and $n$. Therefore, $$z_1(c_{1k}+\bar{c}_{(n-1)k}p-s_1)+\dots \,, + z_{n-1}(c_{(n-1)k}+\bar{c}_{1k}p-s_{n-1})=0$$ for any $z_1,\dots,z_{n-1}$ in $\overline{\mathbb D}$ and consequently $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\mathbb Z(\mathcal G)$. Also since $\sigma_T(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})\subseteq \mathbb G_{n-1}$, $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\mathbb G_n$. Hence $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\mathbb Z(\mathcal G)\cap \mathbb G_n$. Again let $(s_1,s_2,p)\in\mathbb Z(\mathcal G)\cap \mathbb G_3$. Then $\det[z_1(F_1^*+pF_2-s_1I)+z_2(F_2^*+pF_1-s_2I)]=0$ for all $z_1,z_2\in\overline{\mathbb D}$ which implies that the two matrices $F_1^*+pF_2-s_1I$ and $F_2^*+pF_1-s_2I$ have $0$ at a common position in their diagonals. Thus $(s_1,s_2)$ is a joint eigenvalue of $F_1^*+pF_2$ and $F_2^*+pF_1$ and $(s_1,s_2,p)\in\Lambda$. Hence $\Lambda=\mathbb Z(\mathcal G)\cap
\mathbb G_3$. Therefore, $\Lambda$ is a one-dimensional distinguished variety in $\mathbb G$.\
Conversely, let $\Lambda$ be a distinguished variety in $\mathbb
G_n$. We first show that $\Lambda$ has complex dimension $1$. Let if possible $\Lambda$ be two-dimensional and determined by a single polynomials $g_1,\dots,g_{n-1}$ in $n$-variables, i.e, $$\Lambda =\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb G_n \,:\, g_i(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)=0\,,\, i=1,\dots,n-2 \}.$$ We show that $\overline{\Lambda}$ has intersection with $\partial
\Gamma_n \setminus b\Gamma_n$ which proves that $\Lambda$ does not exit through the distinguished boundary. Let $(t_1,\dots,t_{n-1},q)\in\Lambda$. Therefore, $|q|<1$. Let $$S_{q}=\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\Lambda\,:\,p=q \}.$$ Clearly $S_q$ is nonempty as $(t_1,\dots,t_{n-1},q)\in\Lambda$. Such $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})$ are the zeros of the polynomial $g_i(z_1,\dots,z_2,q)$ for $i=1,\dots,n-2$. Since each $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},q)$ in $S_{q}$ is a point in $\mathbb G_n$, by Theorem \[char-G\], there exists $(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_{n-1})\in\mathbb G_{n-1}$ such that $$s_i=\beta_i+\bar{\beta}_{n-i}q \;,\; i=1,\dots,n-1\,.$$ Let us consider the map $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi\,:\, \mathbb C^{n-1} &\rightarrow \mathbb C^{n-1} \\
(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_{n-1}) &\mapsto
(\beta_1+\bar{\beta}_{n-1}q,\beta_2+\bar{\beta}_{n-2}q,\dots,\beta_{n-1}+\bar{\beta}_{1}q).\end{aligned}$$ It is evident that the points $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})$ for which $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in S_{q}$ lie inside $\Psi (\mathbb G_{n-1})$. Also it is clear that $\Psi$ maps $\mathbb G_{n-1}$ into $n\mathbb D^{n-1}$. This map $\Psi$ is real-linear and invertible when considered a map from $\mathbb R^{2(n-1)}$ to $\mathbb R^{2(n-1)}$, in fact a homeomorphism of $R^{2(n-1)}$. Therefore, $\Psi$ is open and it maps the topological boundary $\partial \mathbb G_{n-1}$ of $\mathbb G$ onto the topological boundary of $\Psi(\mathbb G_{n-1})$. Therefore, the zero-set of the ideal generated by the polynomials $g_i(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\,,i=1,\dots,n-2$ each in $(n-1)$variables ($q$ being a constant) is a one-dimensional variety a part of which lies inside $\Psi(\mathbb G_{n-1})$. Therefore, this variety intersects the topological boundary of the domain $\Psi(\mathbb G_{n-1})$. Since $\Psi$ is an open map, the topological boundary of $\Psi(\mathbb G_{n-1})$ is precisely the image of the topological boundary of $\mathbb G_{n-1}$ under $\Psi$, that is, $\Psi (\Gamma_{n-1}
\setminus \mathbb G_{n-1})$. Take one such point say $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1})$ from the intersection of the zero-set of the ideal generated by the polynomials $g_i(z_1,\dots,z_{n-1},q)$ and $\Psi(\Gamma_{n-1} \setminus \mathbb G_{n-1})$. Therefore, $$\lambda_i=\alpha_i+\bar{\alpha}_{n-i}q \,,\,
\text{ for some }
(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{n-1})\in\Gamma_{n-1} \setminus \mathbb G_{n-1}.$$ Since $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{n-1})\in\Gamma_{n-1} \setminus \mathbb G_{n-1}$, by Theorem \[char-G\], $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},q)\in \Gamma_{n}\setminus \mathbb G_{n}=\partial \Gamma_{n-1}$. Thus $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},q)\in
\overline{\Lambda}\cap \partial\Gamma_{n-1}$. Again since $|q|<1$, $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},q)$ can not lie on the distinguished boundary $b\Gamma_n$ (by Theorem \[thm:DB\]) and hence $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},q)\in
\partial \Gamma_n \setminus b\Gamma_n$. Thus, $\Lambda$ does not exit through the distinguished boundary of $\Gamma_n$ and consequently $\Lambda$ is not a distinguished variety, a contradiction. Thus, there is no two-dimensional distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$. In a similar fashion we can show that for any $k\in\{ 3,\dots,n-1 \}$, there is no $k$-dimensional distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_{n}$. Hence $\Lambda$ is one-dimensional.\
Let $f_1,\hdots,f_N$, $(N\geq n-1)$ be polynomials in $n$-variables such that $$\Lambda=\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\mathbb G_n \,:\,
f_1(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)=\hdots=f_N(s_1,s_2,p)=0 \}.$$ We claim that all $f_i$ cannot be divisible by $p$. Indeed, if $f_i$ is divisible by $p$ for all $i$ then $f_1=\dots=f_N=0$ when $p=0$. The point $(2,1,0,\dots,0)\in \Gamma_n$ by being the symmetrization of the points $1,1,0,\dots,0$ and if $p$ divides each $f_i$ clearly $f_i(2,1,0,\dots,0)=0$ for each $i$ as $p=0$. But $(2,1,0,\dots,0) \notin
b\Gamma_n$ although $(2,1,0,\dots,0)\in \Gamma_n \setminus \mathbb G_n =
\partial \Gamma_n$. This leads to the conclusion that $\Lambda$ does not exit through the distinguished boundary of $\Gamma_n$, a contradiction. Therefore, all of $f_1,\hdots,f_N$ are not divisible by $p$. Let $f_1$ be not divisible by $p$ and $$\label{thm01}
f_1(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)= \sum_{ \substack{ 0\leq i_k \leq m_k\\
k=1,\dots,n-1 } } a_{i_1i_2\dots i_{n-1}}s_1^{i_1}\dots s_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}+pr(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\,,$$ for some polynomial $r$ and $a_{i_1i_2\dots i_{n-1}}\neq 0$. Let $(M_{s_1},\dots,M_{s_{n-1}},M_{p})$ be the tuple of operators on $H^2(\mu)$ given by the multiplication by co-ordinate functions, where $\mu$ is the measure as in Lemma \[basiclem2\]. Then by Lemma \[lempure\], $(M_{s_1},\dots,M_{s_{n-1}},M_{p})$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry on $H^2(\mu)$. Now $M_{p}M_{p}^*$ is a projection onto $Ran\, M_{p}$ and $$Ran\,M_{p} \supseteq \{ pf(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p):\; f \text{ is a polynomial
in } s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p \}.$$ It is evident from (\[thm01\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
a_{l_1\dots l_{n-1}}s_1^{l_1}\dots s_{n-1}^{l_{n-1}}\in \overline{Ran}\, M_{p}\oplus
\overline{\text{span}} \{ s_1^{i_1}\dots s_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}\,: &\, 1\leq i_k \leq m_k \,,\, i_k\neq l_k \,,\\& k=1,\dots,n-1 \}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$H^2(\mu)=\overline{Ran}\, M_{p}\oplus \overline{\text{span}} \{
s_1^{i_1}\dots s_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}\,:\, 1\leq i\leq m_1, 1\leq j \leq m_2 \}.$$ Therefore, $Ran\,(I-M_{p}M_{p}^*)$ has finite dimension, say $d$. By Theorem \[model1\], $(M_{s_1},\dots,M_{s_{n-1}},M_{p})$ can be identified with $(T_{\varphi_1},\dots,T_{\varphi_{n-1}},T_{z})$ on $H^2(\mathcal
D_{M_{P}^*})$, where $\varphi_i(z)=F_i^*+F_{n-i}z$ for each $i$, $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ being the fundamental operator tuple of $(T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z}^*,\dots ,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z}^*,T_{z}^*)$. By Lemma \[lemeval\], a point $(t_1,\dots ,t_{n-1},q)$ is in $\Lambda$ if and only if $(\bar t_1, \dots ,\bar t_{n-1}, \bar q)$ is a joint eigenvalue of $T_{\varphi_1}^*,\dots,T_{\varphi_{n-1}}^*$ and $T_{z}^*$. This can happen if and only if $(\bar t_1, \dots ,\bar t_{n-1})$ is a joint eigenvalue of $\varphi_1(q)^*\,, \dots , \varphi_{n-1}(q)^*$. This leads to $$\Lambda =\{ (s_1,\dots ,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb G_n:(s_1,\dots
,s_{n-1}) \in \sigma_T( F_1^*+pF_{n-1},\dots, F_{n-1}^*+pF_1) \}.$$ Since $(T_{\varphi_1},\dots ,T_{\varphi_{n-1}},T_{z})$ on $H^2(\mathcal D_{M_{P}^*})$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-isometry, by the commutativity of $\varphi_1 \,,\, \dots , \varphi_{n-1}$ we have that $F_i , F_j$ commute for each $i,j$ and that $[F_i^*,F_{n-j}]=[F_j^*,F_{n-i}]$. Let $(\alpha_1,\dots ,
\alpha_{n-1})\in\sigma_T(F_1^*,\dots ,F_{n-1}^*)$. Then there is a unit joint eigenvector say $v$ such that $$F_i^*v=\alpha_i v \text{ for } i=1,\dots , n-1\,.$$ Then $\alpha_i =\langle F_i^*v,v \rangle$ for each $i$. For $p\in\mathbb D$, let $$s_i=\alpha_i +\bar{\alpha}_{n-i}p\,,\, i=1,\dots ,n-1.$$ Since $(T_{\varphi_1},\dots ,T_{\varphi_{n-1}},T_{z})$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction, so is $(\varphi_1 \,,\, \dots ,
\varphi_{n-1},z)$ by Lemma \[lem:charming\] for any $z\in\mathbb
D$. Therefore, $(s_1,\dots ,s_{n-1},p)\in \Gamma_n$ as $(F_1^*+pF_{n-1},\dots,F_{n-1}^*+pF_1,pI)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction. If $(\alpha_1,\dots ,\alpha_{n-1})\in
\Gamma_{n-1} \setminus \mathbb G_{n-1}$, then by Theorem \[char-G\] and Theorem \[thm:DB\], $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in
\partial \Gamma_n \setminus b\Gamma_n$ as $|P|<1$. This is a contradiction to the fact that $\Lambda$ exits through the distinguished boundary $b\Gamma_n$. Therefore, $(\alpha_1,\dots ,\alpha_{n-1})\in \mathbb
G_{n-1}$ and consequently $\sigma_T(F_1^*,\dots,F_{n-1}^*)\subseteq \mathbb G_{n-1}$. Therefore, $\sigma_T(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})\subseteq \mathbb G_{n-1}$ and the proof is complete.
The closed symmetrized polydisc $\Gamma_n$ is polynomially convex. The following results show that the closure of every distinguished variety in the symmetrized polydisc is also polynomially convex.
\[prop:poly-convex\] Every distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ is polynomially convex.
Suppose $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda= &\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \mathbb G_n \,: \nonumber
\\& \quad (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1}) \in \sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1}\,,\,
F_2^*+pF_{n-2}\,,\,\dots\,, F_{n-1}^*+pF_1) \},\end{aligned}$$ is a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$. Then for any $(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \Lambda $, we have $$\det (F_i^*+pF_{n-i}-s_iI)=0\;,\; i=1,\dots,n-1.$$ We show that $\overline{\Lambda}$ is polynomially convex. Evidently $\overline{\Lambda}=\Lambda \cup
\partial \Lambda \subseteq \Gamma_n$, where $\partial \Lambda =
Z(f_1,\dots,f_{n-1})\cup b\Gamma_n$, where $f_i=\det
(F_i^*+pF_{n-i}-s_iI)$ (see (\[eqn01\])). Let $z=(z_1,\dots,z_n)\in\mathbb C^n \setminus \Gamma_n$. Since $\Gamma_n$ is polynomially convex, there is a polynomial say $f$ such that $$|f(z)|> \sup_{y\in\Gamma_n} |f(y)|=\| f \|_{\infty , \Gamma_n}.$$ Therefore, $|f(z)|> \|f\|_{\infty , \overline{\Lambda}}$. Now let $x=(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)$ be a point in $\Gamma_n \setminus
\overline{\Lambda}$. Then $\det (F_i^*+pF_{n-i}-s_iI)\;,
i=1,\dots, n-1$, are not all zero. Let $\det(F_k^*+pF_{n-k}-s_kI)=\alpha \neq 0$. We choose $g=
\det(F_k^*+pF_{n-k}-s_kI)$ and see that $$|g(x)|=|\alpha|>0 = \| g\|_{\infty, \overline{\Lambda}}.$$ So, we conclude that $\overline{\Lambda}$ is polynomially convex.
Interplay between $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_3$
===========================================
In this section, we shall show how a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ gives rise to a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_{n-1}$. We recall that the symmetrized bidisc $\mathbb
G$, its closure $\Gamma$ and the distinguished boundary $b\Gamma$ are the following sets:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb G &= \{ (z_1+z_2,z_1z_2)\,:\,|z_1|< 1, |z_2|< 1
\}\subseteq \mathbb C^2;\\ \Gamma &= \{
(z_1+z_2,z_1z_2)\,:\,|z_1|\leq 1, |z_2|\leq 1 \};\\ b\Gamma &= \{
(z_1+z_2,z_1z_2)\,:\,|z_1|= 1, |z_2|= 1 \}\\ \quad &= \{
(s,p)\in\Gamma_2 \,:\,|p|= 1 \}.\end{aligned}$$
A pair of commuting operators $(S,P)$ defined on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ that has $\Gamma$ as a spectral set, is called a $\Gamma$-contraction. The symmetrized bidisc enjoys rich operator theory [@ay-jfa; @ay-jot; @tirtha-sourav; @tirtha-sourav1; @sourav].\
The following result may be well-known but since we could not find a proper reference, we provide a proof to this.
\[poly-convex\]
If $X\subseteq \mathbb C^n$ is a polynomially convex set, then $X$ is a spectral set for a commuting tuple $(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ if and only if
$$\label{pT}
\|f(T_1,\dots,T_n)\|\leq \| f \|_{\infty, X}\,,$$
for all holomorphic polynomials $f$ in $n$-variables.
If $X$ is a spectral set for $(T_1,\dots, T_n)$, then $\|f(T_1,\dots,T_n)\|\leq \| f \|_{\infty, X}$ follows from definition.\
Conversely, if the Taylor joint spectrum $\sigma_T(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ is not contained in $X$, then there is a point $(\alpha_1,\dots,
\alpha_n)$ in $\sigma_T(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ that is not in $X$. By polynomial convexity of $X$, there is a polynomial $g$ in $n$-variables such that $ | g(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n) |
> \| g \|_{\infty, X}$. By spectral mapping theorem, $$\sigma_T (g(T_1,\dots,T_n)) = \{ g(z_1,\dots, z_n ) : (z_1,\dots, z_n )
\in \sigma_T (T_1,\dots,T_n) \}$$ and hence the spectral radius of $g(T_1,\dots, T_n)$ is bigger than $\| g \|_{\infty, X}$. But then $ \| g(T_1,\dots,T_n )\| > \| g \|_{\infty, X}$, contradicting the fact that $X$ is a spectral set for $(T_1,\dots,T_n)$.
By polynomial convexity of $X$, a tuple satisfying (\[pT\]) will also satisfy $$\|f(T_1,\dots,T_n)\|\leq \| f \|_{\infty, X}$$ for any function holomorphic in a neighbourhood of $X$. Indeed, Oka-Weil theorem (Theorem 5.1 in [@Gamelin]) allows us to approximate $f$ uniformly by polynomials. The rest of the proof follows by an application of Theorem 9.9 of Chapter III of [@vasilescu] which deals with functional calculus in several commuting operators.
\[sc:1\] If $(s_1,s_2,p)\in\mathbb C$ is in $\Gamma_3$ (or, respectively in $\mathbb G_3$) then $(\dfrac{s_1}{3}+\omega \dfrac{s_2}{3}, \omega
p)\in \Gamma$ $($or, respectively in $\mathbb G)$ for every $\omega\in\mathbb T$.
We prove for $\Gamma_3$ and $\Gamma$ because the proof for $\mathbb G_3$ and $\mathbb G$ is similar. Let $(s_1,s_2,p)\in\Gamma_3$. Let $s_{\omega}=\dfrac{s_1}{3}+\omega
\dfrac{s_2}{3}$ and $p_{\omega}=\omega p$. We prove that $(s_{\omega},p_{\omega})\in\Gamma$ by using Theorem 1.1 in [@ay-jot] which states that a point $(s,p)\in\mathbb C^2$ is in $\Gamma_2$ if and only if $$\label{eq:1}
|s|\leq 2 \text{ and } |s-\bar s p|\leq 1-|p|^2\,.$$ Now $|s_{\omega}|\leq 2$ is obvious because we have $|s_i|\leq 3$ for $i=1,2$. Also by Theorem \[char-G\], there exists $(c_1,c_2)\in\Gamma$ such that $$s_1=c_1+\bar{c_2}p \text{ and } s_2=c_2+\bar{c_1}p\,.$$ It is evident that $$c_1=\dfrac{s_1-\bar{s_2}p}{1-|p|^2}\,,\, c_2 =
\dfrac{s_2-\bar{s_1}p}{1-|p|^2} \text{ and that } |c_1|+|c_2|\leq
3.$$
Now $$\begin{aligned}
|s_{\omega}-\bar{s_{\omega}}p_{\omega}|=\dfrac{1}{3}|(s_1+\omega
s_2)-(\bar{s_1}+\bar{\omega}\bar{s_2})\omega p)| &\leq
\dfrac{1}{3}(|s_1-\bar{s_2}p|+|s_2-\bar{s_1}p|)\\
& = \dfrac{1}{3}(|c_1|+|c_2|)(1-|p|^2)\\
& = \dfrac{1}{3}(|c_1|+|c_2|)(1-|p_{\omega}|^2) \\
& \leq (1-|p_{\omega}|^2).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $(s_{\omega},p_{\omega})\in\Gamma_2$.
The converse of the above result does not hold. Let us choose $s_1,s_2,p$ in the following way: $$p=\dfrac{1}{2}\;,\; s_1=1+ 2\times \dfrac{1}{2}=2\;,\; s_2=
2+\dfrac{1}{2}=\dfrac{5}{2}.$$ It is evident here that $(c_1,c_2)=(1,2)\notin \Gamma$ and by Theorem \[char-G\], $(s_1,s_2,p)\notin \Gamma_3$. If we follow the same technique as in the proof of the previous lemma, it is easy to show that $\left( \dfrac{s_1}{3}+\omega
\dfrac{s_2}{3},\omega p \right)$ is in $\Gamma$ for every $\omega\in\mathbb T$.
An application of the previous lemma immediately provides the following operator version of the same result.
\[op:1\] If $(S_1,S_2,P)$ is a $\Gamma_3$-contraction then $\left(\dfrac{S_1}{3}+\omega \dfrac{S_2}{3}, \omega P \right)$ is a $\Gamma_2$-contraction for every $\omega\in\mathbb T$.
Let $g_{\omega}$ be the map from $\Gamma_3$ to $\Gamma_2$ that maps $(s_1,s_2,p)$ to $(s_1+\omega s_2, \omega p)$. Let $(S_{\omega},P_{\omega})=\left(\dfrac{S_1}{3}+\omega
\dfrac{S_2}{3}, \omega P \right)$. Then for any holomorphic polynomial $f$ in two variables we have
$$\| f(S_{\omega},P_{\omega}) \|=\| f\circ g_{\omega}(S_1,S_2,P) \|
\leq \| f\circ g_{\omega} \|_{\infty, \Gamma_3} = \| f\|_{\infty,
g_{\omega}(\Gamma_3)} \leq \| f\|_{\infty, \Gamma_2}.$$
Thus by Lemma \[poly-convex\], $(S_{\omega},P_{\omega})$ is a $\Gamma_2$-contraction.
A distinguished variety in the bidisc $\mathbb D^2$ or in the symmetrized bidisc $\mathbb G$ is defined to be the zero set of a polynomial in one complex-variable that lies within $\mathbb D^2$ or $\mathbb G$ and exits the concerned domain through its distinguished boundary. The distinguished boundary for $\mathbb
D^2$ is the torus $\mathbb T^2$ and for $\mathbb G$ is the symmetrization of the torus, that is $b\Gamma$. The notion of distinguished varieties was introduced for the bidisc by Agler and McCarthy in the seminal paper [@AM05]. The distinguished varieties in the symmetrized bidisc, their representations and relations with the operator theory have been described beautifully in [@pal-shalit]. We recall from [@pal-shalit] two results which will be used in the proof of the main result of this section, Theorem \[connection\].
\[lem:DVA\] Let $W\subseteq \mathbb G$. Then $W$ is a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G$ if and only if there is a distinguished variety $V$ in $\mathbb{D}^2$ such that $W=\pi(V)$, where $\pi$ is the symmetrization map from $\mathbb C^2$ to $\mathbb C^2$ that maps $(z_1,z_2)$ to $(z_1+z_2,z_1z_2)$.
\[thm:DVsym\] Let $A$ be a square matrix A with numerical radius $\omega(A)< 1$, and let $W$ be the subset of $\mathbb G$ defined by $$W = \{(s,p) \in \mathbb G \,:\, \det(A + pA^* - sI) = 0\}.$$ Then $W$ is a distinguished variety. Conversely, every distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_2$ has the form $\{(s,p) \in
\mathbb G_2 \,:\, \det(A + pA^* - sI) = 0\}$, for some matrix $A$ with $\omega(A)\leq 1$.
Let us consider the holomorphic map: $$\begin{aligned}
& \phi\,:\,
\Gamma_3 \longrightarrow \Gamma_2 \\& (s_1,s_2,p) \mapsto
(\dfrac{s_1}{3}+\dfrac{s_2}{3},p).\end{aligned}$$
\[connection\] Let $$\Lambda=\{ (s_1,s_2,p)\in\mathbb G_3
\,:\,(s_1,s_2)\in\sigma_T(F_1^*+F_2p,F_2^*+F_1p) \}$$ be a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_3$ with $\sigma_T(F_1^*,F_2^*)\subseteq \mathbb G$. Then $W=\phi
(\Lambda)$ is a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G$. Moreover, $\Lambda$ gives rise to a distinguished variety in $\mathbb D^2$.
Clearly $$W=\{ (\dfrac{s_1+s_2}{3},p)\,:\,(s_1,s_2,p)\in\Omega \}.$$ Since $(s_1,s_2)\in\sigma_T(F_1^*+F_2p,F_2^*+F_1p)$, $\dfrac{s_1+s_2}{3}$ is an eigenvalue of $\dfrac{(F_1+F_2)^*}{3}+p\dfrac{(F_1+F_2)}{3}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
W &=\{ (\dfrac{s_1+s_2}{3},p)\in\mathbb G_2\,:\, \det
\left[\dfrac{(F_1+F_2)^*}{3}+p\dfrac{(F_1+F_2)}{3}-\dfrac{(s_1+s_2)}{3}I \right]=0 \}\\
&=\{ (s,p)\in\mathbb G_2\,:\, \det
\left[\dfrac{(F_1+F_2)^*}{3}+p\dfrac{(F_1+F_2)}{3}-sI \right]=0
\}.\end{aligned}$$ Now to prove that $W$ is a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G$, by Theorem \[thm:DVsym\] it is enough to show that $\omega \left
(\dfrac{F_1+F_2}{3} \right)<1$. Since $\sigma_T(F_1^*,F_2^*)\subseteq \mathbb G$, for $(s,p)\in\sigma_T(F_1^*,F_2^*)$ there is a unit joint eigenvector $v$ such that $$F_1^*v=sv\,,\,F_2^*v=pv.$$ Taking inner product with $v$ we get $$\bar s=\langle F_1v,v \rangle \;,\; \bar p=\langle F_2v,v
\rangle.$$ Since $(\bar s, \bar p)\in\mathbb G$, we have that $|\bar s|+|\bar
p|<3$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(F_1+F_2) & =\sup_{\|v\|=1} \{ |\langle (F_1+F_2)v,v
\rangle| \} \\
& \leq \sup_{\|v\|=1}\{ |\langle F_1v,v \rangle|+|\langle F_2v,v
\rangle| \} \\
& <3.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $\omega \left(\dfrac{F_1+F_2}{3} \right)<1$. Therefore, $W$ is a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G$. Also, the existence of a distinguished variety $V$ in $\mathbb D^2$ with $\pi(V)=W$ is guaranteed by Lemma \[lem:DVA\].
A von-Neumann type inequality for a class of $\Gamma_n$-contractions
====================================================================
\[thm:VN\] Let $\Sigma=(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ be a $\Gamma_n$-contraction on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ such that $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ is a pure $\Gamma_n$-contraction and that $\dim \mathcal D_{P} < \infty$. Suppose that the fundamental operator pair $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$ satisfies the following:
1. $\left( \dfrac{n-1}{n}(F_1^*+F_{n-1}z),
\dfrac{n-2}{n}(F_2^*+F_{n-2}z),\dots, \dfrac{1}{n}(F_{n-1}^*+F_1z)
\right)$ is a $\Gamma_{n-1}$-contraction for all $z\in
\overline{\mathbb D}$,
2. $\sigma_T(
F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})\subseteq \mathbb G_{n-1}$.
If $$\Lambda_{\Sigma} = \{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p) \in \mathbb G_n :
(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})\in
\sigma_T(F_1^*+pF_{n-1},\dots,F_{n-1}^*+pF_1)\},$$ then $\Lambda_{\Sigma}$ is a distinguished variety in $\mathbb
G_n$ and for every scalar or matrix-valued polynomial $f$ in three variables, $$\|f(S_1,\dots, S_{n-1},P)\| \leq \max_{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p) \in
\bar{\Lambda}_{\Sigma}} \|f(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\|.$$
It is evident from the hypothesis that $\mathcal D_P$ is finite dimensional. Suppose that $\dim \mathcal D_{P}= n $. By the commutativity of the operators in the tuple $$\left(
\dfrac{n-1}{n}(F_1^*+F_{n-1}z),
\dfrac{n-2}{n}(F_2^*+F_{n-2}z),\dots, \dfrac{1}{n}(F_{n-1}^*+F_1z)
\right)$$ for all $z\in \overline{\mathbb D}$, we have that $F_1,\dots,F_{n-1}$ are commuting matrices of order $n$ and that $$[F_i^*,F_{n-j}]=[F_j^*,F_{n-i}]\,, 1\leq i <j \leq n\,.$$ Therefore, $\Lambda_{\Sigma}$ is a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$ by Theorem \[thm:DVchar\]. We apply Theorem \[dilation-theorem\] to the pure $\Gamma_n$-contraction $(S_1^*,\dots,S_{n-1}^*,P^*)$ to get a $\Gamma_n$-co-isometric extension on $H^2(\mathcal D_{P})$ of $(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)$. Therefore, $$T_{F_1^*+F_{n-1}z}^*|_{\mathcal H}=S_1, \dots
,T_{F_{n-1}^*+F_1z}^*|_{\mathcal H}=S_{n-1}, \text{ and }
T_z^*|_{\mathcal H}=P.$$ Let $\varphi_i$ denote the $\mathcal B(\mathcal D_{P})$ valued functions $\varphi_i(z)=F_i^*+F_{n-i}z$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$. Then by Theorem \[model1\], $(T_{\varphi_1},\dots
,T_{\varphi_{n-1}},T_z)$ on $H^2(\mathcal D_P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-isometry. Needless to say that the multiplication operator tuple $$(M_{\varphi_1},\dots,M_{\varphi_{n-1}},M_z)$$ on $L^2(\mathcal D_P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-unitary whose restriction to the joint invariant subspace $H^2(\mathcal D_P)$ is the $\Gamma_n$-isometry $(T_{\varphi_1},\dots,
T_{\varphi_{n-1}},T_z)$. Let $f$ be a matrix-valued polynomial in $n$-variables where the coefficient matrices are of order $d$ and let $f_*$ be the polynomial satisfying $f_*(A_1,\dots,A_n)=f(A_1^*,\dots,A_{n}^*)^*$ for any $n$ commuting operators $A_1,\dots,A_n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|f(S_1,\dots,S_{n-1},P)\| &\leq \|f(T_{\varphi_1}^*,\dots,T_{\varphi_{n-1}}^*, T_z^*)\|_{H^2( \mathcal D_{P})\otimes \mathbb C^d} \\
&= \|f_*(T_{\varphi_1},\dots,T_{\varphi_{n-1}}, T_z)^*\|_{H^2( \mathcal D_{P})\otimes \mathbb C^d} \\
& = \|f_*(T_{\varphi_1},\dots,T_{\varphi_{n-1}},
T_z)\|_{H^2(\mathcal D_{P})\otimes \mathbb C^d} \\&
\leq \|f_*(M_{\varphi_1},\dots,M_{\varphi_{n-1}},M_z)\|_{L^2( \mathcal D_{P})\otimes \mathbb C^d} \\
& = \max_{\theta \in [0,2\pi]} \|f_*
(\varphi_1(e^{i\theta}),\dots,\varphi_{n-1}(e^{i\theta}),
e^{i\theta}I)\|.\end{aligned}$$ Except for the last equality, the norms appeared in the inequalities and equalities above are actually operator norms, where in the notations of the norms the mentioned Hilbert spaces $H^2(\mathcal D_P)\otimes \mathbb C^d$ and $L^2(\mathcal
D_P)\otimes \mathbb C^d$ are the spaces where the corresponding operators are defined. Since $$(M_{\varphi_1},\dots,M_{\varphi_{n-1}},M_z)$$ on $L^2(\mathcal
D_P)$ is a $\Gamma_n$-unitary, $M_{\varphi_1},\dots,
M_{\varphi_{n-1}},M_z $ are commuting normal operators and hence so are $\varphi_1(z), \dots, \varphi_{n-1}(z)$ for every $z$ of unit modulus. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
& \|f_*(\varphi_1(e^{i\theta}),\dots,\varphi_{n-1}(e^{i\theta}),
e^{i\theta}I)\|\\& = \max_{\theta} \{
|f_*(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},e^{i\theta})|:\,
(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1})\in
\sigma_T(\varphi(e^{i\theta}),\dots,\varphi_{n-1}(e^{i\theta}) \}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us define $$\Lambda_\Sigma^* =\{ (s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in\Gamma_n:\;
(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1})\in
\sigma_T(F_1+pF_{n-1}^*,\dots,F_{n-1}+pF_1^*) \}.$$ Since $F_1^*,\dots, F_{n-1}^*$ also satisfy the given conditions of this theorem, we can conclude that $\Lambda_\Sigma^*$ is also a distinguished variety in $\mathbb G_n$. We now show that if $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1})\in
\sigma_T(\varphi_1(e^{i\theta}),\varphi_{n-1}(e^{i\theta}))$ then $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},e^{i\theta})$ is in $b\Gamma_n$. There exists a unit vector $\nu$ such that $$(F_i^*+e^{i\theta}F_{n-i})\nu=\lambda_i\nu \;, \; i=1,\dots, n-1.$$ Taking inner product with $\nu$ we get $\beta_i+\bar{\beta}_{n-i}e^{i\theta}=\lambda_i$, where $\beta_i=\langle F_i^*\nu,\nu \rangle$ for each $i$. Since $\sigma_T(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})\subseteq \Gamma_{n-1}$, $(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_{n-1})\in\Gamma_{n-1}$. So by Theorem \[thm:DB\], $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},e^{i\theta})\in
b\Gamma_n $. Therefore, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\| f(S_1,\dots, S_{n-1},P) \| &\leq \max_{(s_1,\dots,
s_{n-1},p)\in \overline{\Lambda_\Sigma^*}
\cap b\Gamma_n} \| f_*(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p) \| \\
& =\max_{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \overline{ \Lambda_\Sigma^*}
\cap b\Gamma_n} \|
\overline{f(\bar{s_1},\dots,\bar{s}_2,\bar{p})} \| \\
& = \max_{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \overline{\Lambda_\Sigma^*}
\cap b\Gamma_n} \| f(\bar{s}_1,\dots,\bar{s}_2,\bar{p}) \|
\\&=\max_{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in \overline{\Lambda_\Sigma} \cap b\Gamma_n} \|
f(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p) \| \\& \leq \max_{(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p)\in
\overline{\Lambda_\Sigma}} \| f(s_1,\dots,s_{n-1},p) \|.\end{aligned}$$
The previous theorem actually announces the success of rational dilation on the closure of the corresponding distinguished variety $\Lambda_{\Sigma}$ of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $\Sigma$ that satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[thm:VN\]. The obvious reason is that the von-Neumann’s inequality holds for any matrix-polynomial. So, a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $\Sigma$ if satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[thm:VN\], not only lives in $\Lambda_{\Sigma}$ but also dilates to its boundary. We now provide here an example of a $\Gamma_n$-contraction that does not live on any distinguished variety in the symmetrized polydisc in the sense that neither its Taylor joint spectrum lies on the variety nor the von-Neumann’s inequality holds. Simply choose a point from $\partial \Gamma_n \setminus b\Gamma_n$, say $x^{\circ}=(s_1^{\circ},\dots,s_{n-1}^{\circ},p^{\circ})$. Clearly $x^{\circ}$ is a $\Gamma_n$-contraction and it cannot belong to any distinguished variety. Also the von-Neumann’s inequality cannot hold for this $\Gamma_n$-contraction on any distinguished variety. Because if von-Neumann’s inequality holds on the closure of any distinguished variety $\Lambda$ in $\mathbb G_n$, then by polynomial convexity of $\overline{\Lambda}$ (see Proposition \[prop:poly-convex\]), $\overline{\Lambda}$ becomes a spectral set for $x^{\circ}$ by Lemma \[poly-convex\] and consequently $x^{\circ}$ becomes a point in $\overline{\Lambda}$, a contradiction. In fact we can form $n$-tuple of diagonal complex-matrices $(A_1,\dots,A_n)$ of any order with $A=\left(
(A_1)_{ii},\dots,(A_n)_{ii} \right)$ comes from $\partial \Gamma_n
\setminus b\Gamma_n$ for each $i=1,\dots,n$. Such a tuple is always a $\Gamma_n$-contraction which does not live on any distinguished variety. If one investigates which among the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:VN\] is being violated by $A$, the mere conclusion is that the fundamental operator tuple $(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})$ of $T$ does not satisfy $\sigma_T(F_1,\dots,F_{n-1})\subseteq \mathbb G_n$.\
To make the class of $\Gamma_n$-contractions that satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:VN\] to become the largest class for which Theorem \[thm:VN\] holds, we need to prove that if a $\Gamma_n$-contraction $\Sigma$ satisfies the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:VN\], then the hypotheses also have to be satisfied by $\Sigma$.
Needless to mention that the previous theorem holds for any $\Gamma_3$-contraction $(S_1,S_2,P)$, where $S_1,S_2,P$ are matrices and $P^*$ is a pure contraction.
[99]{}
J. Agler, Z. A. Lykova and N. J. Young, A case of $\mu$-synthesis as a quadratic semidefinite program, [*SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization*]{}, 2013, 51(3), 2472-2508.
J. Agler and J.E. M.45exCarthy, Distinguished varieties, *Acta Math.*, 194 (2005), no. 2, 133 – 153.
J. Agler and N. J. Young, A commutant lifting theorem for a domain in $\mathbb{C}^2$ and spectral interpolation, *J. Funct. Anal.* 161 (1999), 452 – 477.
J. Agler and N. J. Young, A model theory for $\Gamma$-contractions, *J. Operator Theory* 49 (2003), 45-60.
J. Agler and N. J. Young, The hyperbolic geometry of the symmetrized bidisc, [*J. Geom. Anal.*]{} [14]{} (2004) 375–403.
H. Alexander and J. Wermer, Several complex variables and Banach algebras, *Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 35; 3rd Edition*, Springer, (1997).
T. Ando, On a pair of commutative contractions, *Acta Sci Math* 24 (1963), 88 – 90.
W. B. Arveson, Subalgebras of $C^*$-algebra. II., *Acta Math.*, **128** (1972), 271–308.
W. Arveson, The curvature invariant of a Hilbert module over $\mathbb C[z_1,\cdots, z_d]$, *J. Reine Angew. Math.*, 522 (2000), 173 -– 236.
J. A. Ball, I. Gohberg and L. Rodman, Interpolation of rational matrix functions, *OT45, Birkhäuser Verlag*, Basel, (1990).
H. Bercovici, C. Foias, L. Kerchy and B. Sz.-Nagy, Harmonic analysis of operators on Hilbert space, Universitext, *Springer, New York*, 2010.
T. Bhattacharyya, S. Pal and S. Shyam Roy, Dilations of $\Gamma$-contractions by solving operator equations, *Adv. Math.* 230 (2012), 577 – 606.
T. Bhattacharyya and S. Pal, A functional model for pure $\Gamma$-contractions, *J. Operator Thoery*, 71 (2014), 327 – 339.
S. Biswas and S. Shyam Roy, Functional models for $\Gamma_n$-contractions and characterization of $\Gamma_n$-isometries, *J. Func. Anal.*, 266 (2014), 6224 – 6255.
C. Costara, On the spectral Nevanlinna-Pick problem, *Studia Math.*, 170 (2005), 23–55.
R. E. Curto, Applications of several complex variables to multiparameter spectral theory, Surveys of Some Recent Results in Operator Theory, Vol. II, *Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser., Longman Sci. Tech., Harlow*, 192 (1988), 25-90.
R. G. Douglas, P.S. Muhly and Carl Pearcy, Lifting Commuting Operators, *Michigan Math. J.*, 15 (1968), 385-395.
M. A.Dritschel and S. McCullough, The failure of rational dilation on a triply connected domain, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.*, 18 (2005), 873 – 918.
M. A. Dritschel and J. Rovnyak, The operator Fejér-Riesz theorem, chapter in A glimpse at Hilbert space operators: Paul R. Halmos in Memorium, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 207, pages 223 - 254, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2010.
A. Edigarian and W. Zwonek, Geometry of symmetrized polydisc, *Archiv der Mathematik* 84 (2005), 364 – 374.
G. Fischer, Plane algebraic curves, *Stud. Math. Libr.*, 15. *Amer. Math. Soc.*, Providence, RI, 2001.
T. Gamelin, Uniform Algebras, *Prentice Hall, New Jersey*, 1969.
P. Griffiths and J. Harris, Principles of Algebraic Geometry, *Wiley, New York*, 1978.
P. Griffiths, Introduction to algebraic curves, *Transl. Math. Monographs, 76. Amer. Math. Soc.*, 1989.
D. Hong-Ke and P. Jin, Perturbation of spectrums of $2\times 2$ operator matrices, *Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*, 121 (1994), 761-766.
M. Jarnicki and P. Pflug, On automorphisms of the symmetrized bidisc, [*Arch. Math.*]{} (Basel) 83 (2004), no. 3, 264–266.
G. Misra, S. Shyam Roy and Genkai Zhang, Reproducing kernel for a class of weighted Bergman spaces on the symmetrized polydisc, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*, 141 (2013), 2361 – 2370.
N. Nikolov, P. Pflug and W. Zwonek, The Lempert function of the symmetrized polydisc in higher dimensions is not a distance, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [135]{} (2007) 2921–2928.
S. Pal, From Stinespring dilation to Sz.-Nagy dilation on the symmetrized bidisc and operator models, *New York Jour. Math.*, 20 (2014), 545 – 564.
S. Pal, Rational dilation on the symmetrized tridisc: falire, success and unknown, *Preprint*, Available at *https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00425*.
S. Pal and O. M. Shalit, Spectral sets and distinguished varieties in the symmetrized bidisc, *J. Funct. Anal.*, 266 (2014), 5779 – 5800.
P. Pflug and W. Zwonek, Description of all complex geodesics in the symmetrised bidisc, [*Bull. London Math. Soc.*]{} [ 37]{} (2005) 575–584.
J. L. Taylor, The analytic-functional calculus for several commuting operators, *Acta Math.* 125 (1970), 1–-38.
J. L. Taylor, A joint spectrum for several commuting operators, *J. Funct. Anal.*, 6 (1970), 172–191.
F. H. Vasilescu, Analytic Functional Calculus and Spectral Decompositions, *Editura Academiei: Bucuresti, Romania and D. Reidel Publishing Company*, 1982.
[^1]: The author is supported by Seed Grant of IIT Bombay, CPDA and INSPIRE Faculty Award (Award No. DST/INSPIRE/04/2014/001462) of DST, India.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We review the main arguments against antigravity, a different acceleration of antimatter relative to matter in a gravitational field, discussing and challenging Morrison’s, Good’s and Schiff’s arguments. Following Price, we show that, very surprisingly, the usual expression of the Equivalence Principle is violated by General Relativity when particles of negative mass are supposed to exist, which may provide a fundamental explanation of MOND phenomenology, obviating the need for Dark Matter.
Motivated by the observation of repulsive gravity under the form of Dark Energy, and by the fact that our universe looks very similar to a coasting (neither decelerating nor accelerating) universe, we study the Dirac-Milne cosmology, a symmetric matter-antimatter cosmology where antiparticles have the same gravitational properties as holes in a semiconductor. Noting the similarities with our universe (age, SN1a luminosity distance, nucleosynthesis, CMB angular scale), we focus our attention on structure formation mechanisms, finding strong similarities with our universe.
Additional tests of the Dirac-Milne cosmology are briefly reviewed, and we finally note that a crucial test of the Dirac-Milne cosmology will be soon realized at CERN next to the ELENA antiproton decelerator, possibly as early as fall 2018, with the AEgIS, ALPHA-g and Gbar antihydrogen gravity experiments.
author:
- Gabriel Chardin
- Giovanni Manfredi
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: 'Gravity, antimatter and the Dirac-Milne universe'
---
[example.eps]{} gsave newpath 20 20 moveto 20 220 lineto 220 220 lineto 220 20 lineto closepath 2 setlinewidth gsave .4 setgray fill grestore stroke grestore
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The vast majority of theoretical physicists believe that, if a difference in acceleration between matter and antimatter exists, it can only be extremely small. Few consider possible an antigravity where antihydrogen would “fall up", as the CERN presents the three current experiments testing the equivalence principle by the ELENA antiproton decelerator [@CERN_courrier].
Why then these three experiments, AEgIS [@Kellerbauer], ALPHA-g [@Bertsche] and Gbar [@Indelicato], aim only at a precision of the order of one percent, at least in a first stage, while at the same time, the BASE experiment [@BASE_2017] claims to impose constraints on any anomalous gravity for antimatter at the sub-ppm level? Could it be that antigravity, in the sense of antimatter “falling up", is actually a prediction, which seems at first antinomic, of general relativity?
In a first part of this work, we briefly review the impossibility arguments against antigravity, focusing on Schiff’s [@Schiff], Morrison’s [@Morrison] and Good’s [@Good] arguments, showing why they are probably ineffective. We then discuss, also rather briefly, the so-called Klein paradox, or vacuum polarization, which provides some elements of answer concerning the impossibility of negative energy states and negative mass. More fundamentally, we describe the argument by Price [@Price] showing that general relativity violates maximally the usual expression of the Equivalence Principle as soon as the existence of negative mass, possibly as virtual constituents of the quantum vacuum, is allowed.
This will lead us to the Dirac-Milne universe [@Benoit-Levy_Chardin], and a possible explanation of the repulsive gravity that we observe in cosmology, called Dark Energy for lack of better comprehension. This matter-antimatter universe is impressively concordant, and has also, a fact that is often not realized, a simple physical analog with the electron-hole system in a semiconductor.
Next, we discuss the mechanism of structure formation in the Dirac-Milne universe, radically different from that of the Lambda-CDM universe, and show that, without any free parameter, it reproduces several of the features observed in large surveys such as SDSS [@SDSS].
In a final part, we discuss the additional experiments and studies that can be realized in the near future to test the Dirac-Milne cosmology.
Impossibility arguments {#sec:imposs}
=======================
Over the years, several impossibility arguments have been raised against antigravity. A rather thorough discussion of the main impossibility arguments can be found in the review by Nieto and Goldman [@Nieto_Goldman], dating back to 1991 but still mostly valid today. Truly enough, as soon as we express general relativity as a metric theory, with a single metric, it is difficult to see how gravity could distinguish matter from antimatter since according to the very formalisme of a single metric, all particles must follow the same trajectory. Still we will see that General Relativity does predict gross violations of the Equivalence Principle as soon as negative mass components are allowed. Also, as was noted by physicists in solid-state physics [@Tsidil] and in structure formation [@Dubinski_Piran; @Piran], there could be other expressions of the Equivalence Principle respecting the spirit of General Relativity but violating maximally its usual expression. Coming back to the impossibility arguments, we can summarize them in three classes, that we might call the Morrison argument [@Morrison], the Schiff argument [@Schiff], and the Good argument [@Good].
Morrison’s argument
-------------------
As early as 1958, Morrison, in a celebrated paper associated with his Richtmyer memorial lecture [@Morrison], studied the consequences of antigravity in a gedanken experiment that can be summarized in Fig. 1. Basically, the argument states that, if we accept antigravity, energy is not conserved and/or the vacuum becomes unstable. The question(s) that Morrison did not ask was : “Unstable, by how much, and what is the characteristic timescale?"
Noting that in some other situations, the vacuum of gravitational structures such as black holes is unstable, since black holes evaporate, one of us tried to estimate this instability at the beginning of the 1990s [@Chardin_Rax]. Remarkably, the instability that we can expect from antigravity is the same as the Hawking evaporation of black holes, and leads to a temperature of radiation of: $$k_B T \approx \hbar g/2\pi c$$ where $g$ is the usual surface gravity.
So the answer to Morrison’s argument might well be that the instability associated to antigravity is acceptable since it occurs in most situations at an unnoticeably feeble rate, and is observed in other similar situations such as black hole evaporation. Note, for example, that for a black hole of the mass of our Sun, the evaporation timescale is of the order of $2 \times 10^{66}$ years. As we will see, it is mostly in strong fields, such as those occurring near the horizon of black holes, that this antigravity will lead to significant effects. We will come back to this point as such a vacuum polarization is a prediction of general relativity as soon as we allow the existence of negative mass objects in the vacuum.
Note that some authors have argued, notably in supersymmetric theories, that antigravity, meaning here a slightly different acceleration of antimatter with respect to matter in a gravitational field, is possible without implying any dissipation or instability. This is, in particular, what Joël Scherk proposed in 1979 in another celebrated paper [@Scherk] adequately titled “Antigravity, a crazy idea?" Scherk argued that in this case, if we assume the existence of gravivector components in $ N = 2, 8$ supersymmetry, we might expect antimatter to fall slightly more rapidly than matter. Still, in the following, we will assume that Morrison’s argument was correct, and that the instability is characterized by Hawking’s evaporation temperature and therefore acceptable.
Schiff’s argument
-----------------
In his lectures on gravitation [@Bell_lectures], with his second lecture dealing with antigravity, John Bell estimated that probably the most stringent impossibility argument against antigravity was the argument brought by Leonard Schiff at the beginning of the 1960s. The Schiff argument [@Schiff] can be summarized in the following way: if antimatter antigravitates, then, depending on the composition of the body used to test the equivalence principle, for example beryllium and uranium, two elements with rather different binding energies, these bodies should follow different trajectories in gravitational fields. To quantify his statement, Schiff tried to estimate the contribution of the virtual electron-positron pairs, and even more importantly the contribution of the virtual quark-antiquark pairs, arguing that pure antigravity would induce variations of the order of these contributions in the acceleration of bodies with different binding energies.
Nieto and Goldman had already noted [@Nieto_Goldman] that Schiff’s calculation was incorrect as his calculation did not take correctly into account the infinities arising in the renormalisation procedure. Still, we know that, to an outstanding precision, all material bodies, independently of their composition, follow the same trajectories –at least for matter– for given initial conditions in a gravitational field. The most precise tests have been provided by the experiments of the Eötwash group [@Eotwash] and more recently by the Microscope satellite, the latter providing the most stringent constraint at the level of $2 \times 10^{-14}$ in its first analysis [@Microscope]. Even before the Microscope result, with the Schiff argument in mind, it has been estimated (see e.g. [@Alves]) that antigravity is constrained at the level of one part per billion. Similarly, Ulmer et al. have stated [@Ulmer] that their experiments on the comparison between the proton and antiproton charge over (inertial) mass ratio place a constraint on any gravitational anomaly at a $< 8.7 \times 10^{-7}$ level. Clearly, if this line of reasoning is correct, it is basically useless to perform the AEgIS, ALPHA-g and Gbar experiments, since these experiments are unable to reach the precision required to exceed these constraints.
### Price’s argument: General relativity violating the equivalence principle
Let us see why these statements based on Schiff’s argument are probably incorrect: about 25 years ago, Richard Price [@Price] studied the behaviour of bound systems composed of a positive and a negative mass in Bondi’s sense [@Bondi]. He noticed an extremely surprising property: whereas a negative mass falls exactly like a positive mass when it is without interactions, the bound system composed of a mass $+m$ and a mass $-m$, equal and opposite, [*levitates and polarizes itself*]{} (Fig. 2), the negative mass lying slightly above the positive mass in the levitating system.
But as soon as the negative and positive masses differ even slightly in absolute value, the composite system always falls with [*exactly the same acceleration*]{}, respecting again the principle of equivalence: although the overall (inertial) mass of the system has decreased —it is equal to the algebraic sum of the two masses of the bound system— and the trajectory of the composite system remains the same.
So, in complete contradiction with intuition, there are only two possible behaviors: a 100% violation of the principle of equivalence, or no violation at all! This rather clearly, if surprisingly, invalidates Schiff’s argument that in case of antigravity, bodies should, according to their composition, undergo (slightly) different accelerations in a gravitational field.
Price also demonstrates that, as soon as negative masses exist, the vacuum will become polarized. While this polarization will go completely unnoticed in weak gravitational fields, such as that of the Earth, in the strong field regime, for example near the horizon of a black hole, the behaviour predicted by general relativity will change dramatically. Indeed, under the diverging tension, the vacuum will eventually break down, and particle-antiparticle pairs will be created. A similar discussion about the breakdown of the vacuum at the horizon of a black hole has occurred in the so-called “firewall paradox" [@Polchinski], which could find here a solution.
Surprisingly, even at low fields, such a gravitational polarization will lead to observational consequences. Noting that the MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) phenomenological law [@Milgrom] had a similar form as the modifications induced by polarization in Maxwell’s equations in a dielectric medium, Blanchet and Le Tiec [@Blanchet_Le_Tiec] demonstrated that MOND phenomenology could be explained assuming that a gravitational polarization exists. Although they considered initially that this would require a violation of the equivalence principle, we have seen that such a polarization is predicted by General Relativity as soon as negative mass components exist in the vacuum. This would provide a fundamental explanation, within General Relativity, of MOND phenomenology, obviating the need for Dark Matter, definitely missing experimentally but required as a major component in the standard cosmological model.
Good’s argument
---------------
In 1961, Myron Good [@Good] used the neutral kaon system to constrain the different behavior of antimatter with respect to matter in a gravitational field. According to Good, the non-observation of anomalous regeneration (leading to decay in three pions instead of the predominant two-pion decay) in the neutral kaon system imposed very strong constraints on any antigravity, at the $10^{-10}$ level. Good observed that antigravity would impose that the K$_L$, a linear combination of K$^0$ and its antiparticle, would regenerate a K$_S$ component. Good estimated the phase shift that would develop between the K$^0$ and its antiparticle from the energy difference due to the gravitational potential $V_K$; more precisely, he supposed that the phase factor between the two components would oscillate as: $$\exp (i m_K V_K t/\hbar)$$ where $m_K$ is the mass of the kaon and $V_K$ is the potential energy of the kaon. Noticing that the potential energy of a kaon in the Earth gravitational field is $\approx 0.4$ eV, and that this energy is $\approx 10^5$ times larger than the energy splitting between the K$_S$ and K$_L$ eigenstates, Good concluded that antigravity was constrained by the non observation of three-pion decay at the $\approx 10^{-10}$ level.
This argument suffers, however, from a severe criticism: as Good himself had noticed, there is no obvious reason why one should use the Earth potential; why not use instead the Sun, or the galactic potential which would give even more stringent limits on the difference of acceleration between matter and antimatter? In fact, as noted by Nieto and Goldman [@Nieto_Goldman], an e$^+$–e$^-$ pair created in a deep potential well in the so-called Klein paradox [@Holstein] shows that the phase difference between the electron and the positron builds up with their separation instead of being created instantaneously. Supposing that, when at rest with respect to one another, the neutral kaon and its antiparticle have different frequencies in their phase factors is equivalent to saying that the $K^0$ and its antiparticle do not have the same mass – i.e., a most severe CPT violation. Chardin and Rax [@Chardin_Rax] and Goldman et al. [@Goldman_Nieto_Sandberg] restated Good’s argument independently of absolute potentials, assuming that a particle and its antiparticle have the same frequencies (and the same mass) when they are at rest with respect to one another. They found just the opposite conclusion: antigravity predicts the approximate amount of anomalous regeneration associated with CP violation, discovered three years after Good had proposed his argument [@cpviolation]. Note that Bell and Perring [@Bell_Perring], immediately after the discovery of CP violation, had reversed the Good argument to invoke a cosmological field differentiating matter and antimatter.
The no-go theorem for symmetric matter-antimatter cosmologies {#sec:nogo}
=============================================================
The Dirac-Milne Universe that we will discuss in Sec. \[sec:diracmilne\] is a universe that contains as much matter as antimatter. In the 1960’s and again in the late 1980s, two teams tried to understand whether a symmetric matter-antimatter universe could be consistent with observations. During the 1960’s, the group led by Roland Omnès [@Omnes], at University of Paris-Sud, made the assumption that at the time of the quark-gluon plasma transition, at a temperature of about 170 MeV, a matter-antimatter emulsion was formed, which developed through annihilation at the matter-antimatter boundaries. The conclusion of their study, after several years of effort, was that the primordial Universe, at least in the standard cosmological model, does not provide enough time for a matter-antimatter universe to create structures large enough to evade the constraints of the diffuse gamma-ray flux. Indeed, if matter and antimatter have both positive gravitational masses and respect the equivalence principle, matter-antimatter annihilation continues to occur after the Universe has become transparent, leading to a diffuse high energy gamma-ray background, already difficult to justify in the early 1970s, at the epoch of the SAS-2 satellite, and clearly inconsistent with the much more sensitive contemporary satellites, such as the Fermi satellite.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Sheldon Glashow, Andrew Cohen and Alvaro de Rujula [@Cohen_et_al] took over the study of Roland Omnès’ group, focusing on the late periods when the universe has become transparent, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang in the standard cosmological model. They concluded again that even if the primordial universe had succeeded in creating a symmetrical world between matter and antimatter, diffusion of matter and antimatter at their domain boundaries would lead, as soon as the Universe becomes transparent, to an annihilation between matter and antimatter in conflict with observational limits, unless the domains of matter and antimatter had a size exceeding several billion light-years, which seems unrealistic.
But rather obviously, these studies had assumed that matter and antimatter had both a positive gravitational mass. Today, the discovery of a repulsive gravity through observations of SN1a supernovae luminosity distance, called Dark Energy, leads us to be more cautious: indeed, what seemed previously impossible, repulsive gravity, is the major topic of interest in cosmology, and we now turn to the study of negative mass and its definition.
Negative mass {#sec:negmass}
=============
Before presenting the main features of the Dirac-Milne matter-antimatter universe that was studied from 2006 on by Benoit-Lévy and Chardin [@Benoit-Levy_Chardin], it is useful to go back to the meaning that can be given to the notion of negative mass.
By the 1950s, Bondi [@Bondi] had built negative mass solutions that respected the equivalence principle. The surprising properties of these solutions, for example the “runaway" motion when two equal but opposite masses accelerate continuously while remaining at (almost) constant distance, led them to be considered very exotic objects, although such runaway motions can also be observed in situations involving only positive masses. In addition, very strong theorems seemed to exclude any possibility of negative mass particles or objects, or more generally violating the positivity of energy [@Schoen_Yau; @Witten]. But whereas initially these theorems on the positivity of energy appeared as absolute no-go theorems, the increasing number of violations of the energy conditions, first through the quantum effects of the vacuum (for example in the Casimir effect), then from 1998 in an infinitely more significant way with the discovery of Dark Energy [@Perlmutter_1999; @Riess_1998], led to question these theorems. For a review on counter-examples of the various expressions of energy conditions, see for example the review by Barcelo and Visser [@Barcelo_Visser].
The demonstration of the existence, in 2014, of perfectly respectable solutions of negative mass “bubbles" without instability [@Paranjape] as soon as they are placed in an expanding universe (here, the Einstein-de Sitter universe) finally demonstrated that instability does not constitute a sufficient argument to exclude a solution: it is indeed also necessary to calculate the characteristic time of instability, since cosmological solutions are themselves unstable, but with often enormous and therefore acceptable characteristic times.
In other words, if a negative energy solution is unstable in Minkowski (flat) spacetime, but is stable in an Einstein-de Sitter spacetime, while a few billion years are required to determine whether you live in one or the other of these two universes, it means that the instability of the negative mass solution has at most a characteristic timescale of a few billion years.
Also, the analysis of Klein’s “paradox" [@Holstein] shows that, since fermions always come in pairs, the vacuum breaks down with pair creation when a electron of mass $m_e$ is confined in a potentiel well of depth larger than $-2m_e c^2$ and [*not*]{} $m_e c^2$, so that the electron has a negative total energy of $-m_e c^2$ when the vacuum starts to break down.
Now, Dirac had shown that antimatter appears as the matter of negative energy going backwards in time. And we also know since the early 1990s that building a time machine in general relativity —for example using a wormhole as a time machine— requires violating the positivity of energy [@Morris_Thorne_Yurtsever]. It is therefore natural to test whether antimatter is not by any chance such an “exotic" material.
Interestingly, Hawking had noted [@Hawking_Mach] that the Machian formulation of general relativity proposed by Hoyle and Narlikar [@Hoyle_Narlikar] only works if there exists equal amounts of negative mass and positive mass particles in the universe. For Hawking, it clearly meant that the theory was wrong, but today, with the knowledge that negative mass solutions are allowed, and the observation of repulsive gravity, it is fascinating to see that the initial Machian perspective of Einstein could effectively be realized in the Dirac-Milne universe, which we will describe in the next section.
Dirac-Milne cosmology {#sec:diracmilne}
=====================
The discovery in 1998 of a mysterious repulsive energy, dubbed Dark Energy, and representing more than two thirds of the energy content of the universe, provided the first massive evidence for repulsive gravity. It also underlined the improbability of the Standard Model of Cosmology, featuring an extremely brief initial phase of very brutal deceleration, followed by a rather mysterious and very brief repulsive phase of inflation, mostly justified by the need to solve the enigma of the homogeneity of the primordial universe. In particular, there does not exist any precise fundamental theory allowing to understand how one can not only enter but also leave this phase of inflation. A time slightly too long will lead to a virtually empty universe, whereas a time slightly too short will lead to the re-collapse of the universe in a few Planck times ($10^{-44}$ s).
At the end of inflation, when the universe is not even $10^{-30}$ seconds old, a new phase of very violent deceleration is supposed to start, leading, about $10^5$ years later (virtually an eternity compared to the two previous epochs), to a period where matter, until then mostly irrelevant, manages eventually to become the majority component while radiation as well as dark energy are then totally negligible. And it is only at the age of a few billion years that the Dark Energy component, a name hiding our ignorance of its true nature, becomes dominant, leading to a universe of accelerated expansion, where galaxies will find themselves isolated from each other in a (relatively) near future.
Another major drawback of the Standard Model is the fact that it uses two predominant components, dark matter and dark energy, supposed to represent about 95% of the universe energy density, but which have remarkably resisted to experimental identification so far. Quoting the Planck HFI collaboration [@Planck_2018], “the six-parameter Lambda-CDM model continues to provide an excellent fit to the cosmic microwave background data at high and low redshift, describing the cosmological information (...) with just six parameters (...). Planck measures five of the six parameters to better than 1% accuracy (simultaneously), with the best-determined parameter ($\theta_*$) now known to 0.03%."
But an excellent fit to the data at a given epoch is not a guarantee of a correct description of reality.
Indeed, several authors have noted [@Nielsen_et_al; @Tutusaus_et_al] that our universe is very similar to a gravitationally empty or coasting universe (neither accelerating or decelerating), which was first envisaged by Milne [@Milne]. On this basis, Benoit-Lévy and Chardin [@Benoit-Levy_Chardin] proposed the so-called “Dirac-Milne" universe, a universe containing the same amount of matter and antimatter (hence Dirac’s name), endowed respectively with positive and negative mass. Like Milne’s, this is a cosmology that is permanently on the verge of inflation and therefore able to explain the initial homogeneity of the Universe.
Although a Milne universe – advocated for example by Melia in his $R_H = ct$ universe [@Melia], without antimatter – suffers from the depletion of deuterium and helium-3 abundance and a widely different CMB angular scale, the Dirac-Milne universe is impressively concordant: in addition to the age of the Milne universe, equal to $1/H_0$, almost exactly that of the Lambda-CDM universe, and a SN1a luminosity distance (Fig. 3) also impressively similar, the CMB angular scale originating from the sound of the matter-antimatter annihilation is at the one-degree scale, and primordial nucleosynthesis is reproduced, including deuterium.
Taken at face value, there are two observational problems facing the Dirac-Milne universe. The first problem is related to an overproduction, by nearly a factor 10, of helium-3. But helium-3 is a bad probe of the primordial universe since it can be both destroyed and produced after the initial phases of the universe. As a result, it has sparked little enthusiasm from experimentalists, and the measurements, clearly below the prediction of the Dirac-Milne universe, are probably inconclusive since the authors themselves note [@Science_Helium3] that (their) “result for $^3$He is exactly the [*opposite*]{} of what one would expect (...) The utility of $^3$He/H as a probe of the cosmological baryon-to-photon ratio rests on the resolution of this puzzle."
The second problem, that we address in the following section, is provided by the Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), observed at the present comoving scale of $\approx 100$ Mpc, and which have no direct equivalent in the Dirac-Milne cosmology. We now proceed to show that such a scale is produced without any free parameter in the non-linear regime of structure formation in the Dirac-Milne universe.
Structure formation in the Dirac-Milne cosmology
------------------------------------------------
Motivated by the fact that our universe shares several aspects with a coasting universe, we have studied structure formation in universes involving equal amounts of negative and positive mass, with a particular emphasis on the Dirac-Milne cosmology [@Benoit-Levy_Chardin]. The first results of these simulations have been presented by Manfredi at this conference, and since then published in a more detailed paper [@Manfredi_et_al_PRD]. We summarize here briefly the results of these first simulations, and the reader is referred to the publication [@Manfredi_et_al_PRD] for more detailed information about structure formation involving negative mass.
Dubinski and Piran [@Dubinski_Piran], and later Piran [@Piran] had noted in the early 1990s that the evolution of underdense regions, which expand and lead to large “voids" that occupy the largest fraction of our universe, could be described as the evolution of negative mass particles violating “maximally" the equivalence principle. As noted above, this violation of the equivalence principle has a physical motivation as it corresponds to the electron-hole system in a semiconductor.
Surprisingly, the Dirac-Milne scenario cannot be recovered by simply assigning a combination of signs to the three types of Newtonian masses, i.e., the inertial, active gravitational and passive gravitational masses. Instead, one needs to resort to a bimetric formalism, which in the Newtonian limit reduces to a set of two Poisson’s equations for the gravitational potential.
With this bimetric formalism, starting from the initial conditions dictated by the Dirac-Milne universe and the evolution of the matter-antimatter emulsion during the initial stages of the universe, at temperatures higher than $\approx 30$ eV, our Newtonian simulations show the gradual buildup of structures. Such structures begin to develop a few million years after the CMB transition, much earlier than in the Lambda-CDM standard model, then grow in size, reaching a maximum comoving size of $\approx 100$ Mpc (Fig. 4) a few billion years after the Big Bang. This size is characteristic of the BAO scale, and could provide an explanation for the otherwise unexpected coincidence between the linear BAO fixed comoving scale —supposed to provide a standard ruler— and the evolving non-linear scale, observed for example in SDSS [@SDSS]. This provides a new element of concordance between the Dirac-Milne universe and our universe, and a further motivation to pursue a more detailed study of this matter-antimatter universe.
Other tests of the Dirac-Milne cosmology
----------------------------------------
Further lines of study can be realized to test the validity of the Dirac-Milne cosmology. As a hypothesis that remains to be confirmed, the Dirac-Milne cosmology may also explain why there remains approximately only one billionth of matter following the primordial annihilation, with the same amount of antimatter surviving in clouds of cold gas occupying the vast majority of the intergalactic space in our universe.
The calculation of the matter-antimatter annihilation occurring between the temperature $T=170 \,\rm MeV$, corresponding to the quark-gluon plasma transition and $T=30 \,\rm eV$, where the matter regions separate from the antimatter regions, could provide a key to understand and calculate the parameter $\eta = n_{baryon}/n_{photon}$, for which various mechanisms have been proposed, but without providing any prediction of its precise value, which is essential to our very existence. Similarly, it would also seem interesting to further study the possible explanation proposed by Blanchet and Le Tiec [@Blanchet_Le_Tiec] that gravitational polarization might provide an explanation for MOND, mimicking the existence of the evasive Dark Matter.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Although most physicists would still bet against antigravity for antimatter, the situation has changed rather dramatically since the discovery in 1998 of what we call, by lack of better understanding, Dark Energy, representing about two thirds of the universe energy density. Considering that another “dark" component, namely Dark Matter, is supposed to represent roughly 25% of the universe, the standard cosmological model finds itself in the unpalatable situation of explaining most observations using concepts that are little, or not at all, understood. It is therefore reasonable to investigate possible alternatives to the standard model, which may in the end turn up to be just an impressive fit to the data using a relatively limited number of parameters.
The fact that in several respects our universe appears very similar to a coasting or empty universe is a motivation to reconsider the impossibility arguments against the existence of negative mass, on the one hand, and antigravity, on the other. This led us to the study of the properties of the Dirac-Milne universe, a symmetric matter-antimatter universe, where antimatter is endowed with negative mass, an analog of the electron-hole system in a semiconductor, providing a cosmology impressively concordant with our universe (age, SN1a luminosity distance, nucleosynthesis, structure formation, CMB). Although much remains to be done on the CMB front, where the full sound spectrum should be established, the present results are a strong motivation to deepen the study of this cosmology.
Importantly, a key test of the Dirac-Milne cosmology will soon be realized in the laboratory with cold antihydrogen atoms: the AEgIS, ALPHA-g and Gbar experiments at CERN are expected to provide tests of the antigravity hypothesis. While Gbar is preparing a precision measurement with antihydrogen ions cooled to a few tens of microkelvin, the ALPHA collaboration, which made the first spectroscopic measurements on antihydrogen [@ALPHA_spectroscopy], achieved in 2013 the first constraints on antimatter gravity [@ALPHA_gravity], though still a factor $\approx 65$ larger than the sensitivity necessary to test antigravity.
Whatever the experimental results, they will have important repercussions on our understanding of the evolution of our universe.
P. Perez, M. Doser, W. Bertsche, “Does antimatter fall up?",\
https://cds.cern.ch/record/2243009/files/vol57-issue1-p039-e.pdf A. Kellerbauer, M. Amoretti, A. Belov, G. Bonomi, I. Boscolo,R. Brusa, M. Büchner, V. Byakov, L. Cabaret, C. Canali, et al., “Proposed antimatter gravity measurement with an antihydrogen beam", Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 266, 351 (2008). W. A. Bertsche, “Prospects for comparison of matter and antimatter gravitation with ALPHA-g", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20170265 (2017). P. Indelicato, G. Chardin, P. Grandemange, D. Lunney, V. Manea, A. Badertscher, P. Crivelli, A. Curioni, A. Marchionni, B. Rossi, et al., “The Gbar project, or how does antimatter fall?", Hyperfine Interactions 228, 141 (2014). C. Smorra, et al., “A parts-per-billion measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment", Nature, 550, 371 (2017). L. I. Schiff, “Gravitational properties of antimatter", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 45, 69 (1959). P. Morrison, “Approximate nature of physical symmetries", Am. J. Phys. 26, 358 (1958). M. L. Good, “K$^0_2$ and the equivalence principle", Phys. Rev., 121, 311 (1961). R.H. Price, “Negative mass is positively amusing", Am. J. Phys., 61, 216 (1993). A. Benoit-L' evy and G. Chardin, “Introducing the Dirac-Milne universe", A&A, 537, A78 (2012) M. Tegmark, et al., “The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the Sloan digital sky survey", Ap. J.,606, 702 (2004). M. M. Nieto and T. Goldman, “The arguments against ‘antigravity’ and the gravitational acceleration of antimatter", Phys. Rep. 205, 221 (1991) and references therein. I. M. Tsidil’kovskiǐ, “Electrons and holes in an inertial-force field", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 18, 161 (1975). J. Dubinski, L.N. da Costa, D.S. Goldwirth, M. Lecar, and T. Piran, “Void evolution and the large-scale structure", Ap. J, 410, 458 (1993). T. Piran, “On gravitational repulsion", Gen. Rel. Grav., 29, 1363 (1997). G. Chardin and J.-M Rax, “CP violation: a matter of antigravity?", Phys. Lett. B, 282, 256 (1992) J. Scherk, “Antigravity: A crazy idea? ", Phys. Lett. B 88, 265 (1979). J.S. Bell, in “Fundamental Symmetries", eds. P. Bloch, P. Pavlopoulos and R. Klapisch, Plenum Press, 1987. E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, B.R. Heckel, S. Hoedl and S. Schlamminger, “Torsion balance experiments: A low-energy frontier of particle physics", Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 102 (2009) P. Touboul et al., “MICROSCOPE Mission: First Results of a Space Test of the Equivalence Principle", Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 231101 (2017). D. S. M. Alves, M. Jankowiak, P. Saraswat, “Experimental constraints on the free fall acceleration of antimatter", arXiv:0907.4110 (2009). S. Ulmer et al., “High-precision comparison of the antiproton-to-proton charge-to-mass ratio", Nature 524, 196 (2015) H. Bondi, “Negative mass in General Relativity", Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 423 (1957). A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, J. Sully, “Black holes: complementarity or firewalls?", Journal of High Energy Physics, 2013:62 (2013)arXiv:1207.3123. M. Milgrom, “A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis", Astrophys. J. 270, 365 (1983). L. Blanchet, A. Le Tiec, “Model of Dark Matter and Dark Energy Based on Gravitational Polarization", Phys. Rev. D, 78, 024031 (2008); arXiv:0804.3518. B.R. Holstein, “Klein’s paradox", Am. J. Phys. 66, 507 (1998). T. Goldman, M.M. Nieto, V. Sandberg, “Kaons, quantum mechanics and gravity", Mod. Phys. Lett., 7, 3455 (1992) J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, “Evidence for the $2\pi$-Decay of the K$^0_2$ Meson", Phys. Rev. Lett., 13, 138 (1964). J. S. Bell and J. K. Perring, “$2\pi$-Decay of the K$^0_2$ Meson", Phys. Rev. Lett., 13 , 348 (1964). R. Omnès, “The possible role of elementary particle physics in cosmology", Phys. Rep., 3, 1 (1972). A. G. Cohen, A. de Rujula, S. L. Glashow, “A Matter-Antimatter Universe?", Ap. J., 495, 539 (1998). R. Schoen, Shing-Tung Yau, “On the proof of the positive mass conjecture in general relativity", Comm. Math. Phys. 65, 45 (1979). E. Witten, “A new proof of the positive energy theorem", Comm. Math. Phys 80, 381 (1981). S. Perlmutter et al., “Measurements of $\Omega$ and $\Lambda$ from 42 high-redshift supernovae", Ap. J, 517, 565 (1999). A. G. Riess et al., “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant", Astrop. J., 116, 1009 (1998). C. Barcelo, and M. Visser, “Twilight for the energy conditions?", Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11 (2002) 1553. S. Mbarek and M. B. Paranjape, “Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter spacetime", Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 101502. M.S. Morris, K.S. Thorne, U. Yurtsever, “Wormholes, time machines, and the weak energy condition", Phys. Rev. Letters, 61, 1446 (1988). S. W. Hawking, “On the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation", Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, 286, 313 (1965). F. Hoyle, and J. V. Narlikar, “Mach’s principle and the creation of matter", Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 273, 1 (1963). The Planck Collaboration, Y. Akrami, et al., “Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck", arXiv:1807.06205, submitted to A&A. J. T. Nielsen, A. Guffanti, S. Sarkar, “Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae", Scientific Reports, 6, 35596 (2016). I. Tutusaus, B. Lamine, A. Dupays, and A. Blanchard, “Is cosmic acceleration proven by local cosmological probes?", A&A, 602, A73 (2017). E. A. Milne, “World structure and the expansion of the universe", Zeitschrift für Astrophysik, 6, 1 (1933). F. Melia and A. S. H. Shevchuk, “The R$_h=ct$ universe", MNRAS 419, 2579 (2012); arXiv:1109.5189. M. J. Chodorowski, “Cosmology under Milne’s shadow", Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia, 22, 287 (2005). R. T. Rood, T. M. Bania, D. S. Baiser, “The saga of $^3$He", Science, 95, 804 (2002). G. Manfredi, J-L. Rouet, B. Miller, and G. Chardin, “Cosmological structure formation with negative mass", Phys. Rev. D 98, 023514 (2018); arXiv:1804.03067. M. Ahmadi, et al., the ALPHA Collaboration, “Observation of the 1S-2S transition in trapped antihydrogen", Nature, 541, 506 (2017). A. E. Charman, et al., The ALPHA Collaboration, “Description and first application of a new technique to measure the gravitational mass of antihydrogen", Nature Comm., 4, 1785 (2013).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- ', , '
- ', , '
- ', , '
- ', , '
- ', , '
- ', , '
- ', , '
author:
- 'Guido Ciraolo\*'
- Hugo Bufferand
- Pierfrancesco Di Cintio
- Philippe Ghendrih
- Stefano Lepri
- Roberto Livi
- Yannick Marandet
- Eric Serre
- Patrick Tamain
- Matteo Valentinuzzi
title: 'Fluid and kinetic modelling for non-local heat transport in magnetic fusion devices'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Modelling parallel heat transport in edge tokamak plasma is a crucial issue for predictions of power loads on divertor targets. In the operational regimes of interest for a magnetic fusion device a significant temperature gradient will build up along the field line between the upstream hot region that acts as a heat source, and the colder plasma region at the wall that acts as a sink. Numerical estimations of edge and SOL plasma rely mainly on 2D transport codes like e.g. SOLEDGE2D [@HB2015], SOLPS-ITER[@SW2015], EDGE2D [@CG2014], SONIC[@shimizu09], UEDGE[@uedge94]. These numerical tools are based on a fluid approach and a collisional closure with the so-called Spitzer-H[ä]{}rm (hereafter SH, see Ref. [@sh]) expression for the parallel heat flux $$q_{\parallel}(x)=-\kappa(x)\nabla_{\parallel}T(x),$$ where the thermal conductivity $\kappa(x)$ is computed in the strong collisionality assumption (i.e. considering a small departure from the Maxwellian distribution function), and reads $$\kappa(x)=\kappa_0 T(x)^{5/2}.$$ When collisionality drops, the classical Fourier law fails in describing heat transport, and the expression above leads to overestimated heat fluxes (see e.g [@Stangeby; @Funda05] and references therein).\
Typically, in order to avoid unphysical divergences in the SH expression for the heat flux, an [*ad hoc*]{} flux limiter correction is introduced with the following harmonic average between the free streaming heat flux $q_{FS}=n v_{\rm th}T$ and the collisional expression $q_{SH}$: $$q_{\parallel}=\left({\frac{1}{q_{SH}}}+{\frac{1}{\alpha n v_{\rm th}T}}\right)^{-1}.
\label{FL_expression}$$ In the formulae above $v_{\rm th}$ is the thermal velocity, $n$ the plasma density and $\alpha$ is a free parameter ranging from $0.1$ to $3$ characteristic values.\
In Figure \[Soledge\_2D\_temp\] we report an example of the strong impact that such flux limiter expression can have on the predictions obtained from transport codes on energy fluxes at the wall. We consider a SOLEDGE2D simulation for WEST configuration [@JB14] in pure Deuterium with an input power $P_{in}=4MW$ and a gas puff activated in the private flux region with an injection rate equal to $4\times 10^{21}$ atoms per second.
![Radial profiles of flux surface averaged transport coeffcients used in SOLEDGE2D-EIRENE simulations inspired from Ref.[@chankin][]{data-label="rad_transp_coeff_S2D"}](fig0.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The radial transport coefficients $D$ for density, $\chi_i$ for ion temperature and $\chi_e$ for electron temperature are reported in Fig.\[rad\_transp\_coeff\_S2D\]. They are settled equal to the ones presented in [@GC_NME17] and, waiting for measurements on WEST plasmas, have been chosen taking into account parameters which have been adjusted to match experimental mid-plane profiles of a H-mode ASDEX Upgrade plasma (see Ref. [@chankin]).
![Contour plot of the electron temperature in the poloidal section obtained from a SOLEDGE2D-EIRENE simulation (using the SH expression for the electron heat flux computation) with input power $P_{in}=4MW$ and a gas puff of $4\times 10^{21}$ atoms per second activated in the private flux region (a). Electron temperature profiles on the outer divertor target computed using SH expression (solid blue line), flux limiter expressions with parameter $\alpha=0.3$ (dash-dot green line), and $\alpha=0.15$ (dashed pink line) (b).[]{data-label="Soledge_2D_temp"}](fig1.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
The SOLEDGE-EIRENE simulations are performed considering three different expressions for the electron heat flux transport (while the ion heat flux is always computed using the flux limiter expression with $\alpha=0.2$): in the first simulation we do not activate the flux limiters (FL) and the electron heat flux is computed using the SH expression. In the second and third simulations the electron heat flux is computed using the flux limiter expression given by Eq.(\[FL\_expression\]) with $\alpha=0.3$ and $\alpha=0.15$, respectively. In Figure \[Soledge\_2D\_temp\] (panel a), we show with a 2D colour map the electron temperature in a WEST poloidal section obtained in the SH case. The comparison between the electron temperature profiles at the outer strike point obtained from these three different cases (SH, FL with $\alpha=0.3$ and FL with $\alpha=0.15$) is presented in panel (b). We note that there is a strong reduction of the temperature peak value between the SH case and the one computed with a FL equals to $\alpha=0.15$.\
In order to improve the presently used ad hoc flux limiter treatment of parallel heat flux transport in edge plasma codes we consider a fluid description with the generalized version of the Fourier law implementing a non-local kernel for the heat flux computation as proposed, for example, in the paper by Luciani and co-authors [@Luciani83] $$\label{eq:Luciani}
q_{NL}(x)=- \int w(x,x^\prime) \kappa(x^\prime) \nabla T(x^\prime) d x^\prime,$$ where $q_{NL}$ is the [*non-local*]{} heat flux, $w$ the delocalization kernel, $\kappa$ the classical Spitzer-Härm collisional conductivity and $T$ the temperature. The simplest phenomenological form of the kernel is the one in which memory decays exponentially in space, $$\label{eq:w}
w(x,x^\prime)=\frac{1}{2\lambda(x^\prime)} {\rm exp}\left(-|x-x^\prime|/\lambda(x^\prime)\right),$$ where $\lambda(x^\prime)$ is the local electron mean free path at the position $x^\prime$.\
We have shown in Ref. [@HBCPP17] that solving the equation $\partial_x q_{NL}(x)=S$ using this non-local expression for the heat flux computation can lead to discontinuities in the temperature profile if the source term $S$ is very localized in space, such as for example, in the case of the interaction with the wall, and the collisionality takes medium and low values as it can happen in the scrape-off layer (SOL) plasma of tokamaks. In order to overcome this issue we have introduced (see again Ref. [@HBCPP17]) the following expression for the heat flux: $$\label{q_nonlocal}
q_{NL,T}(x) = \widetilde{q_{NL} (x)} + q_{BC,0} exp\left(-\frac{x}{\lambda} \right) + q_{BC,L_\parallel} exp \left( \frac{x-L_\parallel}{\lambda} \right)$$ This expression exhibits a first term describing the non-local heat flux computed from the continuous temperature gradient expression in the plasma. The two last terms represent the impact of the boundary condition in the heat flux, effect that decays exponentially away from the wall.They describe the long range influence of the boundary conditions. The values $q_{bc,0}$ and $q_{bc,L_{\parallel}}$ are adjusted to match the sheath boundary condition for the heat flux, namely $q_{se}=\gamma n_{wall} c_s T_{wall}$ at both ends where $\gamma$ is the so called sheath transmission coefficient. We note that the value of the sheath heat transmission coefficient gamma depends also on the collisionality of the system and can take very large values when the high-energy tail exists (see for example Ref.[@tskhakaya08] and [@froese12]). However, for steady state condition like the one considered in this paper, the sheath transmission coefficients are quite constant for a large range of collisionality values.
Non-local heat transfer in fluid models: Application to 1D Scrape-off layer with localized particle and energy sources {#SOL1D_fluid}
======================================================================================================================
We consider a 1D model of SOL plasma where we solve the standard equations for density, parallel momentum and ion and electron energy balance with standard Bohm boundary conditions, including the non-local expression for heat flux introduced above. Localized sources of density (particle recycling) and energy (e.g. RF heating for both electrons and ions) have been added as follows. For the particle source, simulating a recycling source term we have imposed $$\label{particle_source1D}
S_n(x)=S_n^0 \left[ {\rm exp} \left(-\frac{x}{0.1L_\parallel} \right)+{\rm exp}\left( - \frac{L_\parallel - x}{0.1 L_\parallel} \right) + 0.005 \right],$$ while for the energy sources, we have used Gaussian shaped sources located at the middle of the field line. The width of the energy source is controlled by $\lambda_E$ and reads $$\label{energy_source1D}
S_{Ee,i} = S_{Ee,i}^0 {\rm exp} \left( - \left( \frac{x}{\lambda_E}-\frac{L_\parallel}{2 \lambda_E} \right)^2 \right).$$ We report here two cases obtained varying the amplitude of the energy source and producing a first case at medium collisionality $\nu^{\star}=60$ and a second one at low collisionality with $\nu^{\star}=4$ where $\nu^{\star}=L_{\parallel}/\lambda$ with $\lambda$ the electron mean free path.
![Electron temperature profile along x parallel to magnetic field $B$ from upstream position ($x = 39 m$) to the wall ($x = 78 m$) obtained from SOLEDGE1D simulation at $\nu^{\star}=60$. The solid line represents the results obtained considering the non-local heat flux expression, the dashed line using the SH expression and the dashed-dotted line the flux limiter expression with the free parameter $\alpha=0.15$ (a). Heat flux profile along x parallel to $B$ from upstream position to the wall. The solid blue line is the sum of the contribution from the electron conductive term (reported with dashed line and dominant in this case) and the contribution from the $q_{e,BC}$ expression (see Eq. (\[q\_nonlocal\])) represented in dotted line, representing the long-range influence of the boundary conditions and very small in this case apart very closely to the target. The red solid line is the contribution from the remaining extra terms (e.g. convective, ions), while solid black line is the total heat flux (b).[]{data-label="Soledge1D_nustar60"}](fig2.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
We note that, for the medium collisionality case (see Fig. \[Soledge1D\_nustar60\]) the non-local expression collapses onto the standard SH expression with very small contribution coming from the non-local terms related to the influence of the boundary conditions. However, the $q_{e,BC}$ contribution is, as expected, non-negligible very close to the wall, see again the dotted line in Fig. \[Soledge1D\_nustar60\].
![Electron temperature profile along x parallel to magnetic field $B$ from upstream position ($x = 39 m$) to the wall ($x = 78 m$) obtained from SOLEDGE1D simulation at $\nu^{\star}=4$. Line types in figures are the same as those in Fig. \[Soledge1D\_nustar60\] (a). Heat flux profile along x parallel to $B$ from upstream position to the wall. Line types in figures are the same as those in Fig. \[Soledge1D\_nustar60\]. In this case the $q_{e,BC}$ contribution (dotted blue line) related to non-local effects is very large (b).[]{data-label="Soledge1D_nustar4"}](fig3.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
On the contrary, when the collisionality drops, the non-local expression is able to take into account the influence of the boundary conditions on the whole domain. In Fig.\[Soledge1D\_nustar4\] it appears clear that the contribution from the $q_{e,BC}$ expression to the total parallel heat flux is non-negligible on the entire domain and of the same order of magnitude of the conductive part. Interestingly, thanks to the proposed non-local expression, we can also recover the shape of the energy source into the temperature profile, which is Gaussian in the energy source region (see Fig. \[Soledge1D\_nustar4\] panel a).\
In next section we introduce the kinetic modeling of heat transfer which will be used for a first analysis of the results obtained in this section.
Kinetic modelling of heat transfer {#model2}
==================================
From the kinetic point of view, weakly collisional plasmas are usually studied in terms of their phase-space distribution function $f(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{v})$ by means of the so-called Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation (see e.g. [@vfp1; @vfp2; @vfp3]) that reads for the electron components as $$\label{vfp}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+\mathbf{v}\cdot\nabla_\mathbf{r}f-\frac{e}{m_e}\left(\mathbf{E}+\frac{\mathbf{v}}{c}\times\mathbf{B}\right)\cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{v}}f=\nabla_{\mathbf{v}}\cdot(\nu\nabla_{\mathbf{v}}f).$$ In the equation above, the diffusion coefficient $\nu$ appearing in the velocity-space diffusive term at the rhs could be in principle an explicit function of velocity, or be dependent on position through the local number density $n(\mathbf{r})=\int f{\rm d}\mathbf{v}$, see [@macdonald1957; @rosenbluth1957].\
Equation (\[vfp\]) can be easily integrated with standard implicit Eulerian codes in the 1D1V and 1D2V cases [@vfp2], adopting standard Maxwell solvers to account for the self-consistent electric and magnetic fields $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$. Already in 2 spatial dimensions (2D2V or 2D3V) such approach rapidly becomes numerically expensive and we therefore rely on particle[^1] based (semi-)Lagrangian methods such as particle-in-cell (PIC, see e.g. [@compsim]). Including the contribution of collisions in cell-based PIC codes is usually time consuming and model dependent, here we used a stochastic approach based on the multi-particle collision (hereafter MPC) technique.
Multi-particle collision method {#MPC}
-------------------------------
Originally introduced by Malevanets and Kapral [@1999JChPh.110.8605M] for the simulation of complex fluids (e.g. polymers in solution, colloidal fluids), in 3 spatial dimension, the MPC scheme partitions the system of $N_p$ particles in $N_c$ cells[^2]. Between two standard propagation steps, inside each cell the particle velocities in the cell’s centre of mass $\delta\mathbf{v}_j=\mathbf{v}_j-\mathbf{u}_i$ are rotated of an angle $\varphi$ around a random axis $\mathbf{R}$ and then converted back to the simulation frame, so that for the $j-$th particle in cell $i$ $$\label{rotation}
\mathbf{v}_{j}^\prime=\mathbf{u}_i+\delta\mathbf{v}_{j,\perp}{\rm cos}(\varphi)+(\delta\mathbf{v}_{j,\perp}\times\mathbf{R}){\rm sin}(\varphi)+\delta\mathbf{v}_{j,\parallel},$$ where $\delta\mathbf{v}_{j,\perp}$ and $\delta\mathbf{v}_{j,\parallel}$ are the relative velocity components perpendicular and parallel to $\mathbf{R}$, respectively. Such operation exactly conserves in each cell the total kinetic energy $K_i$ and the three components of the momentum $\mathbf{P}_i$. For an extensive proof of the conservation laws see Appendix A in[@2017PhRvE..95d3203D]. In addition, it is also possible to conserve the component of the angular momentum $\mathbf{L}$ parallel to $\mathbf{R}$ by choosing $\varphi$ so that $$\label{sincos}
{\rm sin}(\varphi)=-\frac{2a_ib_i}{a_i^2+b_i^2};\quad {\rm cos}(\varphi)=\frac{a_i^2-b_i^2}{a_i^2+b_i^2},$$ with cell-dependent coefficients $a_i$ and $b_i$ given by $$\label{ab}
a_i=\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}\left[\mathbf{r}_j\times(\mathbf{v}_j-\mathbf{u}_i)\right]|_z;\quad b_i=\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}\mathbf{r}_j\cdot(\mathbf{v}_j-\mathbf{u}_i).$$ In the formulae above, $\mathbf{r}_j$ are the particles position vectors, and the notation $|_z$ means that one is taking (without loss of generality) the component of the vector $\mathbf{A}_i$ parallel to the $z$ axis of the simulation’s coordinate system.\
For two dimensional systems, Equation (\[rotation\]) reduces to $\mathbf{v}_{j}^\prime=\mathbf{u}_i+\mathbf{G}_{\varphi,i}\cdot\delta\mathbf{v}_{j}$, where $\mathbf{G}_{\varphi,i}$ is a 2D rotation matrix of an angle $\varphi$ chosen according to relations (\[sincos\],\[ab\]), see Ref.[@2017PhRvE..95d3203D]. In both 2D and 3D cases, the generalization to multi-mass models is straightforward and implies the substitution of velocity vectors with momentum vectors.\
In one dimension, the multi-particle collision involves instead a velocity sign inversion with a momentum shift (see also [@2015PhRvE..92f2108D]) and the two conserved quantities are the linear momentum $P_i$ and the kinetic energy $K_i$. During the collision step the stochastic momentum shifts $w_j$ are extracted for each particle from a normal distribution depending on the cell temperature, so that the conservation of $P_i$ and $K_i$ now reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sist}
P_i&=&\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} m_jv_{j}=\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} m_jv^\prime_{j}=\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} (c_iw_j+d_im_j);\nonumber\\
K_i&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} m_jv_{j}^2=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} m_jv_{j}^{\prime 2}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} m_j(c_iw_j/m_j+d_i)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_i$ is the number of particles in cell $i$, $m_j$ and $v_j$ are the $j$-th particles mass and velocity, and $c_i$ and $d_i$ are unknown cell-dependent quantities. Eqs. (\[sist\]) constitute a linear system that to be solved for $c_i$ and $d_i$. We define the stochastic momentum and kinetic energy increments $$\begin{aligned}
P_i^*=\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} w_{j}; \quad K_i^*=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} {w_{j}^2}/{m_j},\end{aligned}$$ and rescale them, together with $P_i$ and $E_i$, by the total mass in cell $i$, $M_i=\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} m_j$ as $\tilde{P_i^*}=P_i^*/M_i$, $\tilde{P_i}=P_i/M_i$, $\tilde{K_i^*}=K_i^*/M_i$ and $\tilde{K_i}=K_i/M_i$. The coefficients $c_i$ and $d_i$ are then easily computed as $$c_i=\sqrt{\frac{{2\tilde K_i-\tilde P_i^2}}{{2\tilde{K_i^*}-\tilde{P_i^{*2}}}}};\quad d_i=\tilde P_i-\tilde{P_i^*}c_i,$$ so that the new velocities after the multi-particle collision finally read $v^\prime_{j}=c_iw_j/m_j+d_i$.\
In a series of papers on the anomalous diffusion and heat transfer in 1D one-component plasmas [@2010JPhCS.260a2005B; @2013PhRvE..87b3102B; @2015PhRvE..92f2108D; @2017PhRvE..95d3203D], we have applied a hybrid PIC-MPC technique where velocity exchange inside the cells is conditioned to an interaction probability $\mathcal{P}_i$ dependent on the local plasma parameters, in order to account for Coulomb collisions in a more physical way and also to treat spatially and thermally inhomogeneous systems.\
In each cell we define the species-averaged [*plasma coupling parameter*]{} $$\bar\Gamma_i=\frac{E_{C,i}}{k_BT_i},$$ where $E_{C,i}=\langle q^2\rangle_i/4\pi\epsilon_0\xi_i$ is the mean Coulomb energy per particle, $\langle q^2\rangle_i$ the particles average (squared) charge in cell $i$, and $\xi_i$ is a typical inter-particle distance depending on the local particle number density $n_i$, finally, the cell temperature $T_i$ is assumed to be proportional to the average kinetic energy of the particles inside the cell as $k_BT_i=(1/N_i)\sum m_jv_j$. Before the collision step, the code evaluates for each cell the (multi-particle) collision probability as $$\label{prob}
\mathcal{P}_i=\frac{1}{1+\bar\Gamma_i^{-2}}.$$ After sampling a random number $\mathcal{P}_i^*$ from a uniform distribution in the interval $[0,1]$, the multi-particle collision happens if $\mathcal{P}_i^*/\mathcal{P}_i\leq1$.
Preliminary 1D kinetic simulations
----------------------------------
Here we present numerical simulations of 1D systems modelling the plasma dynamics along a field line between a hot thermal bath (upstream region) and the colder wall region. In this preliminary work we always assume regimes of strong correlation between ion and electron motion as well as fulfillment of quasi-neutrality condition. In such conditions, the main contribution to the heat flux is due to electrons (see panels (b) of Figs. \[Soledge1D\_nustar60\] and \[Soledge1D\_nustar4\]), we therefore consider a single component system representing the electrons and treat the ions as a non-interacting background adjusting itself as the electron density $n_e$ evolves, in order to yield a globally null electric field. With such assumptions Equation (\[vfp\]) becomes a standard one dimensional Fokker-Planck equation of the form $\partial_t f +v\partial_r f=\partial_v(\nu\partial_v f)$.\
In our PIC-MPC code the interaction with the hot source and the wall is modeled with standard Maxwellian thermal baths. In practice, when a simulation particle enters the hot region its velocity $v$ is substituted with a new velocity $v^\prime$ taken from a Maxwellian distribution at temperature $T_{\rm Hot}$. when instead the particle hits the cold wall, it is either reflected elastically, or re-immitted in the simulation domain with a velocity taken from a Maxwellian distribution at temperature $T_{\rm Cold}$, with probabilities one-half. Note that, with such choice, the total particle number $N_p$ is conserved as no particle leaves the system. In principle, it is also possible to account for particle evaporation by considering an additional velocity-dependent exclusion protocol that selects hotter particles and removes them from the system. A ”stochastic evaporation" algorithm is currently under testing and will be discussed in a forthcoming publication.\
![For two models with $\Gamma=6$ and 0.66: final electron number density $n_{e}$ (a) and temperature profile $T_e$ (b) as function of the parallel coordinate $x/L_{||}$, and density temperature relation (squares) and best-fit curves (solid lines), (c). Parallel density and temperature profiles are given only for $L_{||}/2\leq x\leq L_{||}$, as they are perfectly symmetrical in the other half of the simulation domain.[]{data-label="rhotemp"}](fig4.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Particle propagation is carried out with a standard second order leap-frog scheme while collisions are accounted for as described in Sec. \[MPC\]. All simulations discussed here were performed with fixed timestep $\delta\tau=0.01\Omega_P^{-1}$, where $\Omega_P=\sqrt{n_ee^2/m_e\epsilon_0}$ is the plasma frequency of the system neglecting the thermal motion, and extended up to $\tau=10^3/\Omega_P$.\
In the kinetic simulations we have taken the same combinations of temperature, density and parallel length as in the two cases discussed in Sect. \[SOL1D\_fluid\], yielding the two values of the collisionality $\nu^\star=60$, 4. We have assumed equilibrium initial conditions by placing the particles representing the electron component homogeneously on the simulation domain $\left[0, L_{||}\right]$ (i.e. constant initial electron number density $n_{e,0}$), with velocities taken from a thermal distribution at temperature $T_{e,0}$. After a short transient of about $10\delta\tau$ the thermal baths at $T_{\rm hot}=130$ eV and $T_{\rm cold}=78$, and $T_{\rm hot}=345$ eV and $T_{\rm cold}=285$ eV for the $\nu^\star=60$ and $\nu^\star=4$ cases are applied for both cases in $x=L_{||}/2$ and $x=0$, $L_{||}$.\
From the initial values of the electron temperature and density $T_{e,0}$ and $n_{e,0}$ we derive the initial global plasma coupling parameter $\Gamma=E_{C,0}/k_BT_0$ that gives another measure of how strong is the system’s collisionality (at least) in its initial state (i.e., at fixed $L_{||}$ or at fixed $\Omega_P$, larger $\Gamma$ implies higher collisionality). With the present combination
![Velocity distributions $f(v)$ for the case with $\nu^\star=60$ (a) and $\nu^\star=4$ (b). The thin solid lines correspond to the equilibrium state (reached at around $\tau\approx 10^3$), while the heavy solid line mark the initial velocity distributions. Sections of the phase-space distribution function $f(x,v)$ at the cold wall (dashed lines) and hot (solid lines lines) (c). In all cases the velocities are normalized with respect to the initial thermal velocity $v_{{\rm th},0}$.[]{data-label="frv"}](fig5.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
of parameters we obtain $\Gamma\approx 6$ for $\nu^\star=60$ and $\Gamma\approx 0.66$ for $\nu^\star=4$.\
Figure \[rhotemp\] shows the asymptotic equilibrium state of the two models with collisionality $\nu^\star=60$ and 4 ($\Gamma=6$ and 0.66), in contact with a hot source at $x=L_{||}/2$ and a cold wall at $x=0$ and $L_{||}$. In both cases the systems (consistently) show non-uniform density profiles with a density accumulation in correspondence of the cold source. Vice-versa, the density depletes approaching the hot source, due to the larger mean velocities of particle in this region. At variance with Figs. \[Soledge1D\_nustar60\]-\[Soledge1D\_nustar4\], the electron temperature $T_e$ is given in units of the system’s mean final temperature $T_M$, so that the two curves can be more easily compared being on the same scale. The initially more collisional system (i.e. $\Gamma=6$) has a quasi-linear temperature profile over a broader interval of the parallel coordinate $x$ (i.e. $0.5\leq x/L_{||}\leq 0.73$), while the weakly collisional system has a more complex asymptotic temperature profile characterized by several slope changes and a flat central region (remarkably similar to the corresponding curve in Fig. \[Soledge1D\_nustar4\], panel a), pointing to a highly non-local heat transport regime. Remarkably, in both cases the final electron pressure $P_e\propto n_eT_e$ is spatially constant as we clearly observe $n_e\propto T_e^{-1}$ at $\tau=10^3$ (panel c).\
Figure \[frv\] shows for the same systems of Fig. \[rhotemp\] the initial and final velocity distributions $f(v)$ (panels a, b) and the sections of (half of) the numerically-recovered phase-space distribution function $f(x,v)$ at $x=L_{||}/2$ and $x=L_{||}$ (panel c). The strongly interacting model with $\nu^\star=60$ presents a final $f(v)$ that is well described by a Gaussian, while the model with $\nu^\star=4$ has a clearly non-thermal final velocity distribution. Both cases, however, appear to be colder in their final state with respect to their initial states. For what concerns the phase-space distribution, while in both cases $f(x,v)$ clearly approaches a thermal distribution in correspondence of the cold point, the structure of $f(x,v)$ at $x=L_{||}/2$ is somewhat more complicated and characterized by a fatter tail at positive velocities (i.e. corresponding to particles moving [*towards*]{} the cold point). In addition, in correspondence of the highest velocities attained by the particles, two peak-like structures can be clearly seen. We interpret this feature as a finite-size effect due to the almost vanishing life-time of larger velocities reaching the cold wall. In fact, at fixed $\nu^\star$, $\Gamma$, and thermal baths temperatures $T_{\rm hot}$ and $T_{\rm cold}$, such peaks tend to disappear for increasing $L_{||}$.
Conclusion and outlook
======================
We have shown the impact of flux limiter techniques on the computation of heat flux on divertor tokamak simulations. We have proposed the implementation of a non-local approach in a 1D fluid model and we have rpesented the numerical results obtained with SOLED1D at medium and high collisionality. In the second part of the paper a PIC-MPC kinetic simulations are presented. they offer a particle-based approach that appears to be more suitable to study transient regimes and relaxation processes. Remarkably, for the case studies discussed in this paper, we found good agreement between this approach and the fluid modelling, suggesting that further evolutions of the fluid scheme could be tested against more detailed particle-in-cell-MPC simulations including more species and the effect of the self-consistent fields.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training program 2014-2018 under grant agreement No 633053 for the project WP17-ENR-CEA-01. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. This work was granted access to the HPC resources of Aix-Marseille University financed by the project Equip@Meso (ANR-10-EQPX-29-01) of the program “Investissments d’Avenir” supervised by the Agence Nationale pour la Recherche. P.F.D.C. acknowledges partial support by the INFN project DYNSYSMATH 2017.
[55]{}
[^1]: Note that particles are to be thought as a discrete sampling of $f$, rather than actual “particles".
[^2]: In our implementation the mesh used in the MPC step is the same as the one used by the PIC code to compute electromagnetic fields.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study fixed point properties of the automorphism group of the universal Coxeter group . In particular, we prove that whenever acts by isometries on complete $d$-dimensional space with $d<\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$, then it must fix a point. We also prove that does not have Kazhdan’s property (T). Further, strong restrictions are obtained on homomorphisms of to groups that do not contain a copy of ${\rm Sym}(n)$.'
address: |
Olga Varghese\
Department of Mathematics\
Münster University\
Einsteinstraße 62\
48149 Münster (Germany)
author:
- Olga Varghese
title: The automorphism group of the universal Coxeter group
---
Introduction
============
This article belongs to geometric group theory, a young research field which lies in the intersection of algebra, geometry and topology. Geometric group theory studies the interplay between algebraic and geometric properties of groups. In this article we explore the structure of the automorphism group of the universal Coxeter group of rank $n$, ${\rm Aut}(W_n):={\rm Aut}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2*\ldots*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2)$, from geometric perspective. For small $n$ we have: ${\rm Aut}(W_1)\cong\left\{{\rm id}\right\}$ and ${\rm Aut}(W_2)\cong W_2$. It was proven by Mühlherr that for $n\geq 3$ there exists an injective homomorphism $\iota:{\rm Aut}(W_n)\hookrightarrow{\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})$, where $F_{n-1}$ is a free group of rank $n-1$, see [@Muehlherr]. Further, the abelianization map $F_{n-1}\twoheadrightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^{n-1}$ gives a natural epimorphism ${\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})\twoheadrightarrow{\rm GL}_{n-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})$. We obtain the following interaction of groups: $${\rm Aut}(W_n)\hookrightarrow{\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})\twoheadrightarrow{\rm GL}_{n-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}).$$ As a special case, we have: ${\rm Out}(W_3)\cong{\rm Out}(F_2)\cong{\rm GL}_2({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}).$ Many algebraic and geometric properties are known for the groups ${\rm Aut}(F_n)$ and ${\rm GL}_{n-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})$, but the research on the structure of the automorphism group of the universal Coxeter group is quite new.
We start to present results concerning fixed point properties of . A group $G$ is said to have property $\F\mathcal{A}_d$ if any action of $G$ by isometries on complete space of covering dimension $d$ has a fixed point. We prove
If $n\geq 4$ and $d<\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor$, then has property $\F\mathcal{A}_{d}$.
Concerning ${\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})$ and ${\rm GL}_{n-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})$ similar results were proved in [@Varghese]. Recall that a group $G$ is said to satisfy Serre’s property ${\rm F}\mathcal{A}$ if every action, without inversions, of $G$ on a simplicial tree has a fixed point. Serre proved that ${\rm GL}_n({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})$ has property $\F\mathcal{A}$ for $n\geq 3$. Regarding ${\rm Aut}(F_n)$ Bogopolski was the first to prove that this group also has property $\F\mathcal{A}$, see [@BogopolskiFA]. The next corollary follows immediately from Theorem A.
The group has Serre’s property if and only if $n=1$ or $n\geq 4$. In particular, is isomorphic to a non-trivial amalgam if and only if $n=2$ or $n=3$.
If a group has property ${\rm F}\mathcal{A}$ it is interesting to know if this group also has Kazhdan’s property (T). For the group we prove
(see Theorem 3.5) For $n\geq 2$, does not have Kazhdan’s property (T).
We say that a finitely generated group $G$ is a group if $G$ acts properly, cocompactly by isometries on a metric space. It is known that ${\rm Aut}(W_2)$ and ${\rm Aut}(W_3)\cong{\rm Aut}(F_2)$ are groups, see Lemma 2.3 and [@Piggott]. For $n\geq 4$, we conjecture that ${\rm Aut}(W_n)$ is a group.
Our results concerning linear and free representations of rely on the following fact.
For $n\geq 4$, let $\phi:{\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow G$ be a group homomorphism. If $G$ does not contain an isomorphic image of ${\rm Sym}(n)$, then the image of $\phi$ is finite. In particular, if $n\geq 5$ then the image has cardinality at most $4$.
By Theorem D follows that the homomorphism ${\rm Aut}(W_n)\hookrightarrow{\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})\twoheadrightarrow{\rm GL}_{n-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})\hookrightarrow{\rm GL}_{n-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is minimal in the following sense.
For $n\geq 4$, let $\rho:{\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm GL}_d(K)$ be a linear representation over a field $K$. If $d<n-1$ and ${\rm char}(K)=0$ or ${\rm char}(K)\nmid n$, then the image of $\rho$ is finite.
From representation theory of ${\rm Sym}(n)$ [@Berkovich Chap.19, §8 Thm. 22] we obtain that ${\rm GL}_d(K)$ does not contain an isomorphic image of ${\rm Sym}(n)$, hence by Theorem D the image of $\rho$ is finite.\
We have ${\rm Aut}(W_n)\hookrightarrow{\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})$ and ${\rm Sym}(n+1)\nsubseteq{\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})$, see proof of Theorem A in [@BridsonVogtmann]. Further, since for $d<n-1$ the group ${\rm Sym}(n)\nsubseteq{\rm Aut}(F_d),{\rm Out}(F_d)$ and ${\rm GL}_d({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})$, see [@BridsonVogtmann Lemma 2], we obtain the following results.
Let $n\geq 4$.
1. If $d<n$, then every homomorphism $\phi:{\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm Aut}(W_d)$ has finite image.
2. If $d<n-1$, then every homomorphism ${\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow {\rm Aut}(F_d)$ has finite image. The same result is true for homomorphisms ${\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm Out}(F_d)$ and ${\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm GL}_d({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})$.
Remarks {#remarks .unnumbered}
-------
My research on the automorphism group of the universal Coxeter group was motivated by discussion with N. Leder about property $\F\mathcal{A}$ for automorphism groups of graph products. In his preprint [@Leder] he proved several results concerning Serre’s property ${\rm F}\mathcal{A}$ for automorphism groups of free products of cyclic groups. Further, J. Flechsig wrote his Master’s Thesis about algebraic and geometric properties of based on this article, see [@Flechsig].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The author thanks the referee for careful reading of the manuscript and for helpful remarks concerning groups.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $(W_n, S_n)$ be the universal Coxeter system of rank $n$, i.e $S_n$ is a set $\left\{s_1,\ldots, s_n\right\}$ and the group $W_n$ is given by the following presentation $W_n=\langle S_n\mid s^2_1,\ldots, s^2_n\rangle$. By we denote the automorphism group of the group $W_n$.
The purpose of this section is to give a generating set of the group for $n\geq 2$. Let us first introduce a notation for some elements of . We define the partial conjugations $\sigma_{ij}$ and permutations $\alpha_\pi$ for $1\leq i\neq j\leq n$ and $\pi\in{\rm Sym}(n)$ as follows: $$\begin{matrix}
\sigma_{ij}(s_{k}):=\begin{cases} s_{i}s_{j}s_{i} & \mbox{if $k=j$,} \\
s_{k} & \mbox{if $k\neq j$,}
\end{cases}
& \text{$ $}
\alpha_\pi(s_{k}):=s_{\pi(k)}
\end{matrix}$$ It was proven by Mühlherr in [@Muehlherr Theorem B]) that for $n\geq 2$ the group is generated by the set $$\left\{\alpha_\pi, \ \sigma_{ij}\mid \pi\in{\rm Sym}(n), 1\leq i\neq j\leq n \right\}.$$ The subgroup generated by $\left\{\alpha_\pi\mid\pi\in{\rm Sym}(n)\right\}$ is isomorphic to ${\rm Sym}(n)$. It is well known that this group is generated by the involutions $(i,i+1)$ with $i=1, \ldots, n-1$. Hence the group is generated by the set $$\left\{\alpha_{(i, i+1)}, \ \sigma_{kl}\mid 1\leq i\leq n-1, 1\leq k\neq l\leq n \right\}.$$ Further we have the following relations: $\alpha_\pi\sigma_{ij}\alpha^{-1}_\pi=\sigma_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}$. Therefore we obtain the following generating set for :
\[GenAut\] Let $n\geq 2$ and $1\leq k\neq l\leq n$. The group is generated by $$Y:=\left\{ \sigma_{kl}, \ \alpha_{(i,i+1)} \mid i=1,\ldots, n-1\right\}.$$
\[epi\] For $n\geq 2$, the group is a quotient of a Coxeter group $G$ whose Coxeter graph looks like as follows
(0,0.1)–(0.9,1); (0,0.1)–(0,1.9); (0,1.9)–(0.9,1); (1.1,1)–(2.4,1); (2.6,1)–(3.9,1); (4.1,1)–(5.4,1); (5.6,1)–(6.9,1); (8.6,1)–(9.9,1); (0,0) circle (3pt); (0,-0.5) node ; (0,2) circle (3pt); (0,2.5) node ; (1,1) circle (3pt); (1.25,0.5) node ; (2.5,1) circle (3pt); (2.5,1.5) node ; (4,1) circle (3pt); (4,0.5) node ; (5.5,1) circle (3pt); (5.5,1.5) node ; (7.80,1) node [$\ldots$]{}; (10,1) circle (3pt); (10,0.5) node ;
(0.5,0.35) node ;
(-0.3,0.85) node ;
Further, the subgroup of generated by $\left\{\sigma_{12}, \alpha_{(i,i+1)}\mid i=2, \ldots, n-1\right\}$ is finite.
The elements in $Y$ are involutions. We define a homomorphism $f:G\rightarrow{\rm Aut}(W_n)$ as follows: for $1\leq i\leq n-1$: $(i,i+1)\mapsto \alpha_{(i,i+1)}$ and $\overline{\sigma_{12}}\mapsto\sigma_{12}$. This map is well-defined and surjective. The subgroup of $G$ generated by $\left\{\overline{\sigma_{12}}, (i,i+1)\mid i=2,\ldots, n-1\right\}$ is a Coxeter group of type $B_{n-1}$ and is therefore finite. The subgroup of generated by $\left\{\sigma_{12}, \alpha_{(i,i+1)}\mid i=2, \ldots, n-1\right\}$ is the image of the subgroup generated by $\left\{\overline{\sigma_{12}}, (i,i+1)\mid i=2,\ldots, n-1\right\}$ under $f$ and therefore also finite.
Let us consider the map $\epsilon:W_n\rightarrow\left\{-1,1\right\}$ which sends each generator $s_i$ to $-1$. Mühlherr proved in [@Muehlherr] that the kernel of $\epsilon$ is a characteristic subgroup of $W_n$ and it is isomorphic to $F_{n-1}$. Further the set $\left\{x_i:=s_is_{i+1}\mid i=1, \ldots, n-1\right\}$ is a basis of this kernel and the natural map $$\iota:{\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm Aut}({\rm ker}(\epsilon))\cong{\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})$$ is for $n\geq 3$ a monomorphism. An easy calculation yields:
\[Iso\] The map $\iota:{\rm Aut}(W_3)\rightarrow{\rm Aut}(F_2)$ is an isomorphism.
For a generating set of ${\rm Aut}(F_2)$ see [@Kramer Proposition 1].
Fixed point properties of
==========================
Definitions and properties concerning spaces can be found in [@BH]. We need the following crucial definition.
1. A group $G$ has Serre’s property $\F\mathcal{A}$ if any simplicial action without inversions on a simplicial tree has a fixed point.
2. A group $G$ has property $\F\mathcal{A}_d$ if any isometric action on a complete space of covering dimension $d$ has a fixed point.
Our main technique in the proof of Theorem A is based on the following criterion, see [@Varghese] for the proof.
\[HellyGroup\] Let $G$ be a group, $Y$ a finite generating set of $G$ and $X$ a complete $d$-dimensional space. If $\Phi:G\rightarrow{\rm Isom}(X)$ is a homomorphism such that each $(d+1)$-element subset of $Y$ has a fixed point in $X$, then $G$ has a fixed point in $X$.
The following version of the Bruhat-Tits Fixed Point Theorem [@BH 2.8] is crucial for our arguments.
\[boundedOrbit\] Let $G$ be a group acting on a complete space $X$ by isometries. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. The group $G$ has a global fixed point.
2. Each orbit of $G$ is bounded.
3. The group $G$ has a bounded orbit.
If the group $G$ satisfies one of the conditions above, then $G$ is called bounded on $X$.\
The implications $i)\Rightarrow ii)$ and $ii)\Rightarrow iii)$ are trivial, and $iii)\Rightarrow i)$ is proven in [@BH 2.8]. $ $\
The following corollary is an easy consequence of Proposition \[boundedOrbit\].
\[comm\] Let $G_{1}$, $G_{2}$ be groups, $X$ a complete space and $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{1}&:G_{1}\rightarrow{\rm Isom}(X),\\
\phi_{2}&:G_{2}\rightarrow{\rm Isom}(X) \end{aligned}$$ homomorphisms. If $G_{1}$ and $G_{2}$ are bounded on $X$ and $\phi_{1}(g_{1})\circ\phi_{2}(g_{2})=\phi_{2}(g_{2})\circ\phi_{1}(g_{1})$ for all $g_{1}$ in $G_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ in $G_{2}$, then the map $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{1}\times\phi_{2}:G_{1}\times G_{2}&\rightarrow{\rm Isom}(X)\\
(g_{1}, g_{2})&\mapsto\phi(g_{1})\circ\phi(g_{2})\end{aligned}$$ is a homomorphism and $G_{1}\times G_{2}$ is bounded on $X$.
For the proof of Theorem A we need one more ingredient.
([@MappingClassFA 3.6]) \[conjugates\] Let $k$ and $l$ be in $\mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and let $X$ be a complete $d$-dimensional space, with $d<k\cdot l$. Let $S$ be a subset of ${\rm Isom}(X)$ and let $S_{1},\ldots, S_{l}$ be conjugates of $S$ such that $[S_{i}, S_{j}]=1$ for $i\neq j$. If each $k$-element subset of $S$ has a fixed point in $X$, then each finite subset of $S$ has a fixed point in $X$.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem A.
\[MainTheorem\] If $n\geq 4$ and $d<\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor$, then has property $\F\mathcal{A}_{d}$.
Let $X$ be a $d$-dimensional complete space with $d<\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor$ and $$\Phi:{\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm Isom}(X)$$ an action of on $X$. By Proposition \[GenAut\] the group is generated by the set $$Y:=\left\{ \alpha_{(i,i+1)}, \sigma_{12}\mid i=1,\ldots, n-1\right\}.$$ By Corollary \[epi\] we have an epimorphism $f: G\twoheadrightarrow{\rm Aut}(W_n)$. Now we consider the following homomorphism $$\Phi\circ f: G\twoheadrightarrow{\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm Isom}(X).$$
It is obvious that if a subgroup of $G$ has a fixed point in $X$, then the image of this subgroup under $f$, a subgroup in , also has a fixed point.
We know by Proposition \[boundedOrbit\] that each $1$-element subset of $Y$ has a fixed point. Now we assume that each $k$-element subset with $k\leq d$ of $Y$ has a fixed point. Let $Y'$ be a $(k+1)$-element subset of $Y$.
If $\sigma_{12}$ is not in $Y'$, then $\langle Y'\rangle$ is a finite subgroup of and this subgroup has by Proposition \[boundedOrbit\] a fixed point.
If $\sigma_{12}$ is in $Y'$, we consider the corresponding Coxeter diagram of $\langle Y'\rangle\subseteq G$. If it is not connected, then it follows from the hypothesis and from Corollary \[comm\] that $\langle Y'\rangle $ has a fixed point. If the Coxeter diagram of $\langle Y'\rangle\subseteq G$ is connected, then we have the following cases:
1. $Y'=\left\{\sigma_{12},\alpha_{(1,2)}, \alpha_{(2,3)}, \alpha_{(3,4)},\ldots,\alpha_{(k,k+1)}\right\}$,
2. $Y'=\left\{\sigma_{12}, \alpha_{(2,3)}, \alpha_{(3,4)}, \alpha_{(5,6)},\ldots,\alpha_{(k+1,k+2)}\right\}$.
If $Y'$ is equal to $\left\{\sigma_{12},\alpha_{(1,2)}, \alpha_{(2,3)}, \alpha_{(3,4)},\ldots,\alpha_{(k,k+1)}\right\}$, then we define the permutations $$\tau_{i}:=(1, (k+1)\cdot(i-1)+1)(2, (k+1)\cdot(i-1)+2)\ldots(k+1,(k+1)\cdot(i-1)+k+1)$$ and the sets $$S_{i}:=\alpha_{\tau_{i}}Y'\alpha^{-1}_{\tau_{i}}$$ for $i\in\left\{1,\ldots,\left\lfloor\frac{n}{k+1}\right\rfloor\right\}$. The sets $S_{1},\ldots, S_{\left\lfloor\frac{n}{k+1}\right\rfloor}$ have the property that $[S_{i},S_{j}]=1$ for $i\neq j$. By the assumption each $k$-element subset of $Y'$ has a fixed point and it follows from Proposition \[conjugates\] that for $d<k\left\lfloor\frac{n}{k+1}\right\rfloor$ the set $Y'$ has a fixed point. An easy calculation shows, that $\left\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\right\rfloor\leq k\left\lfloor\frac{n}{k+1}\right\rfloor$ for $1\leq k\leq d$.
If $Y'$ is equal to $\left\{\rho_{12}, (x_{2},x_{3}), (x_{3},x_{4}),\ldots,(x_{k+1},x_{k+2})\right\}$, then $\langle Y'\rangle$ is finite (Coxeter group of type $B_{k+1}$).
By Farb’s Fixed Point Criterion it follows that has a global fixed point.
The group has Serre’s property iff $n=1$ or $n\geq 4$. In particular, is isomorphic to a non-trivial amalgam iff $n=2, 3$.
For $n=1$ we have ${\rm Aut}(W_1)\cong\left\{{\rm id}\right\}$ and hence this group has property . For $n=2$ the group $W_2$ is the infinite dihedral group and by [@Thomas 1.4] ${\rm Aut}(W_2)\cong W_2$ and therefore this group does not have property , see [@Serre 6.1 Theorem 15]. By Lemma \[Iso\] we have ${\rm Aut}(W_3)\cong{\rm Aut}(F_2)$ and this group does not have property , see [@BogopolskiFA]. By Theorem A the group has property for $n\geq 4$.
By Proposition \[GenAut\] the group is generated by elements of finite order and therefore does not surjects to $\mathbb{Z}$. Thus, is isomorphic to a non-trivial amalgam iff $n=2, 3$ by [@Serre §6 Theorem 15].
The next question we want to investigate is the following: [*do subgroups of finite index in have property ?*]{}
Let $G$ be any group. Then the group of its automorphisms acts on the conjugacy classes of involutions of $G$. The kernel of this action is called the group of special automorphisms and denoted by ${\rm Spe}(G)$, it contains the group of inner automorphisms, denoted by ${\rm Inn}(G)$. For the universal Coxeter group $W_n$ there are $n$ conjugacy classes of involutions, and we have ${\rm Aut}(W_n)/{\rm Spe}(W_n)\cong {\rm Sym}(n)$.
For $n\geq 2$, the group doesn’t have property . Hence and don’t have Kazhdan’s property (T).
Let $\pi: W_n\twoheadrightarrow W_2$ be the projection by sending $s_1\mapsto s_1, s_2\mapsto s_2$ and $s_i\mapsto 1$ for $i\geq 3$. The kernel of $\pi$ is characteristic under ${\rm Spe}(W_n)$. Therefore we obtain the following map $\Psi:{\rm Spe}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm Spe}(W_2)$ which is surjective. Since ${\rm Spe}(W_2)=\langle \sigma_{12}, \sigma_{21}\rangle\cong W_2$, see [@Muehlherr2], this group doesn’t have property , therefore also doesn’t have property . By the result of Watatani [@Watatani] follows that doesn’t have property (T). Since property (T) descends to finite index subgroups it follows that doesn’t have property (T) either.
If a group does not have property (T) it is natural to ask if this group is amenable. Concerning the group we prove:
The group is amenable iff $n=1,2$.
For $n=1, 2$ we have: ${\rm Aut}(W_1)=\left\{{\rm id}\right\}$, ${\rm Aut}(W_2)\cong W_2\cong{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\rtimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$. By [@Bekka G.2.1] ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ are amenable and by [@Bekka G.3.6] follows that ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\rtimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ is amenable.
For $n\geq 3$ let us consider the monomorphism $\iota:{\rm Aut}(W_n)\rightarrow{\rm Aut}(F_{n-1})$ again. We denote by $g_{x_i}\in{\rm Inn}(F_{n-1})$ the conjugation with $x_i$ for $i=1, \ldots, n-1$. We have: $$\iota(\sigma_{12}\sigma_{13}\ldots\sigma_{1n}\sigma_{21}\sigma_{23}\ldots\sigma_{2n})=g_{x_1}$$ and $$\iota(\sigma_{21}\sigma_{23}\ldots\sigma_{2n}\sigma_{31}\sigma_{32}\ldots\sigma_{3n})=g_{x_2}$$ We obtain: $$\langle \sigma_{12}\sigma_{13}\ldots\sigma_{1n}\sigma_{21}\sigma_{23}\ldots\sigma_{2n}, \ \sigma_{21}\sigma_{23}\ldots\sigma_{2n}\sigma_{31}\sigma_{32}\ldots\sigma_{3n}\rangle\cong\langle g_{x_1}, g_{x_2}\rangle \cong F_2.$$ Hence $F_{2}$ is a subgroup of . By [@Bekka G.3.5] follows that is not amenable.
Proof of Theorem D
==================
We denote by $\Sigma_n=\left\{\alpha_{\pi}\mid \pi\in{\rm Sym}(n)\right\}\subseteq{\rm Aut}(W_n)$ and by $A_n=\left\{\alpha_\pi\mid \pi\in{\rm Alt}(n)\right\}\subseteq \Sigma_n$. We have $\Sigma_n\cong{\rm Sym}(n)$ and $A_n\cong {\rm Alt}(n)$. Let $K$ be the kernel of $\phi_{|\Sigma_n}$. Since $n\geq 4$ and $K\neq 1$, we must have $A_n\subseteq K$ or $K=\left\{id, \alpha_{(12)(34)}, \alpha_{(13)(24)}, \alpha_{(14)(23)}\right\}$. If $A_n\subseteq K$, then we consider the following generating set of : $$\left\{\alpha_\pi, \alpha_{(1,2)}, \sigma_{34}\mid \pi\in {\rm Alt}(n) \right\}.$$ Hence the image of $\phi$ is generated by $$\left\{\phi(\alpha_\pi), \phi(\alpha_{(1,2)}), \phi(\sigma_{34})\mid \pi\in{\rm Alt}(n)\right\}.$$ Since $A_n\subseteq K$, we have $$\phi({\rm Aut}(W_n))=\langle \phi(\alpha_{(1,2)}), \phi(\sigma_{34})\rangle.$$ The elements $\alpha_{(1,2)}$ and $\sigma_{34}$ are commuting involutions, therefore $\phi({\rm Aut}(W_n))\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$.
If $K=\left\{id, \alpha_{(12)(34)}, \alpha_{(13)(24)}, \alpha_{(14)(23)}\right\}$, then $n=4$ and we consider the following generating set of ${\rm Aut}(W_4)$: $$\left\{K, \alpha_{(2,3)}, \alpha_{(3,4)}, \sigma_{12}\right\}.$$ The image of $\phi$ is generated by $$\left\{\phi(\alpha_{(2,3)}), \phi(\alpha_{(3,4)}), \phi(\sigma_{12})\right\}.$$ By Corollary \[epi\] the subgroup of ${\rm Aut}(W_4)$ generated by $\left\{\alpha_{(2,3)}, \alpha_{(3,4)}, \sigma_{12}\right\}$ is finite. Hence the image of $\phi$ is also finite.
[alpha]{}
B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe, A. Valette, Kazhdan’s property $(T)$, New Mathematical Monographs, 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
Y. G. Berkovich, E. M. Zhmud, Characters of finite groups, Part 2, Translated from the Russian manuscript by P. Shumyatsky, V. Zobina and Berkovich. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 181. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999.
O. Bogopolski, Arboreal decomposability of groups of automorphisms of a free groups, Algebra and Logic 26, (1987), no. 2, 79–91.
M. Bridson, A. Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 319. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
M. Bridson, K. Vogtmann, Homomorphisms from automorphism groups of free groups, Bull. London Math. Soc. 35 (2003), no. 6, 785–792.
M. Bridson, On the dimension of spaces where mapping class groups act, J. Reine Angew. Math. 673 (2012), 55–68.
J. Flechsig, Algebraic and geometric properties of the automorphism group of the universal Coxeter group, Master’s Thesis, WWU Münster, 2019.
P. Kramer, Involutive generators and actions for the group $\Phi_2$, J. Phys. A 27 (1994), no. 6, 2011–2022.
N. Leder, Serre’s Property FA for automorphism groups of free products, arXiv:1810.06287.
B. Mühlherr, Automorphisms of free groups and universal Coxeter groups, Symmetries in science, IX (Bregenz, 1996), 263–268, Plenum, New York, 1997.
B. Mühlherr, Automorphisms of Graph-Universal Coxeter groups, J. Algebra 200 (1998), no. 2, 629–649.
A. Piggott, K. Ruane, G. S. Walsh, The automorphism group of the free group of rank 2 is a CAT(0) group. Michigan Math. J. 59 (2010), no. 2, 297–302.
J.-R. Serre, Trees, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Spronger-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
S. Thomas, The automorphism tower problem, www.math.rutgers.edu/ sthomas/book.ps.
O. Varghese, Fixed points for actions of ${\rm Aut}(F_n)$ on spaces. Münster J. Math. 7 (2014), no. 2, 439–462.
Y. Watatani, Property (T) of Kazhdan implies Property (FA) of Serre. Math. Japonica, 27, (1982), 97–103.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Using vector meson dominance (VMD), tensor glueball photoproduction cross sections, asymmetries and widths are calculated. The predicted hadronic $V V'$ decays are comparable for different vector meson ($V = \rho , \omega$ and $\phi$) channels with the $\omega \phi$ width the largest but the radiative $\omega \gamma$ and $\phi \gamma$ decays are suppressed relative to $\rho
\gamma$ by over a factor of 2. This decay profile is distinct from typical meson branching rates and may be a useful glueball detection signature. Results are compared to a previous VMD scalar glueball study.
address:
- 'Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA'
- |
Nuclear Physics Group, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23668 USA\
and\
Jefferson Lab, 12000 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News, VA 23606 USA
author:
- 'Stephen R. Cotanch'
- 'Robert A. Williams'
title: Tensor Glueball Photoproduction and Decay
---
=10000 = 12pt = 9.25in = -.25in = .3in
Documenting hadron states with predominantly gluonic degrees of freedom, i.e. glueballs, has been a challenging and somewhat elusive pursuit. Even though such states are consistent with quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and predicted by both lattice simulations [@bali; @sexton; @morningstar; @lucini] and gluonic models [@ssjc; @flsc], clear experimental evidence is lacking. The purpose of this letter is to motivate additional experimental investigations by providing estimates, based upon VMD, of tensor glueball photoproduction observables and also to detail a possible decay signature for hadronic states with a significant gluonic component. The latter entails comparable $VV'$ hadronic widths, with the largest branch to $\omega
\phi$ that promptly goes to $3 \pi K \bar{K}$, and somewhat suppressed $\omega \gamma$ and $\phi \gamma$ radiative decays relative to $\rho \gamma$. As discussed below, this decay signature is not expected for hadrons with a predominantly quark structure. These results are essentially model-independent since they follow directly from the general principles of VMD, which has been found to agree with more fundamental QCD based meson radiative calculations [@scpm], and the flavor independence of quark-gluonic couplings.
Consider the radiative decay $f_2 \rightarrow V(k') \gamma(k)$ of a neutral tensor hadron with arbitrary quark, gluon structure and mass $M_f$. Here $k$, $k'$ are the momenta of the photon and vector meson with mass $M_V$ ($k'^2 = M_V^2$). The most general, gauge invariant $f_2V
\gamma$ vertex is [@ren; @ol] $$\begin{aligned}
<\gamma (k) V(k') | f_2> &=& \epsilon^\kappa \epsilon'^\lambda f^{\mu \nu}
A_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu} (k, k') \ ,
\\
A_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu} (k, k') &=& 4 \frac{g_1}{M_f^4} B_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu} + 2
\frac{g_2}{M_f^2} C_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu} \ ,
\\
B_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu} (k, k') &=& (g_{\kappa \lambda} k \cdot k' -
k'_\kappa k_\lambda) k_\mu
k_\nu \ ,
\\
C_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu} (k, k') &=& 2g_{\kappa \lambda} k_\mu
k_\nu + g_{ \lambda \mu}k'_\kappa
k_\nu + g_{ \lambda \nu}k'_\kappa k_\mu - g_{ \kappa \mu}k_\lambda k_\nu -
g_{ \kappa \nu}k_\lambda k_\mu
\nonumber
\\ &-& \, \, k \cdot k' (g_{ \kappa \mu}g_{ \lambda \nu} + g_{ \kappa
\nu}g_{ \lambda \mu}) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon^\kappa$, $\epsilon'^\lambda$ and $f^{\mu \nu}$ are the photon, vector meson and $f_2$ polarization vectors and tensor, respectively. Note that there are two possible coupling constants, $g_1$ and $g_2$, which in VMD (also tensor meson dominance) are given by [@ren] $$g_1 = 0, \, \, \; \; g_2 = e g_{f_2 V \gamma} = e \sum_{ V'}\frac{g_{f_2 V
V'}} { f_{V'}} \ ,$$ with $g_{f_2 V V'}$ the $f_2 V V'$ hadronic coupling constant, $f_{V'}$ the $V'$ leptonic decay constant and the sum is over all vector meson contributions consistent with isospin conservation for the $f_2 V V'$ vertex. The radiative decay widths are $$\Gamma_{f_2 \rightarrow V \gamma} \;=\;
\frac{2}{5} \;\alpha_e g_{f_2 V \gamma}^2 M_{f_2} ( 1 - x)^3[1 + \frac{x}{2} +
\frac{x^2}{6} ] \ ,
\label{vgwidth}$$ and $\alpha_e = e^2/4\pi = 1/137.036$, $x =
M^2_V/M^2_{f_2}$. Focusing upon isoscalar tensor hadrons ($I_{f_2} = 0)$ yields the radiative couplings $$\begin{aligned}
g_{f_2 \rho \gamma} =& \! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\frac{g_{f_2 \rho \rho}} { f_{\rho}}, & \; \; \; \; f_2 \rightarrow
\rho \gamma \ ,
\label{gvmdr} \\
g_{f_2 \omega \gamma} =& \frac{g_{f_2 \omega \omega}} { f_{\omega}}+
\frac{g_{f_2
\omega \phi}} { f_{\phi}}, & \; \; \; \; f_2 \rightarrow \omega \gamma \ ,
\label{gvmdo} \\
g_{f_2 \phi \gamma} =& \frac{g_{f_2 \phi \phi}} { f_{\phi}}+
\frac{g_{f_2 \phi
\omega}} { f_{\omega}}, &\; \; \; \; f_2 \rightarrow \phi \gamma
\label{gvmdp} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Since the $\rho$ and $\omega$ masses are almost equal ($M_{\rho^{0}} =$ 775.8 MeV, $M_{\omega} =$ 782.59 MeV), the ratio of the $\omega$ to $\rho$ channel decays is simply $$R_{\omega/\rho} = \frac{\Gamma_{f_2 \rightarrow \omega \gamma}}{\Gamma_{f_2 \rightarrow \rho
\gamma}}
= (\frac{g_{f_2 \omega \gamma}}{ g_{f_2
\rho
\gamma}})^2
\ .$$ Application to tensor glueballs, i.e. $f_2 \rightarrow G_2$, and assuming flavor independence for the glueball-vector meson couplings, $g_{G_2VV} = g_{G_2V'V''} $, yields $$R_{\omega/\rho} = (\frac{f_{\rho}}{ f_{\omega}})^2 (1 + \frac{f_{\omega}}{ f_{\phi}})^2 \ .$$ Hence the ratio of decay widths is entirely governed by the leptonic decay constants whose magnitudes can be extracted from $V \rightarrow e^+ e^-$ using $$\Gamma_{V \rightarrow e^+ e^-} \;=\;
\frac{4 \pi \alpha_e^2}{3} \; \frac{M_V}{f_V^2} \ .$$ The most recent measurements [@pdg] yield $|f_{\rho}|$ = 4.965, $|f_{\omega}|$ = 17.06 and $|f_{\phi}|$ = 13.38 for a relative reduction $R_{\omega/\rho} = 0.44$. The $\phi \gamma
$ channel, which is also reduced by this factor, is further suppressed kinematically. As discussed below, suppression of radiative decays to isoscalar vector meson channels is not generally expected for tensor mesons since they will have different $g_{f_2VV'}$ couplings reflecting their various flavor contents. Note also that the relative phase between the $\omega$ and $\phi$ couplings has been assumed to be the same as between their respective decay constants. Depending upon phase convention (i. e. $\phi = \pm s {\bar s} $) the decay constants are often cited with opposite phases in the literature (e.g. the $SU(3)$ relation $f_\rho \sqrt{3} = - f_\omega sin (\theta) = f_\phi cos (\theta)$ [@deswart] where $\theta \approx 40^o$ is the $\omega
\phi$ mixing angle). Consistency requires the same relative sign between the couplings $g_{G_2 \omega \omega}$ and $g_{G_2 \omega \phi}$ since the latter, like the $\phi$ decay constant, is linear in the $\phi$ phase. Because $f_\omega$ and $f_\phi$ are comparable in magnitude, $R_{\omega/\rho}$ is very sensitive to this relative phase and would be dramatically lower, .0064, if indeed the net phase was negative. It is therefore important to more rigorously determine the relative phase of the vector meson coupling and decay constants and further study is recommended.
Similarly, the scalar glueball radiative decay widths are [@scbwprc] $$\Gamma_{G_0\rightarrow V \gamma} \;=\;
\frac{ 1}{8} \; \alpha_e \; g^2_{G_0 V \gamma} \; \frac{M^3_{G_{0}}}{M_0^2} \; (1-x)^3
\label{G2gamma} \ ,$$ where $g_{G_0 V \gamma}$ is also given in VMD by Eqs. (\[gvmdr\], \[gvmdo\], \[gvmdp\]) with $f_2$ replaced by $G_0$, $M_{G_0}$ is the scalar glueball mass, $M_0$ is a reference mass fixed at 1 GeV and $x = M^2_V/M^2_{G_0}$. Again VMD predicts the same suppression factor for radiative decays to isoscalar vector meson channels.
The $G \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ decays for $G_0$ and $G_2$ can also be obtained from VMD $$\Gamma_{G_0\rightarrow \gamma \gamma} \;=\;
\frac{\pi }{4} \;\alpha_e^2 g_{G_0 V V}^2
\left[ (\frac{1}{f_\rho})^2 + (\frac{1}{f_\omega} + \frac{1}{f_\phi})^2\right]^2
\frac{M_{G_0}^3}{M_0^2}
\label{G2gamma} \ ,$$ $$\Gamma_{G_2\rightarrow \gamma \gamma} \;=\;
\frac{4\pi }{5} \;\alpha_e^2 g_{G_2 V V}^2\left[ (\frac{1}{f_\rho})^2 + (\frac{1}{f_\omega} +
\frac{1}{f_\phi})^2\right]^2M_{G_2} \ .$$
To compute the radiative widths the hadronic couplings $g_{GVV}$ must be specified. For the scalar glueball, Ref. [@scbwprc] uses the value $g_{G_0VV} = 3.43$, but there is an error in Eq.(37) of that paper which should instead read, $g_{G_0 V V} [\frac{1}{f_{\omega}} + \frac{1}{f_{\phi}} ] = .62$, yielding the slightly larger value $g_{G_0VV} = 4.65$. The corrected coupling is now closer to 4.23 which was obtained by an independent scalar glueball mixing analysis [@bp]. The tensor glueball coupling can be estimated by assuming the hadronic decays $G_2 \rightarrow VV'$ for $V=\rho$, $\omega$ and $\phi$ dominate and saturate the entire tensor glueball width, i. e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{G_2} \;\approx \; \sum_{VV'} \Gamma_{{G_2} \rightarrow V V'} =
3 \Gamma_{G_2 \rightarrow \rho^0 \rho^0} + \Gamma_{{G_2} \rightarrow \omega
\omega} + \Gamma_{{G_2}
\rightarrow \phi \phi} + \Gamma_{{G_2} \rightarrow \omega \phi}
\ .
\label{fullwidth}\end{aligned}$$ This of course represents more of an upper bound for the coupling but for experimental planning it should provide sufficient photoproduction cross section estimates. Using Eq. (1) with the photon replaced by a second vector meson, $\gamma (k) \rightarrow V(k)$, the tensor glueball hadronic widths are $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{G_2 \rightarrow V V'} \;&=&\;
S \frac{g_{G_2 VV}^2}{60 \pi} \; M_{G_2} ( 1 -2x_ + + x^2_-)^{1/2}[6 - 9x_+ +
9x_+^2 \nonumber \\
&-& (8 - x_+ - x_-^2) x_-^2 ]
\ ,
\label{vv'width}\end{aligned}$$ where $S = 1/2$ if $V = V'$ and 1 otherwise, $x_\pm = x \pm x' $, $x
= M^2_V/M^2_{G_2}$ and $x' = M^2_{V'}/M^2_{G_2}$. For identical mesons, $V = V'$
$$\Gamma_{{G_2} \rightarrow V V} \;=\;
\frac{g_{{G_2}VV}^2}{20 \pi} \; M_{G_2} ( 1 - 4x)^{1/2}[1 -3 x + 6 x^2 ]
\ .
\label{vvwidth}$$
Taking $f_2(2010)$ (mass 2011 MeV, total width 202 MeV) and $f_2(2300)$ (mass 2297 MeV, total width 149 MeV) as tensor glueball candidates, Eqs. (\[fullwidth\], \[vv’width\], \[vvwidth\]) yield, $g_{{G_2}VV} = 1.60$, for $f_2(2010)$ and a similar value, $g_{{G_2}VV} =1.14$, for $f_2(2300)$. Adopting the average, 1.37, for the tensor coupling, the estimated glueball hadronic and radiative decays are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
$V V' \rightarrow$ $\rho^0 \rho^0$ $\omega \omega$ $\phi\phi$ $\omega \phi$
--------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------ ---------------
$\Gamma_{G_2(2010) \rightarrow V V'}$ 26.2 25.8 10.3 $\;33.0\;$
$\Gamma_{G_2(2300) \rightarrow V V'}$ 37.2 36.8 20.3 $\;44.7\;$
: Tensor glueball hadronic decays in MeV
$V \rightarrow$ $\rho$ $\omega$ $\phi$ $\gamma$
------------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------
$\Gamma_{G(1700) \rightarrow V \gamma}$ $\;1950\;$ $\;844\;$ $\;453\;$ $\;15.1\;$
$\Gamma_{G_2(2010) \rightarrow V \gamma}$ 298 129 91.6 $\;1.72\;$
$\Gamma_{G_2(2300) \rightarrow V \gamma}$ 377 164 128 $\;1.96\;$
: VMD glueball electromagnetic decays in keV
From the Tables it is clear that VMD and flavor independence predict roughly comparable hadronic $VV'$ widths. It is interesting that the largest branch is to the $\omega \phi$ channel which has a clear, novel $3 \pi K \bar{K}$ prompt decay. Also noteworthy are the suppressed $\omega \gamma$ and $\phi
\gamma$ decays relative to $\rho \gamma$. Hence even though the gluonic coupling has been assumed flavor blind, consistent with QCD, the glueball widths are not. As mentioned above this decay signature is not expected for mesons and several published studies find no $\omega$/$\rho$ suppression in meson radiative decays. Indeed Ref. [@db], which also uses VMD for scalar meson radiative decays, actually predicts an enhancement for $R_{\omega/\rho}$ by an order of magnitude. Related, tensor meson decay calculations [@pk] to vector and pseudoscalar meson channels reveal branching ratios that are very sensitive to flavor, varying by over an order of magnitude. Further, a recent meson decay model study [@cdk], which compliments this work by advocating radiative decays as a flavor filter to clarify glueball mixing, predicts extremely flavor dependent radiative decays of scalar mesons. That investigation incorporates decay width renormalizations from mixing (see below) with a glueball component [@ck] but does not include contributions from glueball decays. Similarly, Ref. [@ji] repeats that analysis, again not including direct glueball decays, with relativistic quark model corrections and finds the same decay pattern but all widths are reduced by 50 to 70%. Both studies detailed marked sensitivity of $f_0 \rightarrow \rho \gamma$ and $\phi \gamma$ decay widths to mixing and quark flavor.
Concerning experimental evidence for $2^{++}$ isoscalar hadrons with mass near 2 GeV, the most recent PDG report [@pdg] list six states: $f_2(1910)$, $f_2(1950)$, $f_2(2010)$, $f_2(2150)$, $f_2(2300)$ and $f_2(2340)$. Also there is the $f_J(2220)$ which is a tensor candidate but it, along with the $f_2(1910)$ and $f_2(2150)$, is omitted from the more important PDG summary table. For the four firm tensor states there is limited decay data and no quantitative branching ratios. The specific observed decays are: $\phi \phi$ for $f_2(2010)$ and $f_2(2340)$; $\phi \phi$, $K \bar{K}$ and $\gamma \gamma$ for $f_2(2300)$; $K^*(892) \bar{K}^*(892)$, $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $4\pi$, $\eta \eta$, $K \bar{K}$ and $\gamma \gamma$ for $f_2(1950)$. There is a clear need for additional, more detailed measurements.
A final comment about glueball decays is in order regarding quarkonia-glueball mixing. In addition to the investigations discussed above, there have been several other mixing studies involving scalar hadrons [@bp; @ac; @lw; @gf] but no published worked treating tensor states in the 2 GeV region which is the focus here. For all theoretical models, the isoscalar $2^{++}$ $q
\bar{q}$ states calculated in this mass region will mix with predicted nearby tensor glueballs and this will alter the unmixed decay scheme. If the mixing is weak the predicted VMD decay profile will not be appreciably modified and may be effective in identifying the existence of glueball dominated states. For strong or maximal mixing, the branching ratios will depend upon model details and the VMD predictions will be affected by hadronic couplings in the quark sector, especially their flavor dependence. In general significant mixing will distort the simple VMD glueball decay signature of suppressed $\omega \gamma$ and $\phi \gamma$ but comparable $V V'$ decay rates. An improved mixing analysis, including decay contributions from both the quark [@flsc2] and glue sectors, is in progress and will be reported in a future communication.
The glueball couplings can also be used to describe the photoproduction process, $\gamma(k,\lambda) + p(p,\sigma) \rightarrow
G(q, \lambda') + p(p',\sigma') $, where the energy-momentum 4-vectors (helicities) for the photon, proton, glueball and recoil proton are $k \; (\lambda$), $p$ ($\sigma$), $q \; (\lambda')$ and $p'$ ($\sigma'$), respectively. In the helicity representation the scalar glueball photoproduction amplitude, $<G_0 \;p\;|
\;\hat{T}\; |\;\gamma
\; p>$, is $$<G_0 \;p\;| \;\hat{T}\; |\;\gamma \; p> =
\; \epsilon_{\mu}(\lambda) \;
{\mathcal H}^{\mu}_{\sigma' \sigma} \equiv \epsilon \cdot {\mathcal H} \ ,$$ with $\epsilon_{\mu} (\lambda)$ the photon polarization 4-vector and ${\mathcal H}^{\mu}_{\sigma' \sigma}$ the hadronic current obtained by application of Feynman rules to the tree level $s = (k + p)^2$, $t = (q - k)^2$ and $u = (p' - k)^2$ channel QHD diagrams. The spin-averaged scalar glueball photoproduction cross section is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma^{G_0}}{dt} = \frac{\pi}{4\omega_{cm}^2} \sum_{ \lambda \sigma' \sigma }
|<G_0 \, p| \hat{T} |\gamma \, p>|^2 = \frac{\pi}{4\omega_{cm}^2} \;
\sum_{ \sigma' \sigma }
[|\; {\mathcal H}^{1}_{\sigma' \sigma} \;|^2 + |\; {\mathcal H}^{2}_{\sigma'
\sigma} \;|^2] \ , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{cm}$ is the photon $cm$ energy. As detailed in Ref. [@scbwprc], the glueball cross section is dominated by $t$ channel exchanges for $\theta_{cm} < 65^0$. Accordingly only the $t$ channel amplitude is calculated and from Ref. [@scbwprc] this is $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal H}^{\mu}_{\sigma' \sigma} &=& \sum_{V= \rho, \omega, \phi}
\frac{e g_{{G_0}V\gamma}}{M_{0}}g_{VNN}
F_{t}(t) \Pi_{V}(t)
\bar{u}(p',\sigma') [ \gamma^{\mu} +
i \frac{\kappa_V^T}{M_0} \; \sigma^{\mu \alpha} k'_{\alpha} ]
u(p,\sigma) \ , \nonumber
\label{eqt}\end{aligned}$$ with $k' = p' - p$, $t = k'^2$. The hadronic form factor, $F_{t}(t) $, vector meson propagator, $\Pi_{V}(t)$, and remaining vector-nucleon couplings and transition moments are specified in Ref. [@scbwprc].
Because of higher spin, the tensor glueball production amplitude is more complicated. Invoking vector and tensor dominance and Eq. (1), the photoproduction amplitude is $$\begin{aligned}
<G_2 \;p\;| \;\hat{T}\; |\;\gamma \; p> &=& \frac{2 f^{\mu \nu}}{M^2_{G_2}}
[2 \epsilon \cdot \bar{{\mathcal H}} k_\mu k_\nu - k \cdot \bar{{\mathcal H}} (\epsilon_\mu k_\nu +
\epsilon_\nu k_\mu) \nonumber \\
&-& k \cdot k' (\epsilon_\mu \bar{{\mathcal H}}_\nu + \epsilon_\nu \bar{{\mathcal H}}_\mu)] \ .\end{aligned}$$ The hadronic current $\bar{{\mathcal H}}$ has the same form as the scalar glueball result, ${\mathcal H}$, except that the ratio $\frac{ g_{{G_0}V\gamma}}{M_{0}}$ is replaced by $\frac{ g_{{G_2}V\gamma}}{M_{G_2}}$. Again focusing on forward angles, only $t$ channel diagrams are evaluated and since the formulation is covariant, the Gottfried-Jackson or glueball rest frame is used for mathematical convenience. The spin-averaged tensor glueball production cross section is
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma^{G_2}}{dt} \;=\;
\frac{\pi}{4\omega_{cm}^2} \;
\sum_{ \sigma' \sigma } \left[a (|\; \bar{{\mathcal H}}^{1}_{\sigma' \sigma} \;|^2
+ |\; \bar{{\mathcal H}}^{2}_{\sigma' \sigma} \;|^2) +
b|\; \bar{{\mathcal H}}^{0}_{\sigma' \sigma} + (\frac{1 + y} {1 -y})
\bar{{\mathcal H}}^{3}_{\sigma' \sigma}\;|^2 \right] \ , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $a = 4(1-y)^2(1+y^2/6)$, $b = (1-y)^4$, $y = t/M_{G_2}^2$ and $M_{G_2} =$ 2.011 GeV is the mass used in the cross section predictions presented here.
For the above specified glueball couplings, the tensor and scalar photoproduction cross sections are displayed in Figs. 1, 2 and 3. Figures 1 and 2 depict the lab energy dependence for the forward $cm$ angles $\theta_{cm} = 0^o$ and $25^o$, respectively, while Fig. 3 shows the angular distribution for 6 GeV photon lab energy. Again, since only $t$ channel amplitudes are included, results for angles greater than $60^o$ should be ignored. In contrast to the radiative widths, the cross sections are insensitive to the relative phase between the $\omega$ and $\phi$ couplings since $\rho$ exchange dominates (see Eq.(7)). While the scalar glueball cross section is somewhat larger, it is noteworthy that the magnitude of both cross sections is sufficient to expect reasonable count rates. Indeed, measurements of this process, including vector meson decays, would appear feasible for the evisioned Hall D project at Jefferson Lab.
Finally, photon transverse asymmetry observables, $A_{\gamma \bot}$, are also predicted and are displayed in Figs. 4 and 5 for the respective $cm$ angles $0^o$ and $25^o$. The scalar glueball asymmetry is greater than the tensor and both are large and increase with energy.
In summary, both tensor and scalar glueball cross sections, asymmetries and decay observables have been predicted using VMD and flavor independence. The results indicate that photoproduction cross sections are measurable and that by detecting comparable hadronic $VV'$ decays, especially the novel $\omega \phi \rightarrow 3 \pi K \bar{K}$ branch, in conjunction with suppressed $\omega \gamma$, $\phi \gamma$ transitions relative to $\rho \gamma$, it may be possible to identify states having a significant gluonic component.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by DOE Grant No.DE-FG02-97ER41048.
[99]{}
G. Bali [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 309 (1993) 378.
J. Sexton, A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4563.
C. J. Morningstar and M. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 034509.
B. Lucini and M. Teper, JHEP 106 (2001) 050.
A. P. Szczepaniak, E. S. Swanson, C. R. Ji and S. R. Cotanch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 2011.
F. J. Llanes-Estrada, S. R. Cotanch, P. Bicudo, E. Ribeiro and A. P. Szczepaniak, Nucl. Phys. A 710 (2002) 45.
S. R. Cotanch and P. Maris, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 036006.
B. Renner, Nucl. Phys. B 30 (1971) 634.
Y. Oh and T.-S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 025201.
S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 591 (2004) 1.
H. Pilkuhn [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B 65 (1973) 460.
S. R. Cotanch and R. A. Williams, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 055201.
L. Burakovsky and P. R. Page, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 014022.
D. Black, M. Harada and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 181603.
K. Peters and E. Kempt, Phys. Lett. B 352 (1995) 467.
F. E. Close, A. Donnachie and Y. S. Kalashnikova, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 074031.
F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 531.
M. A. DeWitt, H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 054026.
C. Amsler and F. E. Close, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 295.
W. J. Lee and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 014015.
F. Giacosa, T. Gutsche and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 025202.
F. J. Llanes-Estrada and S. R. Cotanch, Nucl. Phys. A 697 (2002) 303.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report Monte Carlo results for the two-dimensional hard disk system. Simulations were performed in the $NVT$ ensemble with up to 65536 disks, using a new updating scheme. We analyze the bond orientational order parameter and correlation length in the isotropic phase and the scaling behaviour of the bond orientational order parameter in the transition region. The data are consistent with predictions of the Kosterlitz-Thouless-Halperin-Nelson-Young theory, while a first-order phase transition is unlikely and a one-stage continuous transition can be ruled out.'
author:
- 'A. Jaster'
title: 'Orientational order of the two-dimensional hard disk system'
---
euromacr
€[42]{}[3]{}[277]{}[1998]{}
The nature of the two-dimensional melting transition has been an unsolved problem since many years [@STRAND; @GLACLA]. The Kosterlitz-Thouless-Halperin-Nelson-Young (KTHNY) theory [@KTHNY] predicts two continuous transitions. The first transition occurs when the solid (quasi-long-range positional order, long-range orientational order) undergoes a dislocation unbinding transition to the hexatic phase (short-range positional order, quasi-long-range orientational order). The second transition is the disclination unbinding transition which transforms this hexatic phase into an isotropic phase (short-range positional and orientational order). There are several other theoretical approaches for the transition. One alternative scenario has been proposed by Chui [@CHUI]. He presented a theory via spontaneous generation of grain boundaries, [*i.e.*]{} collective excitations of dislocations, and predicted a conventional first-order phase transition from the solid to the isotropic phase. In this case there exists a region where both phases coexist instead of a hexatic phase. Even for the simple hard disk system no consensus about the existence of a hexatic phase has been established.
The melting transition of the hard disk system was first seen in a computer simulation by Alder and Wainwright [@ALDWAI]. They used a system of 870 disks and molecular dynamics methods (constant volume $V$, energy $E$ and number of particles $N$ simulations) and found that this system undergoes a first-order phase transition. But the results of such small systems are affected by large finite-size effects. Recent simulations used Monte Carlo (MC) techniques either with constant volume ($NVT$ ensemble) [@ZOLCHE; @WEMABI] or constant pressure ($NpT$ ensemble) [@LEESTR; @FEALST]. Lee and Strandburg [@LEESTR] used isobaric MC simulations and found a double-peaked structure in the volume distribution. Lee-Kosterlitz scaling led them to conclude that the phase transition is of first order. However, the data are not in the scaling region, since their largest system contained only 400 particles. MC investigations of the bond orientational order parameter via finite-size scaling with the block analysis technique of 16384 particle systems were done by Weber, Marx and Binder [@WEMABI]. They also favoured a first-order phase transition. In contrast to this, Fernández, Alonso and Stankiewicz [@FEALST] predicted a one-stage continuous melting transition, [*i.e.*]{} a scenario without a hexatic phase. Their conclusions were based on the examination of the bond orientational order parameter in very long runs of different systems up to 15876 particles and hard-crystalline wall boundary conditions. The analysis of Zollweg and Chester [@ZOLCHE] for the pressure gave an upper limit for a first-order phase transition, but is compatible with all other scenarios.
In this letter, we present results obtained through MC simulations in the $NVT$ ensemble to answer the question of the kind of the phase transition. We consider systems of $N=32^2$, $64^2$, $128^2$ and $256^2$ hard disks in a two-dimensional square box. We find that finite-size effects with these boundary conditions are not substantially larger than in a rectangular box with ratio $\sqrt{3}:2$, furthermore no simulations in the solid phase were made. The disk diameter is set equal to one. For the simulations a new updating scheme was developed [@JASTER1], in which the conventional Metropolis step of a single particle is replaced by a collective (non-local) step of a chain of particles. A cell structure was chosen such that one cell can only be occupied by a single disk. In all updatings, the random number generator proposed by Lüscher [@LUSCHER] was applied. The simulations were performed on a Silicon Graphics workstation and a CRAY T3E. In the latter case, we used the different nodes of the parallel machine to generate independent data sets. Statistical errors have been calculated by binning. Additionally, we performed a jackknife analysis of the different data sets from the different nodes. Careful attention has been paid to the equilibration of all systems. For example, we performed $3\times 10^5$ ‘sweeps’ for $N=256^2$ at $\rho=0.890$ with the improved (chain) Metropolis updating scheme to warm up the system and $1.9 \times 10^6$ ‘sweeps’ to measure the expectation values (for 6 independent data sets). The acceptance rate for this run was about $54\%$. Further details will be published later [@JASTER2].
Simulations were performed in the isotropic phase and in the phase transition region. In the isotropic phase we measured the (global) bond orientational order parameter $\psi_6$ and the correlation length of the bond orientation $\xi_6$. The local value of $\psi_6$ for a particle $i$ located at ${\rm \bf x}=(x,y)$ is given by $$\psi_6({\rm \bf x})=
\frac{1}{N_i} \sum_j \exp \left (6\, {\rm i} \, \theta_{ij} \right ) \ ,$$ where the sum on $j$ is over the $N_i$ neighbours of this particle and $\theta_{ij}$ is the angle between the particles $i$ and $j$ and an arbitrary but fixed reference axis. Neighbours are obtained in a usual way by the Voronoi construction. The (global) bond orientational order parameter is just the absolute value of the average over all particles: $$\psi_6= \left | \frac{1}{N} \sum \psi_6({\rm \bf x}) \right | \ .$$ The bond orientational correlation length was extracted from the ‘zero-momentum’ correlation function of $\psi_6({\rm \bf x})$ $$g_6(x) = \left \langle \left (
\frac{1}{N_k} \sum_y \psi_6(x,y)
\right ) ^* \, \left (
\frac{1}{N_k'} \sum_{y'} \psi_6(0,y')
\right ) \right \rangle \ ,$$ by fitting the data with a single $\cosh$, where $N_k$ denotes the number of particles in a stripe between $x+\Delta x/2$ and $x-\Delta x/2$. This method allows a precise measurement of $\psi_6$ apart from some systematical errors, which will be large — compared to our statistical errors — for small values of $\xi_6$ (for details see [@JASTER2]). Additionally, we calculated the radial bond orientational correlation function $$g_6(r)= \langle {\psi_6}^*(0) \, \psi_6(r)
\rangle / g(r) \ ,$$ and extracted the correlation length from an [*Ansatz*]{} of the form $g_6(r) \sim r^{-1/2} \exp(-r/\xi_6)$, where $g(r)$ is the pair correlation function. In all simulations of the isotropic phase we used systems of at least $N=64^2$ particles and chose the box length to satisfy $L>7\xi_6$. In these cases, within statistical errors, we found no finite-size effects on the bond orientational correlation length and on the susceptibility $$\label{eq_sus}
\chi_6=N \langle {\psi_6}^2 \rangle \ .$$ Equation (\[eq\_sus\]) differs from $\chi_6=N (\langle {\psi_6}^2 \rangle -\langle \psi_6 \rangle ^2 )$ by a factor $1-2/\pi$ in the thermodynamic limit. Due to the new updating scheme, which reduces the autocorrelation time, we were able to perform simulations with large correlation lengths, namely close to the disclination binding transition point $\rho_{\rm i}$.
The KTHNY scenario predicts an exponential singularity for the correlation length $$\label{KTxi}
\xi_6(t) = a_{\xi} \, \exp \left ( b_{\xi}\, t^{-1/2} \right ) \ ,$$ and the susceptibility $\chi_6$ $$\label{KTchi}
\chi_6(t) = a_{\chi} \, \exp \left ( b_{\chi}\, t^{-1/2} \right )$$ if $t=\rho_{\rm i} -\rho \rightarrow 0^+$. The critical exponent $\eta_6$ defined by $$\label{chixi}
\chi_6 \sim {\xi_6}^{2-\eta_6} \ ,$$ is given by $ \eta_6=1/4$, while $b_\xi$ is a non-universal constant and $$\label{etabb}
b_\chi=(2-\eta_6)b_\xi \ .$$
=8.5cm
We analyzed the critical behaviour of $\xi_6$ and $\chi_6$ by performing least square fits according to eqs.(\[KTxi\]) and (\[KTchi\]). Typically, statistical errors of $\xi_6$ and $\chi_6$ are in the range $1\%-5\%$. Errors for the fitting parameter were computed by performing fits on data sets being Gaussian distributed around the expectation value. If we used all 12 different measurement points with $0.82 \leq \rho \leq 0.89$ we got a $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom (d.o.f.) of $0.75$ for $\xi_6(t)$ and $0.65$ for $\chi_6(t)$, [*i.e.*]{} the data are in a very good agreement with an exponential singularity of the KTHNY type. The critical values of $\rho$ were given by $\rho_{\rm i}=0.9017(7)$ and $0.9002(3)$, respectively. The results for the susceptibility are shown in fig. \[fig\_sus\]. Data far away from the transition (in particular for the correlation length) are affected by systematical errors. Therefore, fits were also performed omitting some data at low densities. For example, for the eight points with $0.855 \leq \rho \leq 0.89$ (for $\xi_6 \gsim \, 3.0$) we got $\chi^2/$d.o.f.$=0.23$, $\rho_{\rm i}=0.9006(8)$ for $\xi_6(t)$ and $\chi^2/$d.o.f.$=0.58$, $\rho_{\rm i}=0.9000(4)$ for $\chi_6(t)$. The critical exponent $\eta_6$ is calculated using eq. (\[etabb\]), yielding $\eta_6=0.451(21)$ and $0.349(44)$, respectively. A detailed analysis shows that the value of $\eta_6$ decreases if $t \rightarrow 0^+$. This can be seen, if we use eq. (\[chixi\]) and plot $\ln(\chi_6/{\xi_6}^{7/4})$ versus $\ln(\xi_6)$. For the predicted value $\eta_6=1/4$ we should see a horizontal line. A different value of $\eta_6$ would correspond to a straight line with a non-zero slope. Indeed, there is a negative slope for small values of $\xi_6$ as can be seen in fig. \[fig\_corsus\]. Nevertheless, in the limit $\xi_6 \rightarrow \infty$ the data are compatible with $\eta_6=1/4$. A fit with the last six data points gives $\eta_6=0.251(36)$.
=8.5cm
We now come to the simulations with $\rho \approx \rho_{\rm i}$. Finite-size scaling (FSS) implies $\chi_6 \sim L^{2-\eta_6}$ at $\rho=\rho_{\rm i}$ for large enough systems. For $\rho < \rho_{\rm i}$, corrections for finite correlation lengths of $\order (L/\xi_6)$ have to be taken into account. For $\rho_{\rm i} < \rho \le \rho_{\rm m}$, $\eta_6$ is a function of the density. As $\rho$ approaches the melting density $\rho_{\rm m}$, [*i.e.*]{} at the end of the hexatic phase, $\eta_6 \rightarrow 0^+$. Figure \[fig\_FSSchi\] shows $\ln(\chi_6/L^{7/4})$ versus $\ln(L)$ for various $\rho$. The slope was extracted from linear fits and gives the deviation from $\eta_6=1/4$. Using the FSS behaviour to locate $\rho_{\rm i}$, the requirement $\eta_6(\rho_{\rm i})=1/4$ yields $\rho_{\rm i}=0.899(1)$. This value is in agreement with that obtained from the singularities of $\xi_6(t)$ and $\chi_6(t)$. A slightly different value of $\eta_6$ would not alter this situation. Moreover, our estimates of $\rho_{\rm i}$ agree with Weber [*et al.*]{} [@WEMABI] who used the fourth-order cumulant intersection ($\rho_{\rm i}=0.8985(5)$). However, it differs from their value obtained using the singularity of $\chi_6$ ($\rho_{\rm i}=0.913$). The result $\rho_{\rm i}=0.916(4)$ of Fernández [*et al.*]{} [@FEALST] is not compatible with our value.
=8.5cm
Our MC data suggest that the the orientational order behaves as predicted by the KTHNY theory. A one-stage continuous transition [@FEALST] can be ruled out, since $\rho_{\rm m} \gsim \, 0.910$ (obtained from $\eta(\rho_{\rm m})=0$) is away from $\rho_{\rm i}$ in this work. Also our data are not compatible with a first-order phase transition with small correlation lengths, since we find no deviation from the predicted singularities of $\chi_6$ and $\xi_6$ up to $\xi_6 \approx 38$. (Alternative approaches for the singularities result in large $\chi^2/$d.o.f. For example, a conventional second-order behaviour with a power-law singularity of the form $\ln(\xi_6)=a-\nu \ln(t)$ yields $\chi^2/$d.o.f.=$4.1$.) We also have examined FSS of the fourth-order cumulant $U=1- \langle {\psi_6}^4\rangle/3 \langle {\psi_6}^2\rangle^2$. In the hexatic phase, FSS implies scale invariance of $U$. The narrowness of such a scale invariant region was one argument in ref. [@WEMABI] against the existence of a hexatic phase. Unfortunately, statistical errors in our data are too large to answer this question. Although our data cannot rule out a first-order phase transition with very large orientational order correlation lengths, a KTHNY-like phase transition seems to be more likely.
We thank H. Hahn for helpful discussions and the Institute of Scientific Computing in Braunschweig for providing computer time on their CRAY T3E.
-12pt
[99]{}
.
.
;\
;\
;\
.
; .
.
.
;\
.
.
.
cond-mat/9711256 Preprint, .
.
in preparation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Secret sharing is the well-known problem of splitting a secret into multiple shares, which are distributed to shareholders. When enough or the correct combination of shareholders work together the secret can be restored. We introduce two new types of shares to the secret sharing scheme of Shamir. Crucial shares are always needed for the reconstruction of the secret, whereas mutual redundant shares only help once in reconstructing the secret. Further, we extend the idea of crucial and redundant shares to a compartmented secret sharing scheme. The scheme, which is based on Shamir’s, allows distributing the secret to different compartments, that hold shareholders themselves. In each compartment, another secret sharing scheme can be applied. Using the modifications the overall complexity of general access structures realized through compartmented secret sharing schemes can be reduced. This improves the computational complexity. Also, the number of shares can be reduced and some complex access structures can be realized with ideal amount and size of shares.'
author:
- Fabian Schillinger
- Christian Schindelhauer
bibliography:
- 'secretsharing.bib'
title: Crucial and Redundant Shares and Compartments in Secret Sharing
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
A secret sharing scheme allows a dealer to distribute a secret, like an access code to multiple users, often called shareholders. The parts of the secret, often called shares or shadows can be used to reconstruct or reveal the secret when it is lost or destroyed. A simple secret sharing scheme works as follows: First, the dealer converts the secret into a number $S$ from a Galois field modulo $p$. Second, it generates a uniformly distributed random number $r_i$ from $GF(p)$ for each but one shareholder and calculates a $r'$, such that the equation ${S=\sum_{i}r_i + r'\mod p}$ holds. Third, it distributes each share $r_i$ or $r'$ to the according shareholder. When all shareholders work together they can calculate the sum of their shares to reveal $S$. This allows distributing a secret in a way, such that no shareholder can calculate $S$ solely from their share. The secret cannot be revealed anymore if any shareholder stops helping. Threshold secret sharing schemes overcome this drawback.
Threshold Secret Sharing Schemes {#threshold-secret-sharing-schemes .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
A $(t,n)$-threshold secret sharing scheme (TSSS) allows a dealer to define some threshold $t$ and to split a secret $S$, into $n$ shares. The shares are distributed to the shareholders. When the threshold is met, i.e. enough shareholders combine their shares, they can reveal $S$. The following scenario can be solved by a TSSS:
To open the vault of a company multiple people have to work together. The company owner, three managers, and three shift leaders each have a private access code for the vault. As soon as two of the seven people enter their code the vault can be opened.\
Each of the $n=7$ persons receives a single share, the threshold is $t=2$.
Secret sharing schemes were first proposed in 1979 by Shamir [@shamir1979share] and Blakley [@blakley1979safeguarding]. In the scheme of Shamir a random polynomial of degree $t-1$ is generated, such that the intersection with the $x$-axis defines the secret. The polynomial is used to calculate $n$ points, which are distributed. When $t$ points are known the secret can be calculated. The scheme is discussed in detail in Section \[Secret Sharing Backgrounds\]. In the scheme of Blakley, the secret is a point of intersection of hyperplanes in a $t$ dimensional space. Other approaches, like [@cooper1994secret] or [@harn2014verifiable] use Latin squares or the Chinese Remainder Theorem.
Hierarchical Threshold Secret Sharing Schemes {#hierarchical-threshold-secret-sharing-schemes .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------
Hierarchical threshold secret sharing schemes (HSSS), or multilevel threshold schemes allow organizing shareholders in different groups. Each group is a subgroup of a larger group, where the largest group contains all shareholders. This allows replacing shares of a group by shares out of the parent groups. An HSSS can solve the following scenario:
To open the vault of a company multiple people have to work together. The company owner, three managers, and three shift leaders each have a private access code for the vault. To open the vault all of the shift leaders have to enter their private access codes. Because the owner and managers have higher positions, their access codes can be used as substitutes for the codes of the shift leaders. The vault can be opened for example if two of the managers, together with a shift leader enter their codes, or if the owner, one manager, and one of the shift leaders enter their codes.\
Here, the first group consists of all the shift leaders. It is the only subgroup of the group containing all persons. The threshold is $t=3$.
Multiple approaches for HSSS are presented in [@simmons1988really; @shima2017hierarchical; @tassa2004hierarchical; @farras2012ideal; @harn2014multilevel; @tentu2013ideal; @ballico2007hierarchical; @zhang2008sure].
Compartmented Secret Sharing Schemes {#compartmented-secret-sharing-schemes .unnumbered}
------------------------------------
In compartmented secret sharing schemes (CTSS) the shareholders are grouped in different compartments. Each compartment receives a share through a secret sharing scheme. Each share is used as a new secret and distributed, using another secret sharing scheme to the users in the compartment. This allows to retrieve a secret in a conjunctive CTSS if in every compartment the secret is retrieved, and then the secrets are combined. In a disjunctive CTSS, only in a specific number of compartments, the shares have to be revealed to calculate the secret. A CTSS can solve the following scenario:
To open the vault of a company multiple people have to work together. The company owner, three managers, and three shift leaders each have a private access code for the vault. The company owner and the three managers form the higher management, whereas the shift leaders form the lower management.\
In a conjunctive CTSS two people from the higher management and two people from the lower management have to enter their codes to open the vault.\
In a disjunctive CTSS, either two persons from the higher management, or two persons from the lower management suffice to open the vault.\
There are two compartments: $C_{h}$ containing the persons from the higher management, with threshold $t_{h}=2$. The other one $C_{l}$, with threshold $t_{l}=2$ contains the persons from the lower management. The key for the vault is distributed two both compartments, using a TSSS with threshold $t_{c}=2$ in the conjunctive case and $_{d}=1$ in the disjunctive case. Both compartments distribute their share to the shareholders using another TSSS.
It is possible to construct far more complex access structures, by using a CTSS. In [@benaloh1990generalized] it is shown, that every CTSS may be used for general access structures. Shareholders might receive more than one share in those schemes. The approach discussed in [@lin2009ideal_a] can be used to generate both, HSSS and CTSS. Other approaches are presented in [@ghodosi1998secret; @iftene2005compartmented; @simmons1988really].
Weighted Threshold Secret Sharing Schemes {#weighted-threshold-secret-sharing-schemes .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
In a weighted threshold secret sharing schemes (WTSS) each shareholder has a specific weight. If the sum of weights of the combined shares is larger than the threshold value, the secret can be revealed. Single shares of shareholders with a higher weight, therefore, can replace multiple shares of shareholders with lower weights. A WTSS can solve the following scenario:
To open the vault of a company multiple people have to work together. The company owner, three managers, and three shift leaders each have a private access code for the vault. The company owner can open the vault on his own, at least two of the managers can open the vault together, or two shift leaders together with an additional manager can open the vault.\
The threshold for this WTSS is $t=5$. The personal access code of the company owner has a weight of 5, the codes of the managers each have a weight of 3, the access codes of the shift leaders each have a weight of 1. The combinations of different weighted access codes give the described access structure.
Some WTSS are presented in [@morillo1999weighted; @beimel2005characterizing; @beimel2006monotone; @padro2000secret; @iftene2005weighted; @belenkiy2008disjunctive; @Tassa2009].
General Access Secret Sharing Schemes {#general-access-secret-sharing-schemes .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------
The previous schemes were able to map specific access structures efficiently. In [@ito1989secret], the multiple assignment scheme is proposed, where multiple shares are assigned to each shareholder. With this approach, general access structures can be realized, with the downside, that in the worst case a total of ${\mathcal{O}(n\cdot2^n)}$ shares have to be distributed to $n$ shareholders. A general access secret sharing scheme allows mapping every possible subgroup of shareholders into the access structure. Multiple schemes, like those presented in [@benaloh1990generalized; @bertilsson1992construction; @tan1999general; @brickell1989some; @dawson1994breadth] improve the efficiency by reducing the number of shares or the size of each share.
Our contribution {#Introduction Our Contribution .unnumbered}
----------------
Various scenarios can be mapped by using the displayed methods of secret sharing. Still, there are some scenarios where either, the amount of distributed shares, the computational complexity or the complexity of the secret sharing scheme can be reduced, by introducing two special kinds of shares: Crucial shares are always needed to reveal a secret, regardless of whether the threshold value is achieved, or not. Redundant shares are pairs or sets of shares, where the first redundant share helps in revealing the secret, but any additional redundant share does not help any further. Our contribution consists of modifications to the secret sharing scheme of Shamir, and the compartmented secret sharing scheme proposed by Simmons [@simmons1988really], which is based on Shamir’s scheme. The modifications allow constructing general access schemes while many of the good properties of Shamir’s scheme, like, easy implementation and high understandability can be retained. In some cases even ideally can be achieved by using our modifications.
Exemplary Use-cases improved by our Modifications {#Our Contribution Use-cases .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------
The following examples show use-cases where our modifications to the TSSS of Shamir and the CTSS of Simmons can help in creating schemes which are more efficient than the state-of-the-art schemes.
\[problem:normal secret sharing\] To open the vault of a company multiple people have to work together. The company owner ($o$), the head of security ($sec$), three managers ($m_1, m_2, m_3$), and three shift leaders ($s_1,s_2,s_3$) each have a private access code for the vault. Any combination of at least four codes can open the vault, but in any case, the codes of the owner and the head of security have to be two of them, and the remaining two codes cannot be both from shift leaders.
Example \[problem:normal secret sharing\] can be mapped with our modified secret sharing scheme as follows: the managers $m_1$, $m_2$, and $m_3$ each receive a normal share from the dealer, the shift leaders $s_1$, $s_2$, and $s_3$ each receive a mutual redundant share, and both the owner $o$ and the head of security $sec$ receive crucial shares. The threshold is $t=2$, the number of different shares is $n=4$. By using a state-of-the-art scheme, like the one presented in [@dawson1994breadth], more than 4 shares have to be distributed: the disjunctive form describing the various group composition that allow to open the vault contains 12 different clauses like $(o \wedge sec \wedge m_1 \wedge m_2)$, each containing 4 literals. For every clause a different ($4,4$)-TSSS is used to determine the access. Therefore, in total 48 shares have to be distributed. This can be reduced to 26 shares because $o$ and $sec$ are present in every clause. Therefore, $o$ and $sec$ receive shares for a $(2,2)$-scheme with secret $S_1$. The 12 remaining clauses $(m_1 \wedge m_2)$, $(m_1 \wedge m_3)$, $(m_2 \wedge m_3)$, $\dots$ are mapped by $(2,2)$-TSSS, each having the same secret $S_2$. Access to the vault then is calculated through $S_1+S_2$.
\[problem:compartmented secret sharing\] To open the vault of a company multiple people have to work together. There are three managers and their deputies for three departments. The staff in the departments can open the vault if there is a majority of staff in two departments. Additionally, two department leaders, either manager or deputy manager, of two different departments have to support them.
Example \[problem:compartmented secret sharing\] can be mapped with our modified CTSS as follows: The three managers and their deputies form a crucial compartment, where the secret is shared in a $(2,3)$-secret sharing. Each manager receives a normal share and the respective deputy each receives a redundant share. Therefore, the secret in the crucial compartment can be calculated if two managers, one manager, and another department’s deputy or two deputies combine their shares. The staff of each department $i$ forms a compartment $C_i$, where each secret is the share of a $(2,3)$-secret sharing. The secret of a compartment $C_i$ is distributed through a $(\lfloor \frac{ |C_i|}{2}\rfloor+1,|C_i|)$-secret sharing. This allows computing a compartments secret if a majority of staff provides their shares. If two of the compartments provide their shares, together with the crucial share the secret can be computed. Here, in total 6+$|C_1|+|C_2|+|C_3|$ shares, one for every person, have to be distributed. By using state-of-the-art schemes, again a significantly higher number of shares have to be distributed: in a department with $|C_i|$ persons and a threshold of $t_i = \lfloor \frac{ |C_i|}{2}\rfloor+1$, there can occur $\binom{|C_i|}{t_i}$ different combinations of persons. In Example \[problem:compartmented secret sharing\] two out of three such departments have to be calculated. In addition, there are 12 different combinations of managers and deputies, which further increase the number of secret sharing schemes needed to cover all possible combinations of persons that can open the vault.
Organization of the Paper {#organization-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
-------------------------
The paper is structured as follows: Section \[Secret Sharing Backgrounds\] describes the backgrounds of secret sharing schemes and explains the used schemes. In Section \[Our Contribution\] our contributions are described, Section \[Our Contribution Secret Sharing\] states the modifications to the threshold secret sharing scheme of Shamir, whereas in Section \[Compartmented Secret Sharing\] the modifications to compartmented secret sharing schemes are discussed. Further, the implications for realizing general access structures are shown. Finally, Section \[Conclusions\] concludes the work and gives an outlook on future work.
Secret Sharing Backgrounds {#Secret Sharing Backgrounds}
==========================
A $(t,n)$-secret sharing scheme allows a dealer to distribute $n$ shares $\mathcal{S}=\{S_1,\dots,S_n\}$ of a secret $S$, to the users $\mathcal{U}=\{U_1,\dots,U_n\}$. Any set $\mathcal{A}$ of shares, with $|\mathcal{A}|\geq t$ can compute $S$.
A family $\{\mathcal{A'} \subseteq \mathcal{A}: \mathcal{A'}~\text{can reconstruct}~S\}$ in a secret sharing scheme with secret $S$ and shares $\mathcal{A}$ is called access structure.
The schemes proposed by Shamir and Blakley are called threshold secret sharing schemes because any subset of shares that reaches the threshold value can reveal the secret. A general access secret sharing scheme allows constructing all access structures.
A secret sharing scheme is called perfect, if no set $\mathcal{A'}$ of shares allows learning anything about the secret, if $\mathcal{A'}$ is not in the access structure.
This means that correctly guessing the secret $S$ with less than $t$ shares in a $(t,n)$-secret sharing scheme or any set of shares which is not part of the access structure has the same probability as guessing $S$ without a single share.
A secret sharing scheme is called ideal if it is perfect and the size of each shareholders share is in the same domain as the secret.
Any scheme where a shareholder receives more than one share cannot be ideal. In the following, we modify the secret sharing scheme of Shamir. This scheme is well-known, easy to understand and to implement. The idea is to generate a polynomial ${f(x)=S+a_1\cdot x+a_2\cdot x^2+\cdots+a_{t-1}\cdot x^{t-1} \mod p}$, where $S$ is the secret and the coefficients $a_1,a_2,\dots a_{t-1}$ are uniformly distributed random variables, each from $GF(p)$, the Galois field of order $p$. Each shareholder then receives a point $S_i= f(x_i)$. $S$ can be computed by solving Equation System \[eq:lineares gleichungssystem shamir\], with at least $t$ linearly independent combinations of $x_i$ and $S_i$: $$\label{eq:lineares gleichungssystem shamir}
\begin{array}{ccc}
S+a_1\cdot x_1+a_2\cdot x_1^2+\cdots+a_{t-1}\cdot x_1^{t-1} & = & S_1 \pmod{p} \\
S+a_1\cdot x_2+a_2\cdot x_2^2+\cdots+a_{t-1}\cdot x_2^{t-1} & = & S_2 \pmod{p}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
S+a_1\cdot x_n+a_2\cdot x_n^2+\cdots+a_{t-1}\cdot x_n^{t-1} & = & S_n \pmod{p}\\
\end{array}$$ Any set of $t$ shareholders can obtain $S$. The secret sharing scheme of Shamir is ideal [@brickell1989some]. For reconstruction, Equation System \[eq:lineares gleichungssystem shamir\] can be used, but there are faster reconstruction procedures. Using the Lagrange polynomial interpolation [@waring1779vii] the secret can be computed if the shareholders $U_i$ calculate the following sum: $$\label{eq:lagrange interpolation}
S = \sum_i \left(S_i\cdot \prod_{i\neq j} \frac{-x_j}{x_i-x_j} \mod p\right)$$
\[lemma1\] Calculating shares in Shamir’s scheme is in $\mathcal{O}(t\cdot n)$.
For generating shares $t-1$ random variabes have to be chosen and the polynomial $f(x)$, of degree $t-1$, has to be evaluated. Using Horner’s method [@horner1833new], $t-1$ multiplications are needed for a single share. Therefore, for computing $n$ shares $t-1+n\cdot (t-1)< t+t\cdot n$ calculations are needed.
\[lemma2\] Revealing $S$ in Shamir’s secret sharing scheme is in $\mathcal{O}(t^2)$.
A shareholder $i$ has to calculate the product of the share $S_i$ and $(t-1)$ times the given fraction. Therefore, $t$ shareholders have to calculate $t\cdot (t-1)< t^2$ products.
In a compartmented threshold secret sharing scheme with threshold $t$ the users $\mathcal{U}$ are partitioned into compartments $\mathcal{C}=\{C_1,\dots,C_m\}$, such that $\mathcal{U}=\bigcup_{i=1}^{m}C_i$. The Secret $S$ can be computed, if a set $\mathcal{A}$ of compartments, with $|\mathcal{A}|\geq t$ combine their shares. Each compartment $C_i$, can distribute the share $S_i$ in a $(t_i,|C_i|)$-secret sharing scheme to the $|C_i|$ users.
In the following, the CTSS based on Shamir’s scheme, as proposed by Simmons is used. In the scheme a secret $S$ is divided into shares $S_i$ by generating a polynomial $f(x)$ and then calculating a point $f(x_i)$ for each compartment $C_i$. In each compartment, then, another $(t,n)$-secret sharing scheme is applied. I.e., each share $S_i$ is a new secret inside the compartment, which is distributed to the users hold by the compartment. To calculate the secret, in $t$ compartments the users have to combine their shares using the Lagrange polynomial interpolation shown in Equation \[eq:lagrange interpolation\]. With the $t$ shares another polynomial interpolation has to be calculated to find $S$.
Our Approach {#Our Contribution}
============
In the following, some modifications to Shamir’s scheme are introduced. Later, the respective modifications to the CTSS proposed by Simmons are discussed.
Secret Sharing {#Our Contribution Secret Sharing}
--------------
In Shamir’s secret sharing scheme each share has the same impact. Therefore, in a $(2,4)$-secret sharing scheme with the shares $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$, and $S_4$ all sets $\{S_i,S_j\}$, with $i\neq j$ can retrieve the secret. The following modification allows to restrict the access group:
\[definition:crucialshare\] A share $R$ is called crucial, if there exists no set $\mathcal{A}'$ of shares, with $R\notin \mathcal{A}'$, such that $S$ can be computed.
By defining $S_1$ as a crucial share the access group can be restricted to the following: $\{\{S_1,S_2\}, \{S_1,S_3\}, \{S_1,S_4\}\}$.
\[lemma crucial share\] Any number of crucial shares can be introduced to the secret sharing scheme of Shamir, when $S$ in the polynomial is replaced by some $S'$, with ${S' = S+ \sum_{i=1}^{r}R_i\mod p}$, and all $R_i$ are drawn uniformly random from $GF(p)$.
Finding the value $S'$ of the modified polynomial is the same as in Shamir’s scheme. It can be found by using $t$ linearly independent combinations of $x_i$ and $S_i$ to solve the following equation system: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
S'+a_1\cdot x_1+a_2\cdot x_1^2+\cdots+a_{t-1}\cdot x_1^{t-1} & = & S_1 \pmod{p} \\
S'+a_1\cdot x_2+a_2\cdot x_2^2+\cdots+a_{t-1}\cdot x_2^{t-1} & = & S_2 \pmod{p}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
S'+a_1\cdot x_n+a_2\cdot x_n^2+\cdots+a_{t-1}\cdot x_n^{t-1} & = & S_n \pmod{p} \\
\end{array}$$ Less than $t$ linearly independent combinations results in an underconstrained equation system. More than $t$ combinations do not help in finding $S$, because every $R_i$ is independent. When $S'$ is found $S$ can be computed by subtracting all crucial shares: ${S = S'- \sum_{i=1}^{r}R_i \mod p}$. If a crucial share $C$ is missing only a ${S'' = S+C\mod p}$, with $C$ from $GF(p)$ can be computed. Then, $S$ can be any number from $GF(p)$. Therefore, all crucial shares are needed to calculate $S$
The modified secret sharing scheme with crucial shares remains perfect.
Calculating the secret $S$ in the modified secret sharing scheme is the combination of two problems. One problem is finding the value $S'$ for the polynomial ${f'(x) = S'+a_1\cdot x+a_2\cdot x^2+\cdots+a_{t-1}\cdot x^{t-1}\mod p}$. Here, every set of combinations of $x_i$ and $S_i$, which is smaller than $t$, leads to infinitely many possible polynomials. The other problem is finding $S$ from $S'$, which is moving the correct polynomial vertically. Having more than $t$ linearly independent combinations of $x_i$ and $S_i$ does not help in computing $S$, because the crucial shares $R_i$ are independent of the points of the polynomial. Having less than $r$ crucial shares leaves the shareholders with some $S'' = S+C'\mod p$, where $C'$ can be any number from $GF(p)$. Finding $S$ by using $S''$ in a meaningful way, therefore is not possible. Guessing $S$ from this point is as effective, as guessing it without any knowledge.
The modified secret sharing scheme with crucial shares remains ideal.
The modified scheme is perfect. Further, each value $R_i$ is a uniformly chosen random number out of $GF(p)$. The resulting points, when evaluating the polynomial remain in $GF(p)$. Therefore all shares and the secret are from the same domain.
Another way of restricting the access group is by making shares less important than others. In a $(2,4)$-scheme with shares $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$, and $S_4$ the access group can be reduced to $\{\{S_1,S_3\}$, $\{S_1,S_4\},\{S_2,S_3\},\{S_2,S_4\}\}$ by not allowing to appear $S_1$ and $S_2$, or $S_3$ and $S_4$ in the same set. This can be achieved by redundant shares:
\[definition:redundantshare\] Two shares $R$ and $Q$, in a $(t,n)$-secret sharing scheme, are called redundant, if there exists no set $\mathcal{A'}$ of shares, with $R, Q \in \mathcal{A'}$ and $|\mathcal{A'}| = t$, which can compute $S$.
The definitions for crucial shares and redundant shares can be modified to apply to shareholders instead of shares. But, as shareholders are allowed to hold multiple shares, where the types of shares can be different, the definition may be equivocal. For example, if a shareholder holds a crucial and a redundant share, it can be confusing to call the shareholder crucial or redundant.
\[lemma introducing redundant shares\] Redundant shares can be introduced to the scheme of Shamir by distributing the same share multiple times to different sharholders.
For finding $S$ in Shamir’s scheme least $t$ linearly independent combinations of $x_i$ and $S_i$ are needed. Any set of $s=t$ shares with at least two shares $j,k$ with $x_j=x_k$, $S_j=S_k$, and $j\neq k$ has at most $t-1$ linearly independent shares.
This allows introducing two or more redundant shares having the same value. Multiple redundant shares with different values can be used in the modified secret sharing scheme. We call any number of redundant shares corresponding to the same value mutual redundant shares.
The modified secret sharing scheme with redundant shares remains perfect.
Redundant shares are copies of normal shares. Knowing multiple mutual redundant shares results in the same amount of linearly independent pairs $x_i$, $S_i$ as having a single redundant share.
The modified secret sharing scheme with redundant shares remains ideal.
Redundant shares are copies of normal shares, therefore they are out of $GF(p)$, as well as the secret $S$.
Generating shares in the modified $(t,n)$-secret sharing scheme works similar to Shamir’s scheme. At first the crucial shares $R_i$ and coefficients $a_i$ are chosen as uniformly distributed random numbers from $GF(p)$. Then the modified polynomial $f'(x) = S'+a_1x+a_2x^2+\cdots+a_{t-r-1}x^{t-r-1} \mod p$ is generated, where $S' = (S + \sum_{i=1}^{r}R_i )\mod p$. Each shareholder $i$ of a normal share receive a value corresponding to an evaluation of $f'(x) \mod p$, each shareholder $i$ of a crucial share receive the according $R_i$. Shareholders of redundant shares receive a copy of the according evaluation of $f'(x) \mod p$. To calculate the secret from shares Equation \[eq:lagrange interpolation modified\] has to be evaluated. $$\label{eq:lagrange interpolation modified}
S = \sum_i \left(S_i\cdot \prod_{i\neq j} \frac{-x_j}{x_i-x_j} \mod p\right) - \sum_{k=1}^{r} R_k \mod p$$
\[lemma runtime sharing\] Calculating shares in the modified scheme is in $\mathcal{O}(t\cdot n)$.
$r$ crucial shares and $t-r-1$ coefficients $a_i$ have to be drawn because each crucial share reduces the degree of the polynomial $f'(x)$ by one. A normal share $S_i$ is calculated by evaluating $f'(x)$, which needs $(t-r-1)$ multiplications according to Horner’s method. Therefore, calculating $(n-r-d)$ normal shares and $r$ crucial shares needs $r+(t-r-1)+(n-r-d)\cdot (t-r-1) < t+t\cdot n$ calculations. For any number of mutual redundant shares only one needs $f'(x)$ to be calculated. All others are copied and do not need calculations.
\[lemma runtime reconstruction\] Reconstruction of $S$ in the modified scheme is in $\mathcal{O}(t^2)$.
Each shareholder $U_i$ contributing a normal share or a unique redundant share has to calculate the product of the share $S_i$ and $(t-r-1)$ times the given fraction. Afterwards, the sum of crucial shares $\sum_{k=1}^{r} R_r \mod p$ is subtracted. Therefore, the $(t-r)$ shareholders with a normal share have to calculate in total $(t-r)\cdot (t-r-1) < t^2$ products, this equation holds because $t \geq r \geq 0$.
The modified scheme allows using multiple crucial and redundant shares at the same time. Therefore, the access structure can be more flexible. Crucial shares in some way are a contradiction to the initial ideas behind secret sharing. Secret sharing can be used to retrieve a secret which was lost or forgotten. The possibility to lose the secret increases again, when crucial shares are used, because they can be lost, or shareholders might become malicious and stop helping in revealing the secret.
Compartmented Secret Sharing {#Compartmented Secret Sharing}
----------------------------
With modifications to compartmented threshold secret sharing schemes the downside of using crucial shares can be offset, because similar to the previous chapter crucial compartments can be introduced, where a compartment is on the one hand needed for the reconstruction of the secret, but on the other hand multiple users help in reconstructing the share held by the compartment. Therefore, the following definitions are similar to the ones of secret sharing.
A compartment $R$ is called crucial, if there exists no set $\mathcal{A}'$ of shares of compartments, with $R\notin \mathcal{A}'$, such that $S$ can be computed.
Crucial compartments can be introduced to the scheme similar to the method shown in Lemma \[lemma crucial share\], by replacing $S$ with a $S' = S+\sum_{i=1}^{r} R_i \mod p$, where $R_i$ are the secrets of the crucial compartments. The secret sharing scheme inside a crucial compartment is independent of the one used in the outer scheme. Therefore, it can be another CTSS or a modified Shamir scheme.
Two compartments $R$ and $Q$ are called redundant, if there exists no set $\mathcal{A'}$ of shares of compartments, with ${R, Q \in \mathcal{A'}}$ and $|\mathcal{A'}| = t$, which can compute $S$.
Additionally, redundant compartments can be introduced. Similar to Lemma \[lemma introducing redundant shares\], every redundant compartment receives the same secret, which leads to the case that only one of the mutual redundant compartments can help in revealing the secret. Again, the scheme inside the compartment is independent. Therefore, every redundant compartment can use another secret sharing scheme, a different number of shareholders, or different threshold values.\
The computational complexity for the distribution of shares in the modified scheme and for reconstructing the secret is again in the same bounds, as the initial CTSS. Because as shown in Lemmas \[lemma runtime sharing\] and \[lemma runtime reconstruction\] sharing and reconstruction in the non-compartmented scheme remain in the same bounds.
Feasible Access Structures and Ideality {#Our Contribution Feasible Access Structures}
---------------------------------------
Following the remarks of [@benaloh1990generalized] it is possible to construct the compartments for a CTSS to realize any access structure: Any formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) can be mapped. Consider two shareholders $U_1$, $U_2$ in a $(2,2)$-secret sharing scheme. Neither $U_1$, nor $U_2$ are sufficient to retrieve the secret on their own. Therefore, the specific secret sharing scheme realizes the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">and</span> operator. Whereas, two shareholders $U_1$, $U_2$ in a $(1,2)$-secret sharing scheme realize the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">or</span> operator, because both can retrieve the secret on their own. Because both, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">and</span> and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">or</span> operator are possible to map, any formula in CNF can be mapped. The operators are not limited to be binary, but they can be $n$-ary. Consider the following scenario: There are four users $U_1$, $U_2$, $U_3$, and $U_4$, which can retrieve the secret if $U_1$ with either $U_2$ or $U_3$ and one of $U_2$, $U_4$ work together. The formula in CNF is $(U_1 \wedge (U_2 \vee U_3) \wedge (U_2 \vee U_4))$. The CTSS has three compartments $C_1 = \{U_1\}$, $C_2=\{U_2, U_3\}$, and $C_3=\{U_2, U_4 \}$, where $C_1$ holds only a single shareholder. The threshold is $t=3$ in the outer scheme, and $t=1$ in the inner schemes. In the given example the shareholder $U_2$ has to receive two independent and possibly unequal shares.\
Previously, each level in the CTSS either could work as an <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">and</span> or an <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">or</span> operator. Now, by introducing the modifications to Shamir’s scheme <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">and</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">or</span> operators can be used on the same level: Any crucial share $R$ is needed to retrieve a secret, therefore it is introducing another <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">and</span> operator. Two mutual redundant shares $S$ and $S'$ do not help in revealing the secret. Therefore, redundant shares introduce another kind of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">or</span> operator. This <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">or</span> operator can be especially useful whenever a structure in the form $(A \wedge (B \vee C))$ appears, where $(B \wedge C)$ should not be allowed. The previous example can be mapped as a modified $(3,4)$-secret sharing scheme with $U_1$ receiving a crucial share, $U_2$ receiving a normal share, and both $U_3$ and $U_4$ receiving the same redundant share. The secret can be retrieved, if $U_1$, $U_2$, and one of $U_3$ or $U_4$ work together. In this scheme every shareholder gets one single share, therefore it is ideal. Furthermore, no CTSS is needed. This reduces both the computational complexity and the total amount of shares.\
Using crucial and redundant shares is not useful in every case. For example, every secret sharing scheme, where only two shareholders participate can be constructed without crucial and redundant shares: A scheme consisting solely of two redundant shares can be realized by a $(1,2)$-secret sharing scheme. A scheme consisting solely of two crucial shares can be realized by a $(2,2)$-secret sharing scheme, or by the much simpler method displayed in Section \[Introduction\]. A scheme consisting of a crucial and a normal share can be mapped by a $(2,2)$-secret sharing scheme. In contrast, as soon as there are three shareholders the modifications can be useful. Consider a scheme consisting of a crucial share $R_1$, and two normal shares $S_1$ and $S_2$. The access structure is $(R_1 \wedge (S_1 \vee S2))$. This scheme, previously, could only be mapped by using a CTSS. Another example would be a scheme consisting of a normal share $S_1$ and two redundant shares $S_2$ and $S'_2$. This scheme previously needed a compartmented scheme like in the example before, because the access structure is $(S_1 \wedge (S_2 \vee S'_2))$.\
The modifications cannot always help in constructing a scheme without compartments. Consider the access structure from [@benaloh1990generalized]: ${((A \wedge B) \vee (B\wedge C) \vee (C\wedge D))}$. None of the shares can be a crucial share, because no share is present in all clauses. No pair of shares can be redundant: by making $A$ and $B$ redundant, the clause $(A\wedge B)=(A \wedge A)=(B \wedge B)$ would be unsatisfiable. By making $A$ and $C$ redundant, the clause $(A \wedge D)=(C \wedge D)$ would be implicitly introduced. By making $A$ and $D$ redundant, a new clause $(C\wedge A)=(C \wedge D)$ would be implicitly introduced. Therefore no set of shares containing $A$ can be redundant. Because of symmetry, the same problems occurs for the other combinations of shares. The given example, therefore, cannot be solved using the modified scheme without compartments.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we present some modifications to the secret sharing scheme of Shamir. The modifications allow defining redundant shares which give no additional advance in computing the secret if more than one mutual redundant shares are used. Further, crucial shares can be defined which are essential for retrieving the secret. We showed, that these modifications are easy to understand and implement, that the resulting schemes still are ideal, and that the computational complexity is not worse than in the original scheme. Further, the modifications are introduced to the CTSS, as proposed by Simmons. The modifications can help in constructing complex access structures, like for the scenarios described in the Introduction, by reducing the complexity of the access structure. Further, general access structures can be realized, where in some cases an optimal amount of distributed shares of one per shareholder can be achieved, i.e. the resulting scheme is ideal. In other cases, the computational complexity can be reduced compared to the naive approach.\
Further modifications could be to introduce other operators. Especially the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xor</span> operator can be useful when trying to map access structures to a specific scheme and help in reducing the amount of distributed shares. But not all operators are always useful. Consider for example the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nor</span> operation, this would allow constructing a scheme consisting of multiple shares, where the secret can be calculated if no share is used. This is a contradiction to the initial idea behind secret sharing. Using compartmented secret sharing schemes clauses can be mapped where all shares or a specific number of shares are needed to reconstruct a secret. Introducing a random selector, where either the needed shares for calculating the secret are randomly chosen or depending on which shares are used to calculate the secret could be another modification to the scheme.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The authors acknowledge the financial support by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany in the framework of SoNaTe (project number 16SV7405).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Determining the magnetic field of solar spicules is vital for developing adequate models of these plasma jets, which are thought to play a key role in the thermal, dynamic, and magnetic structure of the chromosphere. Here we report on magnetic spicule properties in a very quiet region of the off-limb solar atmosphere, as inferred from new spectropolarimetric observations in the 10830Åtriplet. We have used a novel inversion code for Stokes profiles caused by the joint action of atomic level polarization and the Hanle and Zeeman effects (HAZEL) to interpret the observations. Magnetic fields as strong as 40 G were unambiguously detected in a very localized area of the slit, which may represent a possible lower value of the field strength of organized network spicules.'
author:
- 'R. Centeno'
- 'J. Trujillo Bueno'
- 'A. Asensio Ramos'
title: The Magnetic Field of Solar Spicules
---
=1
Introduction {#centeno:introduction}
============
The first observational evidence of solar spicules came in the drawings of Father Angelo Secchi in the late nineteenth century. He recorded the shape of these off-limb jet-like structures and listed some of their properties. Spicules can be described as rapidly evolving chromospheric plasma jets, protruding outside the solar limb into the corona. It is thought that they constitute an important ingredient of the mass balance of the solar atmosphere, since they are estimated to carry about 100 times the mass of the solar wind. After the spicular material is shot up (with typical apparent velocities around 25 kms$^{-1}$) and has reached its maximum height, it returns to the surface along the same path or a different one. However, many spicules do not seem to retract, but rather fade away (see [@depontieu2007]). The average direction of spicules deviates from the vertical, reaching typical heights of $6500 -
9500$ km. Observations yield densities aboout ($3\,10^{-13}$ g/cm$^3$) and temperatures in the range $5000 - 15000$ K that seem to be constant with height (see [@beckers-spicules] for an early review of spicule properties).
All classical spicule models make use of a magnetic flux tube that expands from the photosphere all the way up into the corona as their main ingredient (e.g., [@sterling-spicules], [@DePontieu]). An injection of energy into the flux tube is required to launch the material and to raise it up to heights of several thousand kilometers. Although the various models seem to explain some of the observational aspects of quiet-Sun spicules, they all fail to reproduce one or other observed parameter. One of the key impediments is our poor knowledge of the magnetic properties of spicules. We need more and better observations to constrain the models, and this is what motivates the present investigation. We want to find reliable constraints of some of the physical aspects of spicules, focusing, in particular, on understanding the magnetic field topology and its behaviour along the length of the spicule.
We use new spectropolarimetric measurements of the 10830Åmultiplet beyond the limb to infer the magnetic properties of quiet-Sun spicules. The information was retrieved by inverting the observed Stokes profiles (caused by atomic level polarization and the Hanle and Zeeman effects), as was first done by @tb-spicules. These authors inferred strengths of 10 G in quiet-Sun spicules at an atmospheric height of 2000 km. They point out, however, that significantly stronger fields could also be present (as indicated by larger Stokes-$V$ signals detected during another observing run). The possibility of magnetic fields significantly larger than 10 G was also tentatively suggested by the D$_3$ measurements of @lopezariste-spicules, although these spicules emanated from active plage. More detailed spectropolarimetric observations of spicules in the D$_3$ multiplet were carried out by @ramelli-spicules, who found $B{\approx}10$ G in quiet Sun and $B{\approx}50$ G in more active areas. The presented 10830Å spectropolarimetric observations of quiet-Sun spicules provide an unambiguous demonstration that the magnetic field strength of some spicules can be significantly large.
Observations {#centeno-observations}
============
Observations were carried out with the Tenerife Infrared Polarimeter (TIP, [@martinezpillet-tip]) at the German Vacuum Tower Telescope (Tenerife, Spain) on August 17, 2008. The TIP instrument allowed us to measure (almost) simultaneously the full Stokes vector of the 10830Å spectral region for all the points along the spectrograph slit, with spectral and spatial samplings of 11 mÅ and 0.17, respectively. Standard data reduction routines were applied to all the data-sets, encompassing dark current and flat-field correction of the images as well as polarization calibration and cross-talk correction of the Stokes profiles.
We placed the slit 2 off, and parallel to, the visible South limb, crossing a forest of spicules. There, we carried out several time series with the slit at fixed distances to the visible limb. The seeing conditions were not optimal and the off-limb pointing rendered the Adaptive Optics system inoperable. However, the atmospheric conditions were very stable (no wind), warranting image stability with no coelostat vibrations during the runs. Each data-set of 50-min duration was averaged in time in order to obtain a large S/N ratio. Spectral and spatial pixel binning were performed for the same purpose, maintaining sufficient sampling ($\approx 0.7$).
Analysis {#centeno-analysis}
========
Solar magnetic fields leave their fingerprints on the emergent polarization patterns of spectral lines that form in the solar atmosphere. This occurs through the Hanle and Zeeman effects.
The spectral line polarization produced by the Zeeman effect is a consequence of the wavelength shifts between the $\pi$ and $\sigma$ components of the atomic transitions, as the energy levels split due to the presence of a magnetic field. This splitting is normally proportional to the magnetic field strength and the Landé factor of the level. Typically, fields of 100 G or more are needed to be able to observe the signature of the transverse Zeeman effect on the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ profiles of a spectral line, while much weaker resolved fields are enough to produce measurable Stokes-$V$ signals via the longitudinal Zeeman effect. However, when the magnetic field is too weak and/or when there are mixed magnetic polarities within the spatio-temporal resolution element, the circular polarization produced by the longitudinal Zeeman effect tends to be negligible.
Fortunately, even in the absence of magnetic fields, measurable polarization signals in a spectral line occur if there are population imbalances among the magnetic sublevels of the atom. The key mechanism that produces this so-called atomic level polarization in the solar atmosphere is the anisotropic illumination of the atoms. Such “optical pumping” needs no magnetic field to operate and it is very effective in generating atomic level polarization when the depolarizing rates from elastic collisions are low. Structures such as chromospheric spicules are subject to the center-to-limb (CLV) variation of the photospheric illumination, receiving more radiation from the plasma that is directly underneath them than from the sides.
The Hanle effect is the modification of the atomic level polarization due to the presence of a magnetic field inclined with respect to the axis of symmetry of the radiation field. It is sensitive to weaker magnetic fields than those needed to induce a measurable Zeeman polarization signal and it does not tend to cancel out when mixed polarities are present (see [@tb-quantumspectropol]). The observational signatures of the Hanle effect in the $90\deg$ scattering geometry of our observations are a reduction of the linear polarization amplitude and a rotation of the direction of linear polarization, with respect to the unmagnetized case.
The formation of the 10830Å triplet is sensitive to both the Zeeman and Hanle effects. We have taken advantage of this fact to “measure" the magnetic field in spicules.
![\[centeno-fig:maps\] From left to right, maps of Stokes $I$, $Q$, $U$ and $V$. The $x$-axis represents wavelength (increasing to the right), the $y$-axis the position along the slit (which is about 80 long). \[centenofig:stokesims\] ](\figspath/centeno-mapI.eps "fig:"){width="2.6cm"} ![\[centeno-fig:maps\] From left to right, maps of Stokes $I$, $Q$, $U$ and $V$. The $x$-axis represents wavelength (increasing to the right), the $y$-axis the position along the slit (which is about 80 long). \[centenofig:stokesims\] ](\figspath/centeno-mapQ.eps "fig:"){width="2.6cm"} ![\[centeno-fig:maps\] From left to right, maps of Stokes $I$, $Q$, $U$ and $V$. The $x$-axis represents wavelength (increasing to the right), the $y$-axis the position along the slit (which is about 80 long). \[centenofig:stokesims\] ](\figspath/centeno-mapU.eps "fig:"){width="2.6cm"} ![\[centeno-fig:maps\] From left to right, maps of Stokes $I$, $Q$, $U$ and $V$. The $x$-axis represents wavelength (increasing to the right), the $y$-axis the position along the slit (which is about 80 long). \[centenofig:stokesims\] ](\figspath/centeno-mapV.eps "fig:"){width="2.6cm"}
Detection of Zeeman-induced Stokes $V$ {#centeno-stokesV}
--------------------------------------
The left-most panel of Fig. \[centenofig:stokesims\] shows time-averaged intensity as a function of wavelength and position along the slit. The bright and fainter vertical strips correspond to the red and blue components of the He multiplet, respectively. Stokes $I$ provides physical and thermodynamical information: the damping, the Doppler width, the optical depth and the macroscopic velocity of the plasma. Combining it with the information carried by Stokes $Q$ and $U$ (second and third panels, respectively), one can infer the magnetic field orientation. However, in the Hanle saturation regime (which is above about 8 G for this multiplet), linear polarization is barely responsive to the magnetic field strength, hindering its determination.
One of the most striking findings in this particular observation was the clear detection of a Zeeman-induced Stokes-$V$ signature (right-most panel of Fig. \[centeno-fig:maps\]). The circular polarization signal was, in many cases, large enough that it allowed us to pin down magnetic field strengths beyond the Hanle saturation value. The antisymmetric Stokes $V$ profile must be produced by a net line-of-sight (LOS) component of the magnetic field, $B_{\rm LOS}$, that would be fully resolved. However, cancellation effects due to the unresolved magnetic structure in our spatio-temporal resolution element (or along the line-of-sight), make the inferred $B_{\rm LOS}$ a lower limit for the field strength. For the profiles in Fig. \[centenofig:hazelfit\] (indicated by the horizontal lines in Fig. \[centeno-fig:maps\]), the inferred value is $B_{\rm LOS} \approx 25$ G, provided by HAZEL.
How do we interpret this signal? In a picture where the spicules are oriented arbitrarily along the line of sight, we would expect the $B_{\rm
LOS}$ to cancel, producing no net Zeeman Stokes V. However, these data would seem to imply a preferred direction of the magnetic field. Along the slit there are areas of strong and weak Stokes-$V$ signals, suggesting that, in the latter cases, the magnetic field is conspiring to minimize (or, at least, reduce) the net LOS component.
![\[centeno-hazelinv\] Best fit produced by HAZEL for a set of Stokes profiles for one position along the slit that has a sizable Stokes-$V$ signal, with $B=36$ G, $\theta_B=38.6\deg$ and $\chi_B=-2.2\deg$. The reference direction for $Q$ is the tangential to the closest solar limb. \[centenofig:hazelfit\] ](\figspath/centeno-hazelfit){width="9cm"}
Inversions
----------
In order to determine the magnetic field strength and other physical quantities from the observations, we inverted the full Stokes vector for every position along the slit using the inversion code HAZEL (see [@hazel]) to complete this task. HAZEL accounts for the physical ingredients and mechanisms operating in the generation of polarized light in this kind of observations: optical pumping, atomic level polarization, and the Hanle and Zeeman effects. Radiative transfer is computed in a constant-property slab that is permeated by a deterministic magnetic field. The slab is located at height $h$ above the visible solar surface, and is illuminated by the CLV of the photospheric continuum. The slab’s optical thickness, $\tau$, accounts for the integrated number of emitters and absorbers along the line of sight, taking care of the collective effect of having several spicules interposed along the path (although we cannot prescribe how many).
Fig. \[centenofig:hazelfit\] is an example in which our measurement shows a sizable Stokes-$V$ profile, at the location shown in Fig. \[centeno-fig:maps\]. The open circles represent the observed profiles while the solid line shows the best fit (in a $\chi^2$ sense) obtained from a HAZEL inversion. The inferred magnetic field strength is 36 G, with inclination 38.6 from the solar local vertical, and azimuth $-2.2\deg$ with respect to the LOS. The magnetic field orientation is very well constrained by the observed Stokes $Q$ and $U$ profiles. Except for the 180 and the Van-Vleck ambiguities (see [@hazel] and references therein), a good fit is only possible in a very narrow range of values. However, the field strength is only well determined when the Stokes-$V$ signal is present.
We applied this inversion procedure to all the pixels along the slit and both data-sets, deriving the magnetic field for all the spatial positions at two heights above the visible limb. From these inversion we were able to trace the magnetic field vector and construct a reliable picture of its behavior along the spicules. Variations of the field strength and topology were detected which we will describe in detail in forthcoming publications. Likewise, new observations will be carried out in 2009 to complement this preliminary work.
Conclusion {#centeno:conclusion}
==========
We carried out spectropolarimetric measurements of quiet Sun spicules in the 10830Å triplet, detecting clear Stokes $V$ signals that allow us to infer magnetic field strengths beyond the Hanle saturation regime. Values as high as 40 G were found in localized regions of the slit, which may correspond to organized network spicules or perhaps a macro-spicule.
We determined the magnetic field vector of all the pixels along the slit at two heights from the South limb, detecting spatial variations in the magnetic field strength and orientation. We plan to pursue this investigation further with new observations in the 10830Å multiplet complemented with other useful data, such as or filtergrams and HeD$_3$ spectropolarimetry.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. Financial support by the Spanish Ministry of Science through project AYA2007-63881 and by the European Commission via the SOLAIRE network (MTRN-CT-2006-035484) are gratefully acknowledged.
[10]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, A., [Trujillo Bueno]{}, J., [Landi Degl’Innocenti]{}, E. 2008, , 683, 542
, J. M. 1972, , 10, 73
, B., [Erd[é]{}lyi]{}, R., [James]{}, S. P. 2004, , 430, 536
, B., [McIntosh]{}, S., [Hansteen]{}, V. H., [et al.]{} 2007, , 59, 655
, A. [Casini]{}, R. 2005, , 436, 325
, V., [Collados]{}, M., [S[á]{}nchez Almeida]{}, J., [et al.]{} 1999, in High Resolution Solar Physics: Theory, Observations, and Techniques, eds. T. R. [Rimmele]{}, K. S. [Balasubramaniam]{}, & R. R. [Radick]{}, ASP Conf. Ser., 183, 264
, R., [Bianda]{}, M., [Merenda]{}, L., [Trujillo Bueno]{}, T. 2006, ASP Conf. Ser., 358, 448
, A. C. 2000, , 196, 79
, J. 2005, in The Dynamic Sun: Challenges for Theory and Observations, ESA-SP, 600 , J., [Merenda]{}, L., [Centeno]{}, R., [Collados]{}, M., [Landi Degl’Innocenti]{}, E. 2005, , 619, L191
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose a new systematic fibre bundle formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The new form of the theory is equivalent to the usual one but it is in harmony with the modern trends in theoretical physics and potentially admits new generalizations in different directions. In it a pure state of some quantum system is described by a state section (along paths) of a (Hilbert) fibre bundle. Its evolution is determined through the bundle (analogue of the) Schrödinger equation. Now the dynamical variables and the density operator are described via bundle morphisms (along paths). The mentioned quantities are connected by a number of relations derived in this work. The present first part of this investigation is devoted to the introduction of basic concepts on which the fibre bundle approach to quantum mechanics rests. We show that the evolution of pure quantum-mechanical states can be described as a suitable linear transport along paths, called evolution transport, of the state sections in the Hilbert fibre bundle of states of a considered quantum system.'
author:
- 'Bozhidar Z. Iliev [^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'bozhopub.bib'
- 'bozhoref.bib'
title: ' **** '
---
[bozhomac.sty]{}
\[1995/12/01\] \[1998/06/08 BOZHIDAR Z. ILIEV’s LaTeX2e style file\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[section\]
\[1\][[(\[\#1\])]{}]{}
[bozhlogo.sty]{} \[1997/04/18 BOZHIDAR Z. ILIEV’s LaTeX2e BOZHO logo\]
[bqm-1.bbl]{}
[10]{}
P. A. M. Dirac. . Oxford at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, fourth edition, 1958.
V. A. Fock. . Mir Publishers, Moscow, 1978.
A. M. L. Messiah. . Interscience, New York, 1958. (Vol. I and vol. II.).
E. Prugovečki. , volume 92 of [*Pure and applied mathematics*]{}. Academic Press, New York-London, second edition, 1981.
L.D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz. , volume III of [ *Course of theoretical physics*]{}. Pergamon Press, London, 2 edition, 1965. (Translation from Russian, Nauka, Moscow, 1962, 1974).
Ronald F. Schutz. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-London-New York- New Rochelle-Melbourne-Sydney, 1982. (Russian translation: Mir, Moscow, 1984).
R. Coquereaux. , volume 16 of [*World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics*]{}. World Scientific, Singapore-New York-Hong Kong, 1988.
N. P. Konopleva and V. N. Popov. . Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur-London-New York, second edition, 1981. (Original Russian edition: Atomizdat, Moscow, 1972 (1 ed.), 1980 (2 ed.)).
D. Husemoller. . McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York-St. Louis-San Francisco-Toronto-London-Sydney, 1966.
R. Hermann. . Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1973.
R. Hermann. , volume I. W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1970.
R. Hermann. , volume II. W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1970.
T. W. B. Kibble. Geometrization of quantum mechanics. , 65(2):189–201, 1979.
J. Anandan. A geometric view of quantum mechanics. In Anandan J. S., editor, [*Quantum coherence*]{}, Proceedings of the Conference on Fundamental Aspects of Quantum theory, Columbia, South Carolina, 14–16 December 1989. World Scientific, Singapore, 1990. (See also Preprint MPI-PAE/PTh 77/90, 1990 and Found. Phys., 21(11):1265–1284, 1991).
A. Ashtekar and T. A. Schilling. Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics. LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. gr-qc/9706069, 1997. (see also preprint CGPG 97/6-1).
D. C. Brody and L. P. Hughston. Geometrization of statistical mechanics. LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. gr-qc/9708032, 1997.
J. Anandan and Y. Aharonov. Geometry of quantum evolution. , 65(14):1697–1700, 1990.
A. Uhlmann. A gauge field governing parallel transport along mixed states. , 21(3):229–236, March 1991.
F. Wilczek and A. Zee. Appearance of gauge structure in simple dynamical systems. , 52(24):2111–2114, 1984.
A. Uhlmann. Parallel transport of phases. In Henning J. D., L[ü]{}cke W., and Tolar J., editors, [ *Differential geometry, Group representations, and Quantization*]{}, number 379 in Lecture Notes in Physics, pages 55–72. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1991.
W. Drechsler and Ph. A. Tuckey. On quantum and parallel transport in a [Hilbert]{} bundle over space-time. , 13(4):611–632, April 1996.
J. Coleman. On parallel transport in quantum bundles over [R]{}obertson-[W]{}alker spacetime. LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. gr-qc/9605067, 1996.
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Normal frames and linear transports along paths in vector bundles. (LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. gr-qc/9809084) Submitted to J. Physics A: Math. & Gen., 1998.
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Linear transports along paths in vector bundles. [I]{}. [General]{} theory. JINR Communication E5-93-239, Dubna, 1993.
D. Graudenz. On the space-time geometry of quantum systems. Preprint CERN-TH.7516/94, CERN, November 1994. (See also LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. gr-qc/9412013).
D. Graudenz. The quantum gauge principle. Preprint CERN-TH/96-107, CERN, April 1996. (See also LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. hep-th/9604180).
M. Asorey, J.F. Cari[ñ]{}ena, and M. Paramio. Quantum evolution as a parallel transport. , 21(8):1451–1458, 1982.
M. Reuter. Quantum mechanics as a gauge theory of metaplectic spinor fields. LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. hep-th/9804036, 1998. (see also: preprint DESY 97-127, 1997).
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Quantum mechanics from a geometric-observer’s viewpoint. , 31(4):1297–1305, January 1998. (LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. quant-ph/9803083).
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Transports along paths in fibre bundles. [General]{} theory. JINR Communication E5-93-299, Dubna, 1993.
J. von Neumann. . Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955.
M. Reed and B. Simon. , volume I, II, III, IV. Academic Press, New York, 1972, 1975, 1979, 1978.
J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell. . McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1964.
W. Greub, S. Halperin, and R. Vanstone. , volume 1 of [*Connections, Curvature, and Cohomology*]{}. Academic Press, New York and London, 1972.
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Transports along paths in fibre bundles. [II]{}. [Ties]{} with the theory of connections and parallel transports. JINR Communication E5-94-16, Dubna, 1994.
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Parallel transports in tensor spaces generated by derivations of tensor algebras. JINR Communication E5-93-1, Dubna, 1993.
S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu. , volume I. Interscience Publishers, New York-London, 1963.
J. A. Schouten. . Springer Verlag, Berlin-G[ö]{}ttingen-Heidelberg, second edition, 1954.
S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis. . Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1973.
J. L. Synge. . North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, 1960.
B. B. Walwadkar. Truesdell transport in general relativity. , 15(12):1107–1116, 1983.
B. B. Walwadkar and K. V. Virkar. Truesdell invariance in relativistic electromagnetic fields. , 16(1):1–7, 1984.
L. Radhakrishna, L. N. Katkar, and T. H. Date. Jaumann transport in relativistic continuum mechanics. , 13(10):939–946, 1981.
R. Dandoloff and W. J. Zakrzewski. Parallel transport along a space curve and related phases. , 22:L461–L466, 1989.
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Transports along maps in fibre bundles. JINR Communication E5-97-2, Dubna, 1997. (LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. dg-ga/9709016).
James D. Stasheff. “[P]{}arallel” transport in fibre spaces. Reimpreso del boletin de la sociedad matematica mexicana, [[S]{}ociedad]{} [[M]{}atematica]{} [[M]{}exicana]{}, Printed in USA, 1966. pages 68–84.
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Fibre bundle formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. [III]{}. [Pictures]{} and integrals of motion. (LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. quant-ph/9806046) Submitted to J. Physics A: Math. & Gen., ?? 1998.
Sze-Tsen Hu. . Academic Press, New York-London, 1959.
Bozhidar Z. Iliev. Transports along paths in fibre bundles. [III]{}. [Consistency]{} with bundle morphisms. JINR Communication E5-94-41, Dubna, 1994. (LANL xxx archive server, E-print No. dg-ga/9704004).
Introduction {#introduction-I}
============
Usually the standard nonrelativistic quantum mechanics of pure states is formulated in terms of vectors and operators in a Hilbert space . This is in discrepancy and not in harmony with the new trends in (mathematical) physics [@Schutz; @Coquereaux; @Konopleva-Popov] in which the theory of fibre bundles [@Husemoller; @R_Hermann/Geom-phys-systems], in particular vector bundles [@R_Hermann-I; @R_Hermann-II], is essentially used. This paper (and its further continuation(s)) is intended to incorporate the quantum theory in the family of fundamental physical theories based on the background of fibre bundles.
The idea of geometrization of quantum mechanics is an old one (see, e.g., [@Kibble-79] and the references therein). A good motivation for such approach is given in [@Anandan-90a; @Kibble-79]. Different geometrical structures in quantum mechanics were introduced , for instance such as inner products(s) [@Fock-FQM; @Messiah-QM; @Kibble-79; @Anandan-90b], (linear) connection [@Anandan-90a; @Anandan-90b; @Uhlmann-91a], symplectic structure [@Anandan-90a], complex structure [@Kibble-79], etc. The introduction of such structures admits a geometrical treatment of some problems, for instance, the dynamics in the (quantum) phase space [@Kibble-79] and the geometrical phase [@Anandan-90a]. In a very special case a gauge structure, i.e. a parallel transport corresponding to a linear connection, in quantum mechanics is pointed out in [@Wilczek-Zee]. For us this work is remarkable with the fact that the equation (10) found in it is a very ‘ancient’ special version of the transformation law for the matrix-bundle Hamiltonian, derived in this investigation, which, together with the bundle (analog of the) Schrödinger equation, shows that (up to a constant) with respect to the quantum evolution the Hamiltonian plays the rôle of a gauge field (connection). In [@Uhlmann-91a; @Uhlmann-91b] one finds different (vector) bundles defined on the base of the (usual) Hilbert space of quantum mechanics or its modifications. In these works different parallel transports in the corresponding bundles are introduced too.
A general feature of all of the references above-cited is that in them all geometric concepts are introduced by using in one or the other way the accepted mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics, viz. a suitable Hilbert or projective Hilbert space and operators acting in it. The Hilbert space may be extended in a certain sense or replaced by a more general space, but this does not change the main ideas. One of the aims of this work is namely to change this mathematical background of quantum mechanics.
Separately we have to mention the approach of Prugovečki to the quantum theory, a selective summary of which can be found in [@Drechsler/Tuckey-96] (see also the references therein) and in [@Coleman-96]. It can be characterized as ‘stochastic’ and ‘bundle’. The former feature will not be discussed in the present investigation; thus we lose some advantages of the stochastic quantum theory to which we shall return elsewhere. The latter ‘part’ of the Prugovečki’s approach has some common aspects with our present work but, generally, it is essentially different. For instance, in both cases the quantum evolution from point to point (in space-time) is described via a kind of (parallel or generic linear) transport (along paths) in a suitable Hilbert fibre bundle. But the notion of a ‘Hilbert bundle’ in our and Prugovečki’s approach is different nevertheless that in both case the typical (standard) fibre is practically the same (when one and the same theory is concerned). Besides, we need not even to introduce the Poincaré (principal) fibre bundle over the space-time or the phase space which play an important rôle in Prugovečki’s theory. Also we have to notice that the used in it concepts of quantum and parallel transport are special cases of the notion of a ‘linear transport along paths’ introduced in [@bp-normalF-LTP; @bp-LTP-general]. The application of the last concept, which is accepted in the present investigation, has a lot of advantages, significantly simplifies some proofs and makes certain results ‘evident’ or trivial (e.g. the last part of section 2 and the whole section 4 of [@Drechsler/Tuckey-96]). At last, at the present level (nonrelativistic quantum mechanics) our bundle formulation of the quantum theory is insensitive with respect to the space-time curvature. A detail comparison of Prugovečki’s and our approaches to the quantum theory will be done elsewhere.
Another geometric approach to quantum mechanics is proposed in [@Graudenz-94] and partially in [@Graudenz-96], the letter of which is, with a few exceptions, almost a review of the former. These works suggest two ideas which are quite important for us. First, the quantum evolution could be described as a (kind of) parallel transport in an infinitely dimensional (Hilbert) fibre bundle over the space-time. And second, the concrete description of a quantum system should explicitly depend on (the state of) the observer with respect to which it is depicted (or who ‘investigates’ it). These ideas are incorporated and developed in our work.
From the known to the author literature, the closest to the approach developed in this work is which contains an excellent motivation for applying the fibre bundle technique to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.[^4] Generally said, in this paper the evolution of a quantum system is described as a ‘generalized parallel transport’ of appropriate objects in a Hilbert fibre bundle over the 1[-]{}dimensional manifold $\mathbb{R}_+:=\{t : t\in\mathbb{R}, t\ge0\}$, interpreted as a ‘time’ manifold (space). We shall comment on reference in the second part of this series, after developing the formalism required for its analysis. Besides, the paper contains an excellent motivation for applying the apparatus of fibre bundle theory to quantum mechanics.
An attempt to formulate quantum mechanics in terms of a fibre bundle over the phase space is made in [@Reuter]. Regardless of some common features, this paper is quite different from the present investigation. We shall comment on it later. In particular, in [@Reuter] the gauge structure of the arising theory is governed by a non[-]{}dynamical connection related to the symplectic structure of the system’s phase space, while in this work analogous structure (linear transport along paths) is uniquely connected with system’s Hamiltonian, playing here the rôle of a gauge field itself.
The present work is a direct continuation of the considerations in [@bp-BQM-preliminary] which paper, in fact, may be regarded as its preliminary version. Here we suggests a purely fibre bundle formulation of the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. This new form of the theory is entirely equivalent to the usual one, which is a consequence or our step by step equivalent reformulation of the quantum theory. The bundle description is obtained on the base of the developed by the author theory of transports along paths in fibre bundles [@bp-normalF-LTP; @bp-TP-general; @bp-LTP-general], generalizing the theory of parallel transport, which is partially generalized here to the infinitely dimensional case.
The main object in quantum mechanics is the Hamiltonian (operator) which, through the Schrödinger equation, governs the evolution of a quantum system . In our novel approach its rôle is played by a suitable linear transport along paths in an appropriate (Hilbert) fibre bundle. It turns out that up to a constant the matrix-bundle Hamiltonian, which is uniquely determined by the Hamiltonian in a given field of bases, coincides with the matrix of the coefficients of this transport (cf. an analogous result in [@bp-BQM-preliminary sect. 5]). This fact, together with the replacement of the usual Hilbert space with a Hilbert fibre bundle, is the corner-stone for the possibility for the new formulation of the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.
The present first part of our investigation is organized as follows.
In Sect. \[II\] are reviewed some facts from the quantum mechanics and partially is fixed our notation. Here, as well as throughout this work, we follow the established in the physical literature degree of rigor. But, if required, the present work can reformulate to meet the present-day mathematical standards. For this purpose one can use, for instance, the quantum-mechanical formalism described in [@Prugovecki-QMinHS] or in [@Neumann-MFQM] (see also ).
In Sect. \[III\] we recall the notion of a linear transport along paths in vector fibre bundles and make certain remarks concerning the special case of a Hilbert bundle.
Sect. \[new-I\] begins the building of the new bundle approach to quantum mechanics. Here the concept of a *Hilbert fibre bundle of the states* corresponding to a quantum system is introduced. The analogue of the state vector now is the *state section (along paths)*. We present here also some technical (mathematical) details, such as ones concerning (Hermitian) bundle metric, Hermitian and unitary maps etc.
In Sect. \[IV\] is proved that in the new description the evolution operator of a quantum system is (equivalently) replaced by a suitable linear transport along paths, called *evolution transport* or a *bundle evolution operator*.
The paper closes with Sect. \[conclusion-I\].
Evolution of pure quantum states (review) {#II}
=========================================
In quantum mechanics a pure state of a quantum system is described by a state vector $\psi(t)$ (in Dirac’s [@Dirac-PQM] notation $|t\rangle$) generally depending on the time $t\in\mathbb R$ and belonging to a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{F}}$ (specific to any concrete system) endowed with a nondegenerate Hermitian scalar product $
\langle\cdot | \cdot \rangle\colon {\mathcal{F}}\times{\mathcal{F}}\to \mathbb{C}.
$[^5] For any two instants of time $t_2$ and $t_1$ the corresponding state vectors are connected by the equality $$\label{2.1}
\psi(t_2) = {\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1)\psi(t_1)$$ where ${\mathcal{U}}$ is the *evolution operator* of the system [@Prugovecki-QMinHS chapter IV, Sect. 3.2]. It is supposed to be linear and unitary, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.20}
{\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1)( \lambda\psi(t_1) + \mu\xi(t_1) ) &=
\lambda {\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1)(\psi(t_1)) + \mu {\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1)( \xi(t_1) ),
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \label{2.2}
{\mathcal{U}}^\dag(t_1,t_2) &= {\mathcal{U}}^{-1}(t_2,t_1),
\end{aligned}$$ for any $\lambda,\mu\in\mathbb{C}$ and state vectors $\psi(t),\xi(t)\in{\mathcal{F}}$, and such that for any $t$ $$\label{2.3}
{\mathcal{U}}(t,t) = {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{F}}.$$ Here ${\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_X$ means the identity map of a set $X$ and the dagger ($\dag$) denotes Hermitian conjugation, i.e. if $\varphi,\psi\in{\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}\colon {\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$, then ${\mathcal{A}}^\dag$ is defined by $$\label{2.4}
\langle {\mathcal{A}}^\dag\varphi | \psi \rangle =
\langle \varphi | {\mathcal{A}}\psi \rangle.$$ In particular ${\mathcal{U}}^\dag$ is defined by $
\langle {\mathcal{U}}^\dag(t_1,t_2)\varphi(t_2) | \psi(t_1) \rangle =
\langle \varphi(t_2) | {\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1)\psi(t_1) \rangle.
$ So, knowing $\psi(t_0)=\psi_0$ for some moment $t_0$, one knows the state vector for any moment $t$ as $
\psi(t)={\mathcal{U}}(t,t_0)\psi(t_0)={\mathcal{U}}(t,t_0)\psi_0.
$
Let ${\mathcal{H}}(t)$ be the Hamiltonian (function) of the system, i.e. its total energy operator. It generally depends on the time $t$ explicitly[^6] and it is supposed to be a Hermitian operator, i.e. ${\mathcal{H}}^\dag(t)={\mathcal{H}}(t)$. The Schrödinger equation (see [@Dirac-PQM § 27] or [@Prugovecki-QMinHS chapter V, Sec. 3.1]) $$\label{2.5}
{\mathrm{i}\hbar}\frac{d \psi(t)}{d t} = {\mathcal{H}}(t) \psi(t),$$ with ${\mathrm{i}}\in\mathbb{C}$ and $\hbar$ being respectively the imaginary unit and the Plank’s constant (divided by $2\pi$), together with some initial condition $$\label{2.5a}
\psi(t_0)=\psi_0\in{\mathcal{F}}$$ is postulated in the quantum mechanics
The substitution of (\[2.1\]) into (\[2.5\]) shows that there is a 1:1 correspondence between ${\mathcal{U}}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}$ described by $$\label{2.6}
{\mathrm{i}\hbar}\frac{\partial {\mathcal{U}}(t,t_0)}{\partial t} = {\mathcal{H}}(t)\circ{\mathcal{U}}(t,t_0),
\qquad
{\mathcal{U}}(t_0,t_0) = {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{F}}$$ where $\circ$ denotes composition of maps. If ${\mathcal{U}}$ is given, then $$\label{2.7}
{\mathcal{H}}(t) =
{\mathrm{i}\hbar}\frac{\partial {\mathcal{U}}(t,t_0)}{\partial t} \circ {\mathcal{U}}^{-1}(t,t_0) =
{\mathrm{i}\hbar}\frac{\partial {\mathcal{U}}(t,t_0)}{\partial t} \circ {\mathcal{U}}(t_0,t),$$ where we have used the equality $${\mathcal{U}}^{-1}(t_2,t_1) = {\mathcal{U}}(t_1,t_2)$$ which follows from (\[2.1\]) (see also below (\[2.8\]) or Sect. \[IV\]). Conversely, if ${\mathcal{H}}$ is given, then [@Messiah-QM chapter VIII, § 8] ${\mathcal{U}}$ is the unique solution of the integral equation $
{\mathcal{U}}(t,t_0) = {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{F}}+
{{\frac{1}{{\mathrm{i}\hbar}}}} \int\limits_{t_0}^{t} {\mathcal{H}}(\tau){\mathcal{U}}(\tau,t_0) d\tau,
$ i.e. we have $$\label{2.8}
{\mathcal{U}}(t,t_0) = \operatorname{Texp}\int\limits_{t_0}^{t}
{{\frac{1}{{\mathrm{i}\hbar}}}} {\mathcal{H}}(\tau) d\tau,$$ where $\operatorname{Texp}\int\limits_{t_0}^{t}\cdots d\tau$ is the chronological (called also T-ordered, P-ordered or path-ordered) exponent (defined, e.g as the unique solution of the initial-value problem (\[2.6\]); see also ).[^7] From here follows that the Hermiticity of ${\mathcal{H}}$, ${\mathcal{H}}^\dag={\mathcal{H}}$, is equivalent to the unitarity of ${\mathcal{U}}$ (see (\[2.2\])).
Let us note that for mathematically rigorous understanding of the derivations in (\[2.5\]), (\[2.6\]), and (\[2.7\]), as well as of the chronological (path-ordered) exponent in (\[2.8\]), one has to apply the developed in [@Prugovecki-QMinHS] mathematical apparatus, but this is out of the subject of the present work.
If ${\mathcal{A}}(t)\colon {\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ is the (linear) operator corresponding to a dynamical variable ${\pmb{\mathbb{A}}}$ at the moment $t$, then the mean value (= the mathematical expectation) which it assumes at a state described by a state vector $\psi(t)$ with a finite norm is $$\label{2.9}
\langle{\mathcal{A}}(t)\rangle_\psi^t :=
\frac{\langle\psi(t) | {\mathcal{A}}(t)\psi(t)\rangle}
{\langle\psi(t) | \psi(t)\rangle}.$$
Often the operator ${\mathcal{A}}$ can be chosen to be independent of the time $t$. (This is possible, e.g., if ${\mathcal{A}}$ does not depend on $t$ explicitly [@Messiah-QM chapter VII, § 9] or if the spectrum of ${\mathcal{A}}$ does not change in time [@Fock-FQM chapter III, sect. 13].) If this is the case, it is said that the system’s evolution is depicted in the Schrödinger picture of motion [@Dirac-PQM § 28], [@Messiah-QM chapter VII, § 9].
Linear transports along paths and\
Hilbert fibre bundles {#III}
==================================
The general theory of linear transports along paths in vector bundles is developed at length in [@bp-normalF-LTP; @bp-LTP-general]. In the present investigation we shall need only a few definitions and results from these papers when the bundle considered is a Hilbert one (see below definition \[Defn3.2\]). To their partial introduction and motivation is devoted the current section.
Let $(E,\pi,B)$ be a complex[^8] vector bundle with bundle (total) space $E$, base $B$, projection $\pi\colon E\to B$, and isomorphic fibres $\pi^{-1}(x)\subset E$, $x\in B$. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be the (standard, typical) fibre of the bundle, [i.e. ]{}a vector space to which all $\pi^{-1}(x)$, $x\in B$ are homeomorphic (isomorphic). By $J$ and $\gamma\colon J\to B$ we denote, respectively, a real interval and path in $B$.
\[Defn3.1\] A linear transport along paths in the bundle $(E,\pi,B)$ is a map $L$ assigning to any path $\gamma$ a map $L^\gamma$, transport along $\gamma$, such that $L^\gamma\colon (s,t)\mapsto L^\gamma_{s\to t}$ where the map $$\label{3.fibre}
L^\gamma_{s\to t} \colon \pi^{-1}(\gamma(s)) \to \pi^{-1}(\gamma(t))
\qquad s,t\in J,$$ called transport along $\gamma$ from $s$ to $t$, has the properties: $$\begin{aligned}
{2} \label{3.1}
L^\gamma_{s\to t}\circ L^\gamma_{r\to s} &=
L^\gamma_{r\to t},&\qquad r,s,t&\in J, \\
L^\gamma_{s\to s} &= {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{\pi^{-1}(\gamma(s))}, & s&\in J, \label{3.2}
\\
L^\gamma_{s\to t}(\lambda u + \mu v) \label{3.linear}
&= \lambda L^\gamma_{s\to t}u + \mu L^\gamma_{s\to t}v,
& \lambda,\mu &\in \mathbb{C},\quad u,v\in{\pi^{-1}(\gamma(s))},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\circ$ denotes composition of maps and ${\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_X$ is the identity map of a set $X$.
Equations [[(\[3.1\])]{}]{} and [[(\[3.2\])]{}]{} mean that $L$ is a *transport along paths* in the bundle $(E,\pi,B)$ [@bp-TP-general definition 2.1], while [[(\[3.linear\])]{}]{} specifies that it is *linear* [@bp-TP-general equation (2.8)]. In the present paper only linear transports will be used.
This definition generalizes the concept of a parallel transport in the theory of (linear) connections (see [@bp-TP-general; @bp-TP-parallelT] and the references therein for details and comparison).
A few comments on definition \[Defn3.1\] are now in order. According to equation [[(\[3.fibre\])]{}]{}, a linear transport along paths may be considered as a path-depending connection: it establishes a fibre (isomorphic - see below) correspondence between the fibres over the path along which it acts. By virtue of equation [[(\[3.linear\])]{}]{} this correspondence is linear. Such a condition is a natural one when vector bundles are involved, it simply represents a compatibility condition with the vectorial structure of the bundle (see [@bp-TP-general sect. 2.3] for details). Equation [[(\[3.2\])]{}]{} is a formal realization of our intuitive and naïve understanding that if we ‘stand’ at some point of a path without ‘moving’ along it, then ‘nothing’ must happen with the fibre over that point. This property fixes a 0[-]{}[ary]{} operation in the set of (linear) transports along paths, defining in it the ‘unit’ transport. At last, the equality [[(\[3.1\])]{}]{}, which may be called a group property of the (linear) transports along paths, is a rigorous expression of the intuitive representation that the ‘composition’ of two (linear) transports along one and the same path must be a (linear) transport along the same path.
In general, different forms of [[(\[3.fibre\])]{}]{}–[[(\[3.linear\])]{}]{} are well know properties of the parallel transports generated by (linear) connections (see [@bp-TP-parallelT]). By this reason these transports turn to be special cases of the general (linear) transport along paths [@bp-TP-parallelT theorem 3.1]. In particular, comparing definition \[Defn3.1\] with [@bp-LT-Deriv-tensors definition 2.1] and taking into account [@bp-LT-Deriv-tensors proposition 4.1], we conclude that special types of linear transports along paths are: the parallel transport assigned to a linear connection (covariant differentiation) of the tensor algebra of a manifold , Fermi-Walker transport , Fermi transport [@Synge], Truesdell transport , Jaumann transport , Lie transport , the modified Fermi[-]{}Walker and Frenet[-]{}Serret transports , etc. Consequently definition \[Defn3.1\] is general enough to cover a list of important transports used in theoretical physics and mathematics. Thus studying the properties of the linear transports along paths we can make corresponding conclusions for any one of the transports mentioned.[^9]
From [[(\[3.1\])]{}]{} and [[(\[3.2\])]{}]{} we get that $L^\gamma_{s\to t}$ are invertible and $$\label{3.3}
\left(L^\gamma_{s\to t}\right)^{-1} = L^\gamma_{t\to s},
\qquad s,t\in J.$$ Hence the linear transports along paths are in fact linear isomorphisms of the fibres over the path along which they act.
The following two propositions establish the general structure of linear transports along paths.
\[Prop3.1\] A map [[(\[3.fibre\])]{}]{} is a linear transport along $\gamma$ from $s$ to $t$ for every $s,t\in J$ if and only if there exist an isomorphic with $\pi^{-1}(x),\ x\in B$ vector space $V$ and family of linear isomorphisms $\{F(s;\gamma)\colon \pi^{-1}(\gamma(s))\to V,\ s\in J\}$ such that $$\label{3.4}
L_{s\to t}^{\gamma} =
F^{-1}(t;\gamma) \circ F(s;\gamma),\qquad s,t\in J.$$
If [[(\[3.fibre\])]{}]{} is a linear transport along $\gamma$ from $s$ to $t$, then fixing some $s_0\in J$ and using [[(\[3.2\])]{}]{} and [[(\[3.3\])]{}]{}, we get $
L_{s\to t}^{\gamma} = L_{s_0\to t}^{\gamma} \circ L_{s\to s_0}^{\gamma}
= \bigl(L_{t\to s_0}^{\gamma}\bigr)^{-1} \circ L_{s\to s_0}^{\gamma}.
$ So [[(\[3.4\])]{}]{} holds for $V=\pi^{-1}(\gamma(s_0))$ and $F(s;\gamma)=L_{s\to s_0}^{\gamma}$. Conversely, if [[(\[3.4\])]{}]{} is valid for some linear isomorphisms $F(s;\gamma)$, then a straightforward calculation shows that it converts [[(\[3.1\])]{}]{} and [[(\[3.2\])]{}]{} into identities and [[(\[3.linear\])]{}]{} holds due to the linearity of $F(s;\gamma)$.
\[Prop3.2\] Let in the vector bundle $(E,\pi,B)$ be given linear transport along paths with a representation [[(\[3.4\])]{}]{} for some vector space $V$ and linear isomorphisms $F(s;\gamma)\colon \pi^{-1}(\gamma(s))\to V,\ s\in J$. Then for a vector space ${{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{V}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}V}$ there exist linear isomorphisms $
{{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{\mspace{-2mu}F}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}\mspace{-2mu}F}(s;\gamma)\colon \pi^{-1}(\gamma(s))\to
{{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{V}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}V},
\ s\in J
$ for which $$\label{3.6}
L_{s\to t}^{\gamma} =
{{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{\mspace{-2mu}F}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}\mspace{-2mu}F}^{-1}(t;\gamma) \circ
{{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{\mspace{-2mu}F}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}\mspace{-2mu}F}(s;\gamma),\qquad s,t\in J.$$ iff there exists a linear isomorphism $D(\gamma)\colon V\to{{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{V}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}V}$ such that $$\label{3.7}
{{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{\mspace{-2mu}F}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}\mspace{-2mu}F}(s;\gamma) = D(\gamma)\circ F(s;\gamma),
\qquad s\in J.$$
If [[(\[3.7\])]{}]{} holds, then substituting $
F(s;\gamma) = D^{-1}(\gamma)\circ {{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{\mspace{-2mu}F}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}\mspace{-2mu}F}(s;\gamma)
$ into [[(\[3.4\])]{}]{}, we get [[(\[3.6\])]{}]{}. Vice versa, if [[(\[3.6\])]{}]{} is valid, then from its comparison with [[(\[3.4\])]{}]{} follows that $
D(\gamma) = {{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{\mspace{-2mu}F}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}\mspace{-2mu}F}(t;\gamma)
\circ \bigl(F(t;\gamma)\bigr)^{-1}
= {{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{\mspace{-2mu}F}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}\mspace{-2mu}F}(s;\gamma)
\circ \bigl(F(s;\gamma)\bigr)^{-1}
$ is the required (independent of $s,t\in J$) isomorphism.
The above definition and results for linear transports along paths deal with the general case concerning arbitrary vector bundles and are therefore insensitive to the dimensionality of the bundle’s base or fibres. Below we point out some peculiarities of the case of a Hilbert bundle whose fibres are generally infinitely dimensional.
\[Defn3.2\] A Hilbert fibre bundle is a fibre bundle whose fibres are homeomorphic Hilbert spaces or, equivalently, whose (standard) fibre is a Hilbert space.
In the present investigation we shall show that the Hilbert bundles can be taken as a natural mathematical framework for a geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics. For linear transports in a Hilbert bundle are valid all results of [@bp-normalF-LTP; @bp-LTP-general; @bp-TP-general] with a possible exception of the ones in which (local) bases in the fibres are involved. The cause for this is that the dimension of a Hilbert space is (generally) infinity. So, there arise problems connected with the convergence or divergence of the corresponding sums or integrals. Below we try to avoid these problems and to formulate our assertions and results in an invariant way.
Of course, propositions \[Prop3.1\] and \[Prop3.2\] remain valid on Hilbert bundles; the only addition is that the vector spaces $V$ and ${{}\mspace{3mu}{\vphantom{V}} _{}^{\star}\mspace{-0.8mu}V}$ are now Hilbert spaces.
Below, in Sect. \[new-I\] (see below the paragraph after equation [[(\[4.12f\])]{}]{}), we shall establish a result specific for the Hilbert bundles that has no analogue in the general theory: a transport along paths is Hermitian if and only if it is unitary. This assertion is implicitly contained in [@bp-BQM-preliminary sect. 3] (see the paragraph after equation (3.6) in it).
In [@bp-normalF-LTP sect. 3] are introduced the so-called *normal* frames for a linear transport along paths as a (local) field of bases in which (on some set) the matrix of the transport is unit. Further in this series [@bp-BQM-pictures+integrals] we shall see that the normal frames realize the Heisenberg picture of motion in the Hilbert bundle formulation of quantum mechanics.
The Hilbert bundle description\
of quantum mechanics {#new-I}
===============================
As we shall see in this investigation, the Hilbert bundles provide a natural mathematical framework for a geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics. In it all quantum[-]{}mechanical quantities, such as Hamiltonians, observables, wavefunctions, etc., have an adequate description. For instance, the evolution of a systems is described as an appropriate (parallel or, more precisely, linear) transport of system’s state sections along some path. We have to emphasize on the fact that the new bundle formulation of quantum mechanics and the conventional one are completely equivalent at the present stage.
Before going on, we want to mention several works in which attempts are made for a (partial) formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics in terms of fibre bundles.
It seems that for the first time the real bundle approach to quantum mechanics is developed in where the single Hilbert space of quantum mechanics is replaced with an infinitely many copies of it forming a bundle space over the 1[-]{}dimensional ‘time’ manifold ([i.e. ]{}over $\mathbb{R}_+$). In this Hilbert fibre bundle the quantum evolution is (equivalently) described as a kind of ‘parallel’ transport of appropriate objects over the bundle’s base.
Analogous construction, a Hilbert bundle over the system’s phase space, is used in the Prugovečki’s approach to quantum theory (see, e.g. the references in [@Drechsler/Tuckey-96]).
In [@Wilczek-Zee] is first mentioned about the gauge, [i.e. ]{}linear connection, structure in quantum mechanics. That structure is pointed to be connected with the system’s Hamiltonian. This observation will find natural explanation in our work.
Some ideas concerning the interpretation of quantum evolution as a kind of a ‘parallel’ transport in a Hilbert bundle can also be found in [@Graudenz-94; @Reuter].
After this introduction, we want to present some non-exactly rigorous ideas and statements whose only purpose is the *motivation* for applying the fibre bundle formalism to quantum mechanics. Another excellent arguments and motives confirming this approach are given in .
Let ${\mathit{M}}$ be a differentiable manifold, representing in our context the space in which the (nonrelativistic) quantum-mechanical objects ‘live’, i.e. the usual 3-dimensional coordinate space (isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^3 $ with the corresponding structures).[^10] Let $\gamma\colon J\to {\mathit{M}}$, $J$ being an $\mathbb R$-interval, be the trajectory of an observer describing the behaviour of a quantum system at any moment $t\in J$ by a state vector $\Psi_\gamma(t)$ depending on $t$ and, possibly, on $\gamma$.[^11] For a fixed point $x=\gamma(t)\in {\mathit{M}}$ the variety of state vectors describing a quantum system and corresponding to different observers form a Hilbert space ${\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}$ which *depends on $\gamma(t)=x$, but not on $\gamma$ and $t$ separately*.[^12]
\[Rem-base\] As we said above in footnote \[footnote-base\], the next considerations are completely valid mathematically if ${\mathit{M}}$ is an arbitrary differentiable manifold and $\gamma$ is a path in it. In this sense ${\mathit{M}}$ and $\gamma$ are free parameters in our theory and their concrete choice is subjected only to *physical reasons*, first of all, ones requiring adequate physical interpretation of the resulting theory. Typical candidates for ${\mathit{M}}$ are: the 3[-]{}dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb{E}^3$ or $\mathbb{R}^3$, the 4[-]{}dimensional Minkowski space $M^4$ of special relativity or the Riemannian space $V_4$ of general relativity, the system’s configuration or phase space, the ‘time’ manifold $\mathbb{R}_+:=\{a:a\in\mathbb{R},\ a>0\}$, etc. Correspondingly, $\gamma$ obtains interpretation as particle’s trajectory, its world line, and so on. The degenerate case when ${\mathit{M}}$ consists of a single point corresponds (up to an isomorphism - see below) to the conventional quantum mechanics. Throughout this work we most often take ${\mathit{M}}=\mathbb{R}^3$ as a natural choice corresponding to the non-relativistic case investigated here but, as we said, this is not required by necessity. Elsewhere we shall see that ${\mathit{M}}=M^4$ or ${\mathit{M}}=V_4$ are natural choices in the relativistic region. An expanded commend on these problems will be given in the concluding part of this series. Here we want to note only that the interpretation of $\gamma$ as an observer’s (particle’s) trajectory or world line, as accepted in this work, is reasonable but not necessary one. May be more adequate is to interpret $\gamma$ as a mean (in quantum-mechanical sense) trajectory of some point particle but this does not change anything in the mathematical structure of the bundle approach proposed here.
The spaces ${\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}$ must be isomorphic as, from physical view-point, they simply represent the possible variety of state vectors from different positions. In this way over ${\mathit{M}}$ arises a natural bundle structure, viz. a *Hilbert bundle* ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ with a total space ${\mathit{F}}$, projection ${\pi}\colon {\mathit{F}}\to {\mathit{M}}$ and isomorphic fibres ${\pi}^{-1}(x):={\mathit{F}}_x$. Since ${\mathit{F}}_x$, $x\in {\mathit{M}}$ are isomorphic, there exists a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{F}}$ and (linear) isomorphisms $l_x\colon {\mathit{F}}_x\to{\mathcal{F}},\ x\in {\mathit{M}}$. Mathematically ${\mathcal{F}}$ is the typical (standard) fibre of ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$. (Note that we do not suppose local triviality, i.e. that for any $x\in {\mathit{M}}$ there is a neighborhood $W\ni x$ in ${\mathit{M}}$ such that ${\pi}^{-1}(W)$ is homeomorphic to ${\mathcal{F}}\times W$.) The maps $\Psi_\gamma\colon J\to{\pi}^{-1}(\gamma(J))$ can be considered as sections over any part of $\gamma$ without self-intersections (see below).
Now a natural question arises: how the quantum evolution in time in the bundle constructed is described? There are two almost ‘evident’ ways to do this. On one hand, we can postulate the conventional quantum mechanics in every fibre ${\mathit{F}}_x$, [i.e. ]{}the Schrödinger equation for the state vector $\Psi_\gamma(t)\in{\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}$ with ${\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}$ being (an isomorphic copy of) the system’s Hilbert space. But the only thing one gets in this way is an isomorphic image of the usual quantum mechanics in any fibre over ${\mathit{M}}$. Therefore one can not expect some new results or descriptions in this direction (see below [[(\[4.3b\])]{}]{} and the comments after it). On the other hand, we can demand the ordinary quantum mechanics to be valid in the fibre ${\mathcal{F}}$ of the bundle ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$. This means to identify ${\mathcal{F}}$ with the system’s Hilbert space of states and to describe the quantum time evolution of the system via the vector $$\label{4.3}
\psi(t) = l_{\gamma(t)} ( {\Psi}_\gamma(t) ) \in {\mathcal{F}}$$ which evolves according to (\[2.1\]) or (\[2.5\]). This approach is accepted in the present investigation. What we intend to do further, is, by using the basic relation [[(\[4.3\])]{}]{}, to ‘transfer’ the quantum mechanics from ${\mathcal{F}}$ to ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ or, in other words, to investigate the quantum evolution in terms of the vector $\Psi_\gamma(t)$ connected with $\psi(t)$ via [[(\[4.3\])]{}]{}. Since $l_x,\ x\in {\mathit{M}}$ are isomorphisms, both descriptions are *completely equivalent*. This equivalence resolves a psychological problem that may arise at first sight: the single Hilbert space ${\mathcal{F}}$ of standard quantum theory is replaced with a, generally, infinite number copies ${\mathit{F}}_x$, $x\in{\mathit{M}}$ thereof (cf. ). In the present investigation we shall show that the merit one gains from this is an entirely geometrical reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of Hilbert fibre bundles.
The above considerations were more or less heuristic ones. The rigorous problem we want to investigate is the following. Let there be given a quantum system described in the (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanics by a state vector $\psi(t)$ satisfying the Schrödinger equation [[(\[2.5\])]{}]{} and belonging to the system’s Hilbert space ${\mathcal{F}}$ of states . We *postulate* that ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ is a Hilbert fibre bundle with bundle space ${\mathit{F}}$, base ${\mathit{M}}$, projection ${\pi}\colon{\mathit{F}}\to{\mathit{M}}$, and (typical, standard) *fibre coinciding with* ${\mathcal{F}}$. We suppose to be fixed a set of isomorphisms $\{l_x :\ l_x\colon{\mathit{F}}_x\to{\mathcal{F}},\ x\in{\mathit{M}}\}$ between the fibres ${\mathit{F}}_x:={\pi}^{-1}(x)$, $x\in{\mathit{M}}$ and the typical fibre ${\mathcal{F}}$. The base ${\mathit{M}}$ is supposed to be a differentiable manifold which, for definiteness, we shall identify with $\mathbb{R}^3$ (or with other manifold ‘suitable’ for the physical model; see remark \[Rem-base\]). Let $\gamma\colon J\to{\mathit{M}}$ be a path. In the case ${\mathit{M}}=\mathbb{R}^3$ (resp.${\mathit{M}}=M^4,V_4$) we interpret $\gamma$ as a trajectory (resp. world line) of an observer describing the behaviour of the quantum system under consideration. If $\psi(t)$ is the complex vector-valued function of time representing the system’s state vector at a moment $t$, then our goal is to describe the system’s state at some instant of time $t$ via the vector (cf. [[(\[4.3\])]{}]{}) $$\label{4.3a}
\Psi_\gamma(t) = l_{\gamma(t)}^{-1}(\psi(t))\in {\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}.$$ Since $l_x$, $x\in{\mathit{M}}$ are isomorphisms, both descriptions of the quantum evolution, through $\psi(t)$ and $\Psi_\gamma(t)$, are completely equivalent.
Two important notes have to be made here. Firstly, the state vectors in the bundle description generally explicitly depend on the observer,[i.e. ]{}on the reference path $\gamma$, which is depicted in the index $\gamma$ in $\Psi_\gamma(t)$. This is on the contrary to the quantum mechanics where it is almost everywhere implicitly assumed. And secondly, the bundle, as well as the conventional, description of quantum mechanics is defined up to a linear isomorphism(s). In fact, if $\imath\colon {\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}^\prime$, ${\mathcal{F}}^\prime$ being a Hilbert space, is a linear isomorphism (which may depend on the time $t$), then $\psi^\prime(t)=\imath(\psi(t))$ equivalently describes the evolution of the quantum system in ${\mathcal{F}}^\prime$. (Note that in this way, for ${\mathcal{F}}^\prime={\mathcal{F}}$, one can obtain the known pictures of motion in quantum mechanics — see [@Messiah-QM].) In the bundle case the shift from ${\mathcal{F}}$ to ${\mathcal{F}}^\prime$ is described by the transformation $l_x\to l_{x}^{\prime}:=\imath\circ l_x$ which reflects the arbitrariness in the choice of the typical fibre (now ${\mathcal{F}}^\prime$ instead of ${\mathcal{F}}$) of ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$. There is also arbitrariness in the choice of the fibres ${\mathit{F}}_x={\pi}^{-1}(x)$ which is of the same character as the one in the case of ${\mathcal{F}}$, viz. if $\imath_x\colon {\mathit{F}}_x\to {\mathit{F}}_{x}^{\prime},\ x\in {\mathit{M}}$ are linear isomorphisms, then the fibre bundle $({\mathit{F}}^\prime,{\pi}^\prime,{\mathit{M}})$ with ${\mathit{F}}^\prime:=\bigcup_{x\in {\mathit{M}}}{\mathit{F}}_{x}^{\prime},\
\left.{\pi}^\prime\right|_{{\mathit{F}}_{x}^{\prime}}:= {\pi}\circ\imath_{x}^{-1}$, typical fibre ${\mathcal{F}}$, and isomorphisms $l^\prime_x := l_x\circ\imath_{x}^{-1}$ can equivalently be used to describe the evolution of a quantum system. In the most general case, we have a fibre bundle $({\mathit{F}}^\prime,{\pi}^\prime,{\mathit{M}})$ with fibres ${\mathit{F}}_{x}^{\prime}=\imath_{x}^{-1}({\mathit{F}}_x)$, typical fibre ${\mathcal{F}}^\prime = \imath({\mathcal{F}})$, and isomorphisms $
l_x^\prime :=
\imath\circ l_x\circ\imath_{x}^{-1}\colon {\mathit{F}}_{x}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{F}}^\prime.
$ Further we will not be interested in such generalizations. Thus, we shall suppose that all of the mentioned isomorphisms are fixed in such a way that the evolution of a quantum system will be described in a fibre bundle ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ with fixed isomorphisms $\{l_x,\ x\in {\mathit{M}}\}$ such that $l_x\colon {\mathit{F}}_x\to{\mathcal{F}}$, where ${\mathcal{F}}$ is the Hilbert space in which the system’s evolution is described through the usual Schrödinger picture of motion.[^13]
So, in the Schrödinger picture a quantum system is described by a state vector $\psi$ in ${\mathcal{F}}$.[^14] Generally [@Neumann-MFQM] $\psi$ depends (maybe implicitly) on the observer with respect to which the evolution is studied[^15] and it satisfies the Schrödinger equation (\[2.5\]). We shall refer to this representation of quantum mechanics as a *Hilbert space description*. In the new *(Hilbert fibre) bundle description*, which will be studied below, the linear isomorphisms $l_x\colon {\mathit{F}}_x={\pi}^{-1}(x)\to{\mathcal{F}},\ x\in {\mathit{M}}$ are supposed arbitrarily fixed[^16] and the quantum systems are described by a *state section along paths* $\Psi$ of a fibre bundle ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ whose typical fibre is the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{F}}$ (the same Hilbert space as in the Hilbert space description).
Here the term (state) section along paths needs some explanations and correct definition. The proper bundle analogue of $\psi(t)\in{\mathcal{F}}$ is $\Psi_\gamma(t)\in {\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}$, given by (\[4.3a\]), which explicitly depends on the observer’s trajectory (world line in the special relativity interpretation). Let $J^\prime\subseteq J$ be any subinterval of $J$ on which $\gamma$ is without self-intersections, i.e. if $s,t\in J^\prime$ and $s\not=t$, then $\gamma(s)\neq\gamma(t)$. The map $
\Psi_{\gamma|J^\prime}\colon \gamma(J^\prime)\to{\pi}^{-1}(\gamma(J^\prime))
\subset {\mathit{F}}$ given by $
\Psi_{\gamma|J^\prime} \colon x\mapsto\Psi_\gamma(t),\ x\in\gamma(J^\prime),
$ for the unique $t\in J^\prime$ for which $\gamma(t)=x$, is a depending on $\gamma$ section of the restricted bundle $\left.{({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}\right|_{\gamma(J^\prime)}$, i.e.$
\Psi_{\gamma|J^\prime}\in\operatorname{Sec}\left( \left.{({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}\right|_{\gamma(J^\prime)} \right).
$[^17] Generally we can put $
\Psi_\gamma\colon x\mapsto\{\Psi_\gamma(t):\quad t\in J,\ \gamma(t)=x\}
$ for every $x\in {\mathit{M}}$. Evidently $\Psi_\gamma\colon x\mapsto\emptyset$, $\emptyset$ being the empty set, for $x\not\in\gamma(J),$ ${\pi}\circ\left.\Psi_\gamma\right|_{\gamma(J)} = {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{\gamma(J)}$, and at the points of self-intersection of $\gamma$, if any, $\Psi_\gamma$ is multiple valued, with the number of its values being equal to one plus the number of self-intersections of $\gamma$ at the corresponding point. We call *section along paths* any map $\Psi\colon\gamma\mapsto\Psi_\gamma$, where $\Psi_\gamma\colon {\mathit{M}}\to {\mathit{F}}$ may be multiple valued and such that ${\pi}\circ\left.\Psi_\gamma\right|_{\gamma(J)}={\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{\gamma(J)}$ and $\Psi_\gamma\colon x\mapsto\emptyset$ for $x\not\in\gamma(J)$. So, the above-defined object $\Psi_\gamma$ is a section along $\gamma$. It is single valued, and consequently a section over $\gamma(J)$ in the usual sense [@Husemoller], iff $\gamma$ is without self-intersections.
We want also to mention explicitly the natural interpretation of $\Psi$ as a *lifting of paths*, which is suggested by the notation used (see, e.g., [[(\[4.3a\])]{}]{}). Actually (cf. \[chapter I, sect. 16 and chapter III, sect. 7\][@Sze-Tsen]), a lifting of paths (from ${\mathit{M}}$ to ${\mathit{F}}$) is a map $\Psi\colon\gamma\mapsto\Psi_\gamma$ assigning to any path $\gamma\colon J\to{\mathit{M}}$ a path $\Psi_\gamma\colon J\to{\mathit{F}}$, lifting of $\gamma$ (from ${\mathit{M}}$ to ${\mathit{F}}$), such that ${\pi}\circ\Psi_\gamma:=\gamma$. Evidently, the map $\Psi_\gamma\colon t\mapsto\Psi_\gamma(t)$ given by [[(\[4.3a\])]{}]{} is a lifting of $\gamma$; therefore $\Psi\colon\gamma\mapsto\Psi_\gamma$ is lifting of $\gamma$ which is single[-]{}valued irrespectively of the existence of self[-]{}intersections of $\gamma$.
Generally, to any vector $\varphi\in{\mathcal{F}}$ there corresponds a unique (global) section $\overline{\Phi}\in\operatorname{Sec}{({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ defined via $$\label{4.3b}
\overline{\Phi}\colon x\mapsto\overline{\Phi}_x :=
l_{x}^{-1}(\varphi)\in {\mathit{F}}_x,
\qquad x\in {\mathit{M}},\quad \varphi\in{\mathcal{F}}.$$ Consequently to a state vector $\psi(t)\in{\mathcal{F}}$ one can assign the (global) section $\overline{\Psi}(t)$, $
\overline{\Psi}(t)\colon x\mapsto\overline{\Psi}_x(t) =
l_{x}^{-1}(\psi(t))\in {\mathit{F}}_x
$ and thus obtaining in ${\mathit{F}}_x$ for every $x\in {\mathit{M}}$ an isomorphic picture of (the evolution in) ${\mathcal{F}}$. But in this way one can not obtain something significantly new as the evolution in ${\mathcal{F}}$ is simply replaced with the (linearly isomorphic to it) evolution in ${\mathit{F}}_x$ for any arbitrary fixed $x\in {\mathit{M}}$. This reflects the above-mentioned fact that the quantum mechanical description is defined up to linear isomorphism(s). Besides, on the contrary to the bundle description, in this way one looses the explicit dependence on the observer. So in it one can’t get something really new with respect to the Hilbert space description.
Below we are going to define some structures and maps specific to Hilbert bundles and having a relation to the Hilbert bundle description of quantum mechanics.
Denote by $\langle\cdot | \cdot\rangle_x$ the Hermitian scalar product in ${\mathit{F}}_x$. We demand the isomorphisms $l_x$ to preserve not only the linear but also the metric structure of the bundle, i.e.$
\langle \varphi | \psi \rangle =
\langle l_{x}^{-1}\varphi|l_{x}^{-1}\psi \rangle _x,\
\varphi,\psi\in{\mathcal{F}}.
$ Consequently $l_x$ transform the metric structure from ${\mathcal{F}}$ to ${\mathit{F}}_x$ for every $x\in {\mathit{M}}$ according to $$\label{4.8}
\langle \cdot|\cdot \rangle _x=
\langle l_{x}\cdot|l_{x}\cdot \rangle, \qquad x\in {\mathit{M}}$$ and, consequently, from ${\mathit{F}}_x$ to ${\mathcal{F}}$ through $$\label{4.8a}
\langle \cdot|\cdot \rangle =
\langle l_{x}^{-1}\cdot|l_{x}^{-1}\cdot \rangle _x, \qquad x\in {\mathit{M}}.$$
Defining the *Hermitian conjugate* map (operator) $ {\mathit{A}}_{x}^{\ddag}\colon {\mathcal{F}}\to {\mathit{F}}_x $ of a map $ {\mathit{A}}_x\colon {\mathit{F}}_x \to {\mathcal{F}}$ by $$\label{4.9}
\langle {\mathit{A}}_{x}^{\ddag}\varphi|\chi_x \rangle_x :=
\langle \varphi | {\mathit{A}}_x\chi_x\rangle,
\qquad \varphi\in{\mathcal{F}},\quad \chi_x\in {\mathit{F}}_x,$$ we find (see (\[4.8\])) $$\label{4.10}
{\mathit{A}}_{x}^{\ddag} =
l_{x}^{-1}\circ \left( {\mathit{A}}_x\circ l_{x}^{-1} \right)^\dag$$ where the dagger denotes Hermitian conjugation in ${\mathcal{F}}$ (see (\[2.4\])).
We call a map ${\mathit{A}}_x$ *unitary* if $$\label{4.10a}
{\mathit{A}}_{x}^{\ddag} = {\mathit{A}}_{x}^{-1} .$$ Evidently, the isomorphisms $l_x$ are unitary in this sense: $$\label{4.10b}
l_{x}^{\ddag} = l_{x}^{-1}.$$
Similarly, the *Hermitian conjugate* map to a map ${\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}\in\{{\mathit{C}}_{x\to y}\colon{\mathit{F}}_x\to{\mathit{F}}_y,\ x,y\in{\mathit{M}}\}$ is a map $ {\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}^{\ddag}\colon {\mathit{F}}_x\to {\mathit{F}}_y $ defined via $$\label{4.11}
\langle {\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}^{\ddag} \Phi_x| \Psi_y \rangle_y :=
\langle \Phi_x| {\mathit{A}}_{y\to x}\Psi_y \rangle_x,
\qquad \Phi_x\in {\mathit{F}}_x,\quad \Psi_y\in {\mathit{F}}_y.$$ Its explicit form is $$\label{4.12}
{\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}^{\ddag} =
l_{y}^{-1}\circ
\left( l_x\circ {\mathit{A}}_{y\to x}\circ l_{y}^{-1} \right)^\dag
\circ l_x.$$ As $({\mathcal{A}}^\dag)^\dag\equiv {\mathcal{A}}$ for any ${\mathcal{A}}\colon {\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$, we have $$\label{4.12a}
\left( {\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}^{\ddag} \right)^\ddag = {\mathit{A}}_{x\to y} .$$
If $
{\mathit{B}}_{x\to y}\in\{{\mathit{C}}_{x\to y}\colon{\mathit{F}}_x\to{\mathit{F}}_y,\ x,y\in {\mathit{M}}\}
$, then a simple verification shows $$\label{4.12b}
\left({\mathit{B}}_{y\to z}\circ {\mathit{A}}_{x\to y} \right)^\ddag =
{\mathit{A}}_{y\to z}^\ddag\circ{\mathit{B}}_{x\to y}^\ddag, \qquad x,y,z\in {\mathit{M}}.$$
A map ${\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}$ is called *Hermitian* if $$\label{4.12c}
{\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}^\ddag = {\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}.$$ A simple calculation proves that the maps $ l_{x\to y}:=l_y^{-1}\circ l_x $ are Hermitian.
A map ${\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}$ is called *unitary* if it has a left inverse map and $$\label{4.12d}
{\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}^\ddag = {\mathit{A}}_{y\to x}^{-1},$$ where $
{\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}^{-1}\colon {\mathit{F}}_y\to{\mathit{F}}_x
$ is the *left* inverse of ${\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}$, i.e.$
{\mathit{A}}_{x\to y}^{-1}\circ {\mathit{A}}_{x\to y} := {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{{\mathit{F}}_x}
$.
A simple verification by means of [[(\[4.11\])]{}]{} shows the equivalence of [[(\[4.12d\])]{}]{} with $$\tag{\ref{4.12d}$^\prime$} \label{4.12d'}
\langle{\mathit{A}}_{y\to s}\cdot | {\mathit{A}}_{y\to s}\cdot\rangle _x
= \langle\cdot | \cdot\rangle _y
\colon{\mathit{F}}_y\times{\mathit{F}}_y\to\mathbb{C},$$ [i.e. ]{}the unitary maps are fibre-metric compatible in a sense that they preserve the fibre scalar (inner) product. Such maps will be called *fibre[-]{}isometric* or simply *isometric*.
It is almost evident that the maps $l_{x\to y}=l_{y}^{-1}\circ l_x$ are unitary, that is we have:[^18] $$\label{4.12h}
l_{x\to y}^{\ddag}=l_{x\to y}=l_{y\to x}^{-1},
\qquad
l_{x\to y}:=l_{y}^{-1}\circ l_x \colon{\pi}^{-1}(x)\to{\pi}^{-1}(y) .$$
We call a (possibly linear) transport along paths in ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ *Hermitian* or *unitary* if it satisfies respectively (\[4.12c\]) or (\[4.12d\]) in which $x$, and $y$ are replaced with arbitrary values of the parameter of the transportation path, i.e. if respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.12e}
\left( L_{s\to t}^{\gamma} \right)^\ddag &= L_{s\to t}^{\gamma} ,
\qquad s,t\in J,\quad \gamma\colon J\to {\mathit{M}},
\\ \label{4.12f}
\left( L_{s\to t}^{\gamma} \right)^\ddag &=
\left( L_{t\to s}^{\gamma} \right)^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
A simple corollary from (\[3.3\]) is the equivalence of (\[4.12e\]) and (\[4.12f\]); therefore, a *transport along paths in a Hilbert bundle is Hermitian if and only if it is unitary*, i.e. these concepts are equivalent. For such transports we say that they are *consistent* or *compatible* with the Hermitian structure (metric (inner product)) of the Hilbert bundle [@bp-TP-morphisms]. Evidently, they are *isometric* fibre maps along the paths they act. Therefore, a transport along paths in a Hilbert bundle is isometric iff it is Hermitian of iff it is unitary.[^19]
Let ${\mathit{A}}$ be a bundle morphism of ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$, i.e.${\mathit{A}}\colon {\mathit{F}}\to {\mathit{F}}$ and ${\pi}\circ {\mathit{A}} = {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{\mathit{M}}$, and ${\mathit{A}}_x:=\left.{\mathit{A}}\right|_{{\mathit{F}}_x}$. The *Hermitian conjugate* bundle morphism ${\mathit{A}}^\ddag$ to ${\mathit{A}}$ is defined by (cf. (\[4.11\])) $$\label{4.morphism}
\langle {\mathit{A}}^\ddag\Phi_x | \Psi_x \rangle_x :=
\langle \Phi_x | {\mathit{A}}\Psi_x \rangle_x,
\qquad \Phi_x,\Psi_x\in {\mathit{F}}_x.$$ Thus (cf. (\[4.12\])) $$\label{4.15}
{\mathit{A}}_{x}^{\ddag} := \left.{\mathit{A}}^\ddag\right|_{{\mathit{F}}_x} =
l_{x}^{-1}\circ\left(l_x\circ {\mathit{A}}_x\circ l_{x}^{-1}\right)^\dag\circ l_x.$$
A bundle morphism ${\mathit{A}}$ is called *Hermitian* if ${\mathit{A}}_{x}^{\ddag}={\mathit{A}}_x$ for every $\ x\in {\mathit{M}}$, i.e. if $$\label{4.16}
{\mathit{A}}^\ddag={\mathit{A}},$$ and it is called *unitary* if ${\mathit{A}}_{x}^{\ddag}={\mathit{A}}_x^{-1}$ for every $\ x\in {\mathit{M}}$, i.e. if $$\label{4.17}
{\mathit{A}}^\ddag={\mathit{A}}^{-1}.$$ Using [[(\[4.morphism\])]{}]{}, we can establish the equivalence of [[(\[4.17\])]{}]{} and $$\tag{\ref{4.17}$^\prime$} \label{4.17'}
\langle{\mathit{A}}\cdot | \cdot{\mathit{A}}\rangle_x = \langle\cdot | \cdot\rangle_x
\colon{\mathit{F}}_x\times{\mathit{F}}_x\to\mathbb{C}.$$ Consequently the unitary morphisms are fibre-metric compatible, [i.e. ]{}they are *isometric* in a sense that they preserve the fibre Hermitian scalar (inner) product.
The (bundle) evolution transport {#IV}
================================
Using (\[2.1\]), we get $
\psi(t_3)={\mathcal{U}}(t_3,t_2)\psi(t_2) =
{\mathcal{U}}(t_3,t_2) [ {\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1)\psi(t_1) ],\
\psi(t_3)={\mathcal{U}}(t_3,t_1)\psi(t_1),\ \mathrm{and}\
\psi(t_1)={\mathcal{U}}(t_1,t_1)\psi(t_1)
$ for every moments $t_1,t_2,t_3$ and arbitrary state vector $\psi$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{U}}(t_3,t_1) &= {\mathcal{U}}(t_3,t_2) \circ {\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1), \label{4.1} \\
{\mathcal{U}}(t_1,t_1) &= {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{{\mathcal{F}}}. \label{4.2}
\\
\intertext{Besides, by definition,
${\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1)\colon {\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ is a linear unitary operator, i.e.\ for
\( \lambda_i\in\mathbb{C} \) and
\( \psi_i(t_1)\in{\mathcal{F}}\), $i=1,2$,
we have:}
{\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1) \biggl(\sum_{i=1,2}^{} \lambda_i\psi_i(t_1)\biggr) &=
\sum_{i=1,2}^{}\lambda_i {\mathcal{U}}(t_2,t_1) \psi_i(t_1), \label{4.2a} \\
{\mathcal{U}}^\dag(t_1,t_2) &= {\mathcal{U}}^{-1}(t_2,t_1). \label{4.2b}
\\
\intertext{From~(\ref{4.1}) and~(\ref{4.2}), evidently, follows}
{\mathcal{U}}^{-1}(t_2,t_1) &= {\mathcal{U}}(t_1,t_2) \label{4.2c}
\intertext{and consequently}
{\mathcal{U}}^\dag(t_1,t_2) &= {\mathcal{U}}(t_1,t_2). \label{4.2d}
\end{aligned}$$
If one takes as a primary object the Hamiltonian ${\mathcal{H}}$, then these facts are direct consequences of (\[2.8\]).
Thus the properties of the evolution operator are very similar to the ones defining a ((flat) Hermitian) linear transport along paths in a Hilbert bundle. In fact, below we show that the evolution operator is a kind of such transport. (Note that this description is not unique.)
The bundle analogue of the evolution operator ${\mathcal{U}}(t,s)\colon {\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ is a linear operator $
{\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s)\colon {\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(s)} \to {\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)},\ s,t\in J
$ such that $$\label{4.4}
\Psi_\gamma(t) = {\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s) \Psi_\gamma(s)$$ for every instants of time $s,t\in J$. Analogously to (\[4.1\]) and (\[4.2\]), now we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.5}
{\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t_3,t_1) &= {\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t_3,t_2)\circ
{\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t_2,t_1), \qquad t_1,t_2,t_3\in J, \\ \label{4.6}
{\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,t) &= {\mspace{2mu}\mathsf{i}\mspace{-1mu}\mathsf{d}}_{{\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}}, \qquad t\in J.
\end{aligned}$$ We call ${\mathit{U}}$ *bundle evolution operator* or *evolution transport* (see below).
Comparing (\[4.4\]) with (\[2.1\]) and using (\[4.3a\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
{2} \label{4.7}
{\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s) &=
l_{\gamma(t)}^{-1}\circ {\mathcal{U}}(t,s) \circ l_{\gamma(s)},
&\qquad s,t&\in J
\\ \intertext{or}
\label{4.7'}
{\mathcal{U}}(t,s) &=
l_{\gamma(t)} \circ {\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s) \circ l_{\gamma(s)}^{-1},
&\qquad s,t&\in J.
\end{aligned}$$ This shows the equivalence of the description of evolution of quantum systems via ${\mathcal{U}}$ and ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma$.
A trivial corollary of (\[4.7\]) is the *linearity* of ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma$ and $$\label{4.7a}
{\mathit{U}}_\gamma^{-1}(t,s) = {\mathit{U}}_\gamma(s,t) .$$
As $l_x\colon {\mathit{F}}_x\to{\mathcal{F}},\ x\in {\mathit{M}}$ are linear isomorphisms, from (\[4.5\])–(\[4.7\]) follows that $
{\mathit{U}}\colon \gamma\mapsto
{\mathit{U}}_\gamma\colon (s,t)\mapsto {\mathit{U}}_\gamma(s,t)
=:{\mathit{U}}_{t\to s}^{\gamma} \colon {\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)} \to {\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(s)}
$ is a linear transport along paths in ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$.[^20] This transport is *Hermitian* (see Sect. \[new-I\]). In fact, applying (\[4.12\]) to ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s)$ and using (\[4.7\]), we get $$\label{4.13}
{\mathit{U}}_{\gamma}^{\ddag}(t,s) =
l_{\gamma(t)}^{-1} \circ {\mathcal{U}}^\dag(s,t) \circ l_{\gamma(t)}.$$ So, using (\[4.2d\]), once again (\[4.7\]), and (\[4.2c\]), we find $$\label{4.14}
{\mathit{U}}_{\gamma}^{\ddag}(t,s) = {\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s) =
{\mathit{U}}_{\gamma}^{-1}(s,t).$$
Hence ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s)$ is simultaneously Hermitian and unitary operator, as it should be for any Hermitian or unitary transport along paths in a Hilbert bundle (see Sect. \[new-I\]). Consequently, the evolution transport is an isometric transport along paths.
In this way, we see that the bundle evolution operator ${\mathit{U}}$ is a Hermitian (and hence unitary) linear transport along paths in ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$. Consequently, to any unitary evolution operator ${\mathcal{U}}$ in the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{F}}$ there corresponds a unique isometric linear transport ${\mathit{U}}$ along paths in the Hilbert bundle ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ and vice versa.
Conclusion {#conclusion-I}
==========
In the present work we have prepared the background for a full self-consistent fibre bundle formulation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. For this purpose we constructed a Hilbert (vector) fibre bundle replacing now the conventional Hilbert space of quantum mechanics. On this scene, as was shown here, the conventional quantum evolution is described by a suitable linear transport along paths.
An advantage of the bundle description of quantum mechanics is that it does not make use of any particular model of the base ${\mathit{M}}$. But on this model depends the interpretation of ‘time’ $t$ used. For instance, if we take ${\mathit{M}}$ to be the 3-dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb{E}^3$ of classical (or quantum) mechanics, then $t$ is natural to be identified with the absolute Newtonian (global) time. However, if ${\mathit{M}}$ is taken to be the Minkowski 4-dimensional space $M_4$, then it is preferable to take $t$ to be the proper time of some (local) observer, but the global coordinate time in some frame can also play the rôle of $t$. Principally different is the situation when the pseudo-Riemannian space $V_4$ of general relativity is taken as ${\mathit{M}}$: now $t$ *must* be the local time of some observer as a global time does not generically exist.
Generally, the space-time model ${\mathit{M}}$ is external to (bundle) quantum mechanics and has to be determined by another theory, such as special or general relativity. This points to a possible field of research: a connection between the quantities of the total bundle space with a concrete model of ${\mathit{M}}$ may result in a completely new theory. Elsewhere we shall show that just this is the case with relativistic quantum mechanics.
The development of the bundle approach to quantum mechanics will be done in the continuation of this paper. In particular, we intend to investigate the following topics from the novel fibre bundle view-point: equations of motion, description of observables, pictures and integrals of motion, mixed states, interpretation of the theory and possible ways for its further development and generalizations.
[^1]: Department Mathematical Modeling, Institute for Nuclear Research and Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Boul. Tzarigradsko chaussée 72, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria
[^2]: E-mail address: [email protected]
[^3]: URL: http://www.inrne.bas.bg/mathmod/bozhome/
[^4]: The author thanks J.F. Coriñena (University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain) for drawing his attention to reference in May 1998.
[^5]: For some ([e.g. ]{}unbounded) states the system’s state vectors form a more general space than a Hilbert one. This is insignificant for the following presentation.
[^6]: Of course, the Hamiltonian depends also on the observer with respect to which the evolution of the quantum system is described. This dependence is usually implicitly assumed and not written explicitly [@Dirac-PQM; @Messiah-QM]. This deficiency will be eliminated in a natural way further in the present work. The Hamiltonian can also depend on other quantities, such as the (operators of the) system’s generalized coordinates. This possible dependence is insignificant for our investigation and will not be written explicitly.
[^7]: The physical meaning of ${\mathcal{U}}$ as a propagation function, as well as its explicit calculation (in component form) via ${\mathcal{H}}$ can be found, e.g., in
[^8]: All of our definitions and results hold also for real vector bundles. Most of them are valid for vector bundles over more general fields too but this is inessential for the following.
[^9]: The concept of linear transport along paths in vector bundles can be generalized to the transports along paths in arbitrary bundles [@bp-TP-general] and to transports along maps in bundles [@bp-TM-general]. An interesting considerations of the concept of (parallel) ‘transport’ (along closed paths) in connection with homotopy theory and the classification problem of bundles can be found in [@Stasheff-PT]. These generalizations will not be used in the present work.
[^10]: \[footnote-base\]In the following ${\mathit{M}}$ can naturally be considered also as the Minkowski space-time of special relativity. In this case the below-defined observer’s trajectory $\gamma$ is his world line. But we avoid this interpretation because only the nonrelativistic case is investigated here. It is important to be noted that mathematically all of what follows is valid in the case when by ${\mathit{M}}$ is understood an arbitrary differentiable manifold. The physical interpretation of these cases will be given elsewhere.
[^11]: In this way we introduce the (possible) explicit dependence of the description of a system’s state on the concrete observer with respect to which it is determined.
[^12]: If there exists a global time, as in the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the parameter $t\in J$ can be taken as such. Otherwise by $t$ we have to understand the local (‘proper’ or ‘eigen-’) time of a concrete observer.
[^13]: Note that in the mentioned context the Schrödinger picture of motion plays the same rôle as the inertial frames in the Newtonian mechanics.
[^14]: The concrete choice of ${\mathcal{F}}$ is insignificant for the following, the only important thing is the fulfillment of the Schrödinger equation for the evolving vectors in it.
[^15]: Usually this dependence is not written explicitly, but it is always presented as actually $t$ is the time with respect to a given observer.
[^16]: The particular choice of $\{l_x\}$ (and, consequently, of the fibres ${\mathit{F}}_x$) is inessential for our investigation.
[^17]: Since in the special relativity interpretation $\gamma$ is observer’s world line, the path $\gamma$ can not have self-intersections (for real particles and (extended) bodies). In this case the map $\Psi_\gamma$ is a section over the whole set $\gamma(J)$.
[^18]: The Hermiticity and at the same time unitarity of $l_{x\to y}$ is not incidental as they define a (flat) linear transport (along paths or along the identity map of $M$) in ${({\mathit{F}},{\pi},{\mathit{M}})}$ (see (\[3.4\]) and below the paragraph after (\[4.12f\])).
[^19]: The author thanks prof. James Stasheff (Math-UNC, Chapel Hill, NC, USA) for suggesting in July 1998 the term “isometric transport” in the context given.
[^20]: \[L-transport:evolution-transport\]In the context of quantum mechanics it is more natural to define ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma(s,t)$ from ${\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}$ into ${\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(s)}$ instead from ${\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(s)}$ into ${\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}$, as is the map $
{\mathit{U}}_{s\to t}^{\gamma}={\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s) \colon
{\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(s)} \to {\mathit{F}}_{\gamma(t)}
$. The latter notation is better in the general theory of transports along paths [@bp-normalF-LTP; @bp-LTP-general]. Consequently, when applying results from [@bp-normalF-LTP; @bp-LTP-general], we have to remember that they are valid for the maps ${\mathit{U}}_{s\to t}^{\gamma}$ (or ${\mathit{U}}^\gamma\colon (s,t)\mapsto {\mathit{U}}_{s\to t}^{\gamma}$). That is why for the usage of some results concerning general linear transports along paths from [@bp-normalF-LTP; @bp-LTP-general] for ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma(s,t)$ or ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma$ one has to write them for ${\mathit{U}}_{s\to t}^{\gamma}$ (or ${\mathit{U}}^\gamma$) and then to use the connection $
{\mathit{U}}_{s\to t}^{\gamma} = {\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s)={\mathit{U}}_{\gamma}^{-1}(s,t)
$ (or ${\mathit{U}}^\gamma={\mathit{U}}_{\gamma}^{-1}$). Some results for ${\mathit{U}}_{s\to t}^{\gamma}$ and ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma(s,t)$ coincide but this is not always the case. In short, the results for linear transports along paths are transferred to the considered in this work case by replacing $L_{s\to t}^{\gamma}$ with ${\mathit{U}}_\gamma(t,s)={\mathit{U}}_{\gamma}^{-1}(s,t)$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
\[sec:abstract\] Early afterdepolarizations (EADs) are pathological voltage oscillations in cardiomyocytes that have been observed in response to a number of pharmacological agents and disease conditions. Phase-2 EADs consist of small voltage fluctuations that occur during the plateau of an action potential, typically under conditions in which the action potential is elongated. Although a single-cell behavior, EADs can lead to tissue-level arrhythmias, including ventricular tachycardia. Much is currently known about the biophysical mechanisms (i.e., the roles of ion channels and intracellular [Ca$^{2+}$]{} stores) for the various forms of EADs, due partially to the development and analysis of mathematical models. This includes the application of slow/fast analysis, which takes advantage of timescale separation inherent in the system to simplify its analysis. We take this further, using a minimal 3D model to demonstrate that the phase-2 EADs are canards that are formed in the neighborhood of a folded node singularity. This knowledge allows us to determine the number of EADs that can be produced for a given parameter set without performing computer simulations, and provides guidance on parameter changes that can facilitate or inhibit EAD production. With this approach, we demonstrate why periodic stimulation, as would occur in an intact heart, preferentially facilitates EAD production when applied at low frequencies,. We also explain the origin of complex alternan dynamics that can occur with intermediate-frequency stimulation, in which varying numbers of EADs are produced with each stimulation. These revelations fall out naturally from an understanding of folded node singularities, but are hard or impossible to glean from a knowledge of the biophysical mechanism for EADs alone. Therefore, an understanding of the canard mechanism is a useful complement to an understanding of the biophysical mechanism that has been developed over years of experimental and computational investigations.
**Keywords**canard, action potential, early afterdepolarization, heart, myocyte
author:
- 'Theodore Vo[^1]'
- 'Richard Bertram[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'version5.bib'
title: 'Why Pacing Frequency Affects the Production of Early Afterdepolarizations in Cardiomyocytes: An Explanation Revealed by Slow/Fast Analysis of a Minimal Model'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro .unnumbered}
============
In the normal heart, each heartbeat is associated with an action potential (AP). The cardiac AP consists of a depolarized phase in which the voltage is elevated; this is associated with transient increased permeability of the cell membrane to Na$^+$ and Ca$^{2+}$. The depolarized phase is followed by a repolarization to the resting membrane potential, associated with increased permeability to K$^+$ ions. These changes in the membrane potential lead to a sequence of events that result in contraction of the heart muscle, thus allowing for the pumping of blood through the body.
Early afterdepolarizations (EADs) are pathological voltage oscillations that have been observed in heart muscle cells (cardiomyocytes) during the repolarizing phase of the cardiac AP under conditions in which the AP is elongated. EADs can be induced by hypokalemia [@Madhvani2011; @Sato2010], as well as oxidative stress [@Xie_LH2008]. They have also been often observed following the administration of drugs that act on [K$^+$]{}, [Na$^+$]{}, or [Ca$^{2+}$]{} ion channels such as dofetilide [@Guo2007], [*dl*]{}-sotalol [@Yan2001], azimilide [@Yan2001], bepridil [@Nobe1993; @Winslow1986], isoproterenol [@Priori1990; @Shimizu1991], quinidine [@Davidenko1989], and BayK8644 [@January1989; @Sato2010]. These drug-induced EADs can then lead to ventricular tachyarrhythmias [@Asano1997; @ElSherif2003; @Yan2001]. Genetic defects in [Na$^+$]{} and [K$^+$]{} channels that prolong the action potential duration can also lead to an increased rate of EADs and risk of sudden death [@Napolitano2005].
EADs have been associated with long QT syndrome [@Shimizu1991], and have long been recognized as a mechanism for the generation of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) in the electrocardiogram [@Shimizu1994]. Different ventricular arrhythmias, including torsade de pointes, are thought to be initiated by PVCs stemming from EADs [@Cranefield1991; @Lerma2007stochastic; @Shimizu1997; @Shimizu1991]. That is, EADs at the myocyte level have been implicated as the primary mechanism promoting arrhythmias at the tissue level in acquired and congenital long-QT syndromes, including polymorphic ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation [@Pogwizd2004; @Sanguinetti2006; @Yan2001].
Numerous mathematical models have been constructed at the cellular level to study the genesis of EADs [@Kurata2017; @Luo1994b; @Sato2010; @Tran2009; @Zeng1995]. These have confirmed the importance of increased inward [Ca$^{2+}$]{} current and decreased outward [K$^+$]{} current in the production of EADs. They have also confirmed that reactivation of [Ca$^{2+}$]{} current is a key element of EAD production [@Zeng1995]. The importance of this “[Ca$^{2+}$]{} window current" in EAD production was later demonstrated through the use of the Dynamic Clamp technique [@Madhvani2011], which is a hybrid between mathematical modeling and experimentation. Modeling at the tissue level has also been done, in this case to understand EAD propagation, synchronization and the genesis of arrthymia [@DeLange2012; @Huffaker2004; @Sato2009; @Vandersickel2014]. These studies demonstrate that EADs at the cellular level can lead to arrhythmias at the tissue level, as has been suggested in experimental studies.
A useful analysis technique for understanding the behavior of models of excitable systems such as cardiomyocyte models separates system variables into those that change on a fast time scale and those that change on a slow time scale, and then analyzes the two subsystems and their interaction [@Bertram2017]. This slow/fast analysis has been used to understand the genesis of EADs, using a 3-variable model in which two variables were treated as “fast variables" and one variable treated as a “slow variable". It was shown that EADs can arise via a delayed subcritical Hopf bifurcation of the fast subsystem of variables [@Tran2009; @Kugler2016]. This explanation, while providing insights, is limited in its descriptive capabilities. For example, it provides limited information on parameter sets for which EADs may occur, and it does not allow one to predict the number of EADs that are produced when they do occur.
Recently, it was demonstrated that EADs can be attributed to the existence of a folded-node singularity and the accompanying canard orbits [@kugler2018]. This was done with the same three-dimensional model for cardiac action potentials, but now treating one variable as a fast variable and the other two as slow variables. Such a splitting provides the potential for insights that are not available with the 1-slow/2-fast splitting, as is demonstrated in [@kugler2018] and in an earlier publication that focused on electrical bursting in pituitary cells [@vo2010]. For example, once it is established that the EADs are organized by a folded-node singularity, it is possible to determine regions of parameter space in which EADs can occur [@kugler2018].
Ventricular cardiomyocytes are, in a physiological setting, subject to periodic stimulation from upstream cardiac cells, originating at the sinoatrial node. Prior experimental and modeling studies have demonstrated that EADs occur more readily at low pacing frequencies than at high frequencies [@Sato2010; @Zeng1995; @Damiano1984]. At intermediate forcing frequencies the dynamics are very complex, consisting of alternans with varying numbers of EADs at each stimulus, a behavior described as “dynamical chaos" [@Sato2010; @Tran2009]. The primary goal of this article is to provide an understanding for these phenomena. To achieve this, we use the same minimal cardiac action potential model that was developed in [@Sato2010] and used recently in [@kugler2018], and apply a 2-slow/1-fast splitting of the model. We demonstrate that the effects of periodic stimulation of the model cell can be understood precisely using the theory of folded-node singularities. In particular, we show that the number of EADs produced by a stimulus depends on where it injects the trajectory into the so-called “singular funnel", and with this knowledge we demonstrate why low-frequency pacing is expected to yield more EADs than is high-frequency pacing. We also demonstrate the origin of the “dynamical chaos" that occurs at intermediate-frequency pacing. Finally, we demonstrate why drugs that inhibit the opening of [K$^+$]{} channels facilitate EADs, and why EADs can be induced by hypokalemia [@Madhvani2011; @Sato2010; @Yan2001].
Action Potentials and EADs with the Minimal Model {#sec:model .unnumbered}
=================================================
We study a low-dimensional model for the electrical activity in a cardiomyocyte [@Sato2010], $$\label{eq:model}
\begin{split}
C_m \frac{dV}{dt} &= -\left( I_{\rm K} + I_{\rm Ca} \right) + I_{\rm sti}, \\
\frac{dn}{dt} &= \frac{n_{\infty}(V)-n}{\tau_n}, \\
\frac{dh}{dt} &= \frac{h_{\infty}(V)-h}{\tau_h},
\end{split}$$ where $I_{\rm K}$ is a repolarizing K$^+$ current, $I_{\rm Ca}$ is a depolarizing Ca$^{2+}$ current, and $I_{\rm sti}$ is an external pacmaking stimulus current. We note that excludes the depolarizing [Na$^+$]{} current since prior studies have found that it has almost no effect on EADs (since it is inactivated during the plateau of the AP). Here, $V$ is the membrane potential across the cell, $n$ is the activation variable for the K$^+$ channels, and $h$ is the inactivation variable for the L-type Ca$^{2+}$ channels. The ionic currents are described by $$I_{\rm K} = g_K n \left( V - V_{\rm K} \right) \quad \text{ and } \quad I_{\rm Ca} = g_{Ca} m_{\infty}(V) h \left( V - V_{\rm Ca} \right),$$ and we set $$I_{\rm sti} = 40 \sum_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \left[ H\left( t - k \cdot {\rm PCL} \right) - H\left( t - (k \cdot {\rm PCL}+1)\right) \right]$$ where $H(\cdot)$ is the Heaviside function. That is, the stimulus current provides the system with square wave pulses of $1$ ms duration and $40$ $\mu$A/cm$^2$ amplitude at a frequency set by the pacing cycle length (PCL). The steady state activation functions are $$x_{\infty}(V) = \frac{1}{1+\exp \left( \frac{V_x-V}{s_x} \right)},$$ where $x \in \{ m, n \}$, and the steady state inactivation function is $$h_{\infty}(V) = \frac{1}{1+\exp \left( \frac{V-V_h}{s_h} \right)}.$$ Standard parameter values are listed in Table \[tab:params\]; these have been tuned so that the model periodically produces APs with EADs even in the absence of any stimulus current, as in [@Sato2010].
Parameter Value Definition
----------- ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
$C_m$ 0.5 $\mu$F/cm$^2$ Membrane capacitance
$g_{Ca}$ 0.025 mS/cm$^2$ Maximal conductance of L-type Ca$^{2+}$ channels
$g_K$ 0.04 mS/cm$^2$ Maximal conductance of K$^{+}$ channels
$V_{Ca}$ 100 mV Reversal potential for Ca$^{2+}$
$V_{K}$ -80 mV Reversal potential for K$^{+}$
$\tau_n$ 300 ms Time constant for activation of K$^{+}$ channels
$\tau_h$ 80 ms Time constant for activation of Ca$^{+}$ channels
$V_m$ -35 mV Voltage value at midpoint of $m_{\infty}(V)$
$s_m$ 6.24 mV Slope parameter of $m_{\infty}(V)$
$V_n$ -40 mV Voltage value at midpoint of $n_{\infty}(V)$
$s_n$ 5 mV Slope parameter of $n_{\infty}(V)$
$V_h$ -20 mV Voltage value at midpoint of $s_{\infty}(V)$
$s_h$ 8.6 mV Slope parameter of $s_{\infty}(V)$
\[tab:params\]
The model cell exhibits two distinct AP morphologies: regular APs and APs with EADs. For the remainder of the article, we use the Farey sequence notation, $1^s$, to denote a single large-amplitude AP with $s$ small-amplitude EADs during the repolarizing phase. Thus, a regular AP is denoted $1^0$ and an AP with 2 EADs is denoted $1^2$. More complicated rhythms are described using concatenations of these Farey sequences. For instance, a rhythm that periodically exhibits three regular APs followed by a single AP with 2 EADs is denoted $(1^0)^3 (1^2)$.
Action Potential Duration and Number of EADs Increases with PCL {#subsec:bifurcation .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------------
The model cell is entrained to the periodic stimulus; for the parameter set in Table \[tab:params\], the cell exhibits $1^s$ impulses with period set by the PCL. For small PCLs (i.e., high-frequency pulsing), the attractor is a $1^2$ rhythm (Fig. \[fig:restitution\](a)). For intermediate PCLs ($1240$ ms $\lesssim {\rm PCL} \lesssim$ $1435~$ms), the cell exhibits complex EAD activity, including $1^2 1^3$ alternans (Fig. \[fig:restitution\](b)) and $1^2 (1^3)^3$ rhythms (Fig. \[fig:restitution\](c)). For large PCLs (i.e., low-frequency pulsing), the cell is in a $1^3$ state (Fig. \[fig:restitution\](d)).
![Dynamics of the model cardiomyocyte under variations in the PCL. In (a)–(d), the stimulus pulse is ‘on’ during the cyan segments. The attractor of the cell shows (a) $1^2$ APs with EADs for ${\rm PCL} = 1200~$ms, (b) $1^2 1^3$ alternans for ${\rm PCL}=1300~$ms, (c) $1^2 (1^3)^3$ APs with EADs for ${\rm PCL} = 1420$ ms, and (d) $1^3$ APs with EADs for ${\rm{PCL} = 1500}$ ms. (e) APD versus PCL bifurcation diagram. There is an intermediate band of PCLs ($1240$ ms $\lesssim {\rm PCL} \lesssim$ $1435~$ms) over which the attractor has complex EAD signature.[]{data-label="fig:restitution"}](PCL_Bifurcation "fig:"){width="5in"} (-368,201)[(a)]{} (-182,201)[(b)]{} (-368,138)[(c)]{} (-182,138)[(d)]{} (-300,72)[(e)]{}
We summarize the behaviour of the model cell and its response to periodic stimulation at various frequencies, by constructing a bifurcation diagram (Fig. \[fig:restitution\](e)). To do this, we used a dynamic restitution protocol [@Koller1998] in which the cell was paced at a fixed PCL until steady-state was reached, after which the action potential duration (APD) and PCL were recorded. We took the APD to be the amount of time the cell spends with $V > -70~$mV. With this choice of restitution protocol, the PCL is the sum of the APD and the diastolic interval, so our bifurcation diagram encodes the restitution curves (i.e., the plot of the APD as a function of the diastolic interval has the same qualitative features as shown in Fig. \[fig:restitution\](e)).
The bifurcation diagram shows that the periodic stimulation elicits three types of behaviour. For high- and low-frequency stimulation, the model cell is in a purely $1^2$ or $1^3$ state, respectively. In the intermediate-frequency forcing range, the model cell has complex signature of the form $(1^2)^p (1^3)^q$, where $p$ and $q$ are integers. We observe that the AP signature becomes more complicated near the transition to the $1^3$ state. This increasing complexity of the AP signature near a transition is robust; it occurs for a wide range of $g_K$ and $g_{Ca}$ in and has also been observed in other forced conductance-based cardiomyocyte models [@Sato2010; @Tran2009].
Now that we have demonstrated the rich variety of dynamics present in the minimal model , we next investigate the dynamical mechanisms that underlie the observed rhythms. We use Geometric Singular Perturbation Theory [@Fenichel1979; @Jones1995] as the basis of our analysis.
EADs Arise From Canard Dynamics {#sec:local .unnumbered}
===============================
In this section, we show that the dynamical mechanisms responsible for the EADs are canards. To facilitate the analysis, we consider with no stimulus input. A similar demonstration was provided by [@kugler2018], but we elaborate on how the EADs emerge as the cell capacitance is increased from 0, (i.e., moving the system away from the singular limit), and we demonstrate how the underlying rotational sectors determine the number and duration of EADs. We first show that the model has a slow/fast structure. We use this slow/fast splitting to identify the geometric cast of characters involved in producing APs and EADs. We then demonstrate that folded node canards generate EADs, and these canards are robust in parameters. Finally, we demonstrate how drugs that inhibit [K$^+$]{} channels or a hypokalemic environment can facilitate EAD production.
The dynamics evolve over multiple timescales {#subsec:timescales .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------
A key observation is that the dynamics of the cell evolve over multiple timescales, with slow depolarized/hyperpolarized epochs interspersed with rapid transitions between them. We formally show this multi-timescale structure by introducing dimensionless variables, $v$ and $t_s$, via the rescalings $$v = \frac{V}{k_V} \quad \text{ and } \quad t_s = \frac{t}{k_t},$$ where $k_V$ and $k_t$ are reference voltage and timescales, respectively. With these rescalings, the minimal model becomes $$\label{eq:dimless}
\begin{split}
\operatorname{\varepsilon}\frac{dv}{dt_s} &= - \left( \overline{g}_K n \left( v-\overline{V}_{\rm K} \right) + \overline{g}_{Ca} m_{\infty}(v) h \left( v-\overline{V}_{\rm Ca} \right) \right) \equiv f(v,n,h), \\
\frac{dn}{dt_s} &= \frac{k_t}{\tau_n} \left( n_{\infty}(v) - n \right) \equiv g_1(v,n), \\
\frac{dh}{dt_s} &= \frac{k_t}{\tau_h} \left( h_{\infty}(v) - h \right) \equiv g_2(v,h),
\end{split}$$ where $\overline{g}_u = \frac{g_u}{g_{\rm ref}}$ for $u \in \{ \rm K,Ca \}$ denotes the dimensionless conductances with reference conductance $g_{\rm ref}$, $\overline{V}_u = \frac{V_u}{k_V}$ for $u \in \{ \rm K,Ca \}$ denotes the dimensionless reversal potentials, and $0 < \operatorname{\varepsilon}= \frac{C_m / g_{\rm ref}}{k_t} \ll 1$ is the ratio of the voltage timescale ($C_m/g_{\rm ref}$) to the reference timescale. The benefit of recasting the model in the dimensionless form is that it reveals the typical timescales in the model. The voltage variable is fast with a timescale of $\frac{C_m}{g_{\rm ref}} \approx 5$ ms for $C_m = 0.5~\mu$F/cm$^2$ and $g_{\rm ref}=0.1$ mS/cm$^2$. The activation variable, $n$, for the [K$^+$]{} channels is slow with timescale $\tau_n = 80$ ms, and the inactivation variable, $h$, for the L-type [Ca$^{2+}$]{} channels is superslow with timescale $\tau_s = 300~$ms. Thus, the system is a three-timescale problem.
One effective approach to the analysis of multiple-timescale problems, as pioneered in the neuroscience context in [@Rinzel1987], is Geometric Singular Perturbation Theory (GSPT). The idea of GSPT is to decompose a slow/fast system into lower dimensional slow and fast subsystems, analyze these simpler subsystems, and combine their information in order to understand the origin and properties of the dynamics of the original model. However, the GSPT approach is currently limited to two-timescale (i.e., slow/fast) problems. In three-timescale systems such as , a choice is usually made: to either group $v$ and $n$ together as ‘fast’, or to group $n$ and $h$ together as ‘slow’.
Prior studies of the minimal model chose to group $v$ and $n$ together as fast, whilst using $h$ as the sole slow variable [@Sato2010]. In this 1-slow/2-fast approach, the EADs arise because the depolarized steady state of the $(v,n)$ subsystem loses stability via a Hopf bifurcation (with respect to $h$) leading to oscillations which are destroyed at a homoclinic bifurcation [@Sato2009; @Tran2009; @Xie2007]. Whilst this mechanism is consistent with the [*in-vitro*]{} and [*in-silico*]{} observations that the EADs appear irregularly under periodic stimulation, it does not provide insight into how many EADs should be observed or why the number of EADs change with the PCL. Here, we take the alternative approach and treat $v$ as the only fast variable, whilst grouping $n$ and $h$ together as slow. We will show that this 2-slow/1-fast approach allows us to predict the maximal number of EADs that can be generated, and explain why the number of EADs changes with the PCL.
Underlying geometric structure {#subsec:gspt .unnumbered}
------------------------------
We now identify the geometric features that organize the EADs and APs. We begin by reformulating in terms of the fast time, $t_f = \frac{1}{\operatorname{\varepsilon}} t_s$, which gives $$\label{eq:fast}
\begin{split}
\frac{dv}{dt_f} &= f(v,n,h), \\
\frac{dn}{dt_f} &= \operatorname{\varepsilon}g_1(v,n), \\
\frac{dh}{dt_f} &= \operatorname{\varepsilon}g_2(v,h).
\end{split}$$ System is equivalent to in the sense that solutions of both systems trace out the same paths in the $(v,n,h)$ phase space, just at different speeds. We have seen that the dynamics of alternate between slow and fast epochs. The rapid transitions between depolarized and repolarized phases are approximated by solutions of the 1D [*fast subsystem*]{} $$\label{eq:layer}
\begin{split}
\frac{dv}{dt_f} &= f(v,n,h), \\
\frac{dn}{dt_f} &= 0, \\
\frac{dh}{dt_f} &= 0,
\end{split}$$ which is the approximation of in which the slow variables move so slowly that they are fixed. (The fast subsystem is obtained by taking the singular limit $\operatorname{\varepsilon}\to 0$ in .) Similarly, the slow depolarized/repolarized segments of the dynamics are approximated by solutions of the 2D [*slow subsystem*]{} $$\label{eq:reduced}
\begin{split}
0 &= f(v,n,h), \\
\frac{dn}{dt_s} &= g_1(v,n), \\
\frac{dh}{dt_s} &= g_2(v,h),
\end{split}$$ which is the approximation of in which the fast voltage variable moves so rapidly that it (i) has already reached steady state and (ii) instantly adjusts to any changes in the slow gating dynamics. (The slow subsystem is obtained by taking the singular limit $\operatorname{\varepsilon}\to 0$ in .) Recall that the idea of GSPT is to analyze the 1D fast and 2D slow subsystems, and combine their information in order to understand the origin and properties of the dynamics in the full 3D system.
We begin with linear stability analysis of the 1D fast subsystem . The equilibria, $S_0$, of form a cubic-shaped surface (in the $(v,n,h)$ space) called the critical manifold $$\label{eq:criticalmanifold}
S_0 = \left\{ (v,n,h) : f(v,n,h) = 0 \right\} = \left\{ (v,n,h) : h = h_S(v,n) = - \frac{\overline{g}_{K} n(v-\overline{V}_K)}{\overline{g}_{Ca} m_{\infty}(v) (v-\overline{V}_{Ca}) } \right\}.$$ The outer sheets are stable and the middle sheet is unstable; these are separated by curves, $L^{\pm}$, of points corresponding to fold bifurcations of $$\label{eq:foldcurves}
L^{\pm} = \left\{ (v,n,h) \in S_0 : \frac{\partial f}{\partial v} = 0 \right\}.$$ For the cardiomyocyte model, the fold conditions reduce to a set of lines on $S_0$ at constant voltage values (Fig. \[fig:slowflow\]; red curves); $L^+$ denotes the fold curve at a depolarized voltage level, and $L^-$ denotes the fold curve at a hyperpolarized voltage that is the firing threshold. We note that the $V$-axis is also a fold curve (see ‘’ section).
![Geometric structure of the cardiomyocyte model for the parameter set in Table \[tab:params\]. (a) The outer attracting sheets (blue surfaces) of the critical manifold are separated from the middle repelling sheet (red surface) by the (red) fold curves, $L^{\pm}$. The slow flow (given by ; black curves) is directed towards the folds. There is a folded node (green marker) on $L^+$ with singular strong canard, $\gamma_0$ (green trajectory). The full system equilibrium (cyan marker) is a saddle. (b) Projection into the $(V,n)$ plane. The funnel region (gray) for trajectories that enter FN is enclosed by $L^+$ and $\gamma_0$.[]{data-label="fig:slowflow"}](SlowFlow "fig:"){width="5in"} (-360,120)[(a)]{} (-162,120)[(b)]{}
From the linear stability analysis, we conclude that most solutions of end up on either the depolarized attracting sheet, $S_0^{a,+}$, or the hyperpolarized attracting sheet, $S_0^{a,-}$. Once trajectories reach one of these sheets, the slow dynamics dominate the evolution and the appropriate approximating system is the slow subsystem . The algebraic equation in constrains the phase space to the critical manifold, whilst the differential equations describe the slow motions along $S_0$. Thus, the geometric singular perturbation analysis partitions the phase space into the fast dynamics away from the critical manifold together with the slow dynamics on the critical manifold. The critical manifold itself is the interface where the fast and slow subsystems interact.
For the slow evolution on $S_0$, we have differential equations to describe the motions of $n$ and $h$, whilst the algebraic equation implicitly describes the associated motions in $v$ (slaved to $S_0$; Fig. \[fig:slowflow\] black curves). To obtain an explicit description of the $v$-motions, we differentiate $f(v,n,h)=0$ with respect to the slow time, $t_s$, and use the graph representation of the critical manifold given in . This gives $$\label{eq:slowprojection}
\begin{split}
\frac{dv}{dt_s} &=-\left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial v}\right)^{-1} \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial n} g_1 + \frac{\partial f}{\partial s} g_2 \right), \\
\frac{dn}{dt_s} &= g_1,
\end{split}$$ where $h$ has been replaced by $h_S(v,n)$. We stress that is equivalent to ; we have simply incorporated the restriction to $S_0$ explicitly by setting $h = h_S(v,n)$. In this formulation, it becomes clear that the slow flow is singular along the fold curves, $L^\pm$, where $\frac{\partial f}{\partial v} = 0$. To deal with this finite-time blow-up of solutions, we perform the time rescaling $dt_s = -\frac{\partial f}{\partial v} dt_d$, which transforms the slow system to the [*desingularized system*]{}, $$\label{eq:desingularized}
\begin{split}
\frac{dv}{dt_d} &=\frac{\partial f}{\partial n} g_1 + \frac{\partial f}{\partial s} g_2, \\
\frac{dn}{dt_d} &= -\left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial v}\right) g_1,
\end{split}$$ where again, $h = h_S(v,n)$. In this setting, the finite-time singularities of along the fold curves have been transformed into nullclines of . Since the transformation that led to the desingularized system is phase space-dependent, some care must be taken when comparing trajectories of the desingularized system with those of the true slow subsystem . On the attracting sheets, $S_0^{a,\pm}$, the flow of is topologically equivalent to the flow of since $\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}<0$ (and hence $t_s$ and $t_d$ have the same sign). On the repelling sheet, $S_0^r$, the flow of is in the opposite direction to the flow of since $\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}>0$ (and hence $t_s$ and $t_d$ have opposite signs).
With this relation between the slow and desingularized systems in mind, we now analyze the desingularized system in order to learn about the dynamics of the slow subsystem. The desingularized system possesses two types of equilibria or singularities. Ordinary singularities are isolated points such that $\{ g_1 = g_2 = 0 \}$, and correspond to true equilibria of the desingularized system , of the slow subsystem , and of the original model . For the parameter set in Table \[tab:params\], there is an ordinary singularity on $S_0^r$ (Fig. \[fig:slowflow\]; cyan marker), corresponding to a saddle equilibrium.
Folded singularities, $M$, are isolated points on $L^{\pm}$ where the right-hand-side of the $v$-equation in is zero, i.e., $$\label{eq:foldedsing}
M = \left\{ (v,n,h) \in L^{\pm} : \frac{\partial f}{\partial n} g_1 + \frac{\partial f}{\partial h} g_2 =0 \right\}.$$ Folded singularities correspond to equilibria of , however, they are not equilibria of the slow subsystem or the original model . Instead, they are points where both the numerator and denominator of the right-hand-side of the $v$-equation in vanish at the same time, so there may be a cancellation of a simple zero. This allows the possibility of solutions of the slow flow to cross the fold curves (via the folded singularity) with finite speed and move from an attracting sheet to the repelling sheet (or vice versa). Such solutions are called [*singular canards*]{} [@Szmolyan2001], and play important roles in applications. We refer to [@Desroches2012; @Kuehn2015] for extensive overviews of applications of folded singularities and canards in chemical, neural, and engineering contexts.
Folded singularities are classified as equilibria of the desingularized system. A folded singularity with real eigenvalues of the same sign is a folded node; with real eigenvalues of opposite signs it is a folded saddle; and with complex conjugate eigenvalues it is a folded focus. Folded nodes and folded saddles possess singular canards, whereas folded foci do not. The cardiomyocyte model possesses a folded node on $L^+$ for the standard parameter set (Fig. \[fig:slowflow\]; green marker).
EADs originate from a folded node {#subsec:mmos .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
We now demonstrate the origin of EADs in terms of the geometric structures identified in the prior section ‘’. To motivate this, we first take a $1^3$ attractor of (without periodic stimulation) and compare it to the critical manifold in the $(V,n,h)$ phase space (Fig. \[fig:epsunfolding\](a); magenta curve). The three EADs can be seen as small loops in the magenta trajectory about the upper fold curve, $L^+$. We observe that (i) the EADs are localized to the neighbourhood of the folded node; (ii) by decreasing $\operatorname{\varepsilon}$, or $C_m$, the EADs decrease in amplitude (compare curves of different colors in Fig. \[fig:epsunfolding\]); (iii) by decreasing $\operatorname{\varepsilon}$, the location in phase space where the trajectory transitions from a depolarized state to a hyperpolarized state converges to the folded node. These observations lead us to conjecture that the EADs observed for $0< \operatorname{\varepsilon}\ll 1$ arise from the folded node itself.
![Origin of the EADs near the folded node (green marker) for the standard parameter set. (a) Singular (black) and nonsingular (magenta, cyan, and yellow) $1^3$ attractor compared to the critical manifold. All orbits enter the depolarized sheet, $S_0^{a,+}$, inside the funnel enclosed by the singular strong canard $\gamma_0$ (green curve) and $L^+$ (red curve). The corresponding voltage time series are shown for (b) $C_m = 0.5~\mu$F/cm$^2$ (magenta), (c) $C_m = 0.25~\mu$F/cm$^2$ (cyan), (d) $C_m = 0.1~\mu$F/cm$^2$ (yellow), and (e) $C_m = 0~\mu$F/cm$^2$ (black).[]{data-label="fig:epsunfolding"}](EpsUnfolding "fig:"){width="5in"} (-364,112)[(a)]{} (-240,112)[(b)]{} (-120,112)[(c)]{} (-240,50)[(d)]{} (-120,50)[(e)]{}
How do the small oscillations emerge from the folded node? To answer this, we examine how the sheets, $S_0^{a,+}$ and $S_0^r$, of the critical manifold persist for small and nonzero $\operatorname{\varepsilon}$. As $\operatorname{\varepsilon}$ is increased away from zero, the attracting and repelling sheets, $S_0^{a,+}$ and $S_0^r$, perturb to attracting and repelling slow manifolds, $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$ and $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^r$, respectively [@Fenichel1979; @Jones1995]. These slow manifolds are the surfaces to which the slow segments of trajectories of are slaved. Both $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$ and $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^r$ are small and regular perturbations of $S_0^{a,+}$ and $S_0^r$, except in the neighbourhood of the folded node, where they instead twist around a common axis of rotation [@Szmolyan2001; @Wexy2005]. The axis of rotation corresponds to the weak eigendirection of the folded node. The twisted slow manifolds are shown in Fig. \[fig:slowmans\] for various perturbations, corresponding to the $C_m$ values used in Fig. \[fig:epsunfolding\]. (For the purposes of visualization, the slow manifolds have only been computed up to a plane, $\Sigma$, passing through the folded node. The method of computation is detailed in [@Desroches2008].) The twisting of the slow manifolds (and the slow flow on them) is confined to an $\mathcal{O}\left(\sqrt{\operatorname{\varepsilon}} \right)$ neighbourhood of the folded node [@Brons2006]. Thus, the EADs arise from locally twisted slow manifolds around the folded node. This can be seen in the insets of Fig. \[fig:slowmans\], where the folded node is the intersection of the dashed blue curve (intersection of $S_0^{a,+}$ with $\Sigma$) and the dashed red curve (intersection of $S_0^{a,-}$ with $\Sigma$).
![Attracting (blue) and repelling (red) slow manifolds, $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$ and $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^r$, for (a) $C_m=0.01~\mu$F/cm$^2$, (b) $C_m = 0.1~\mu$F/cm$^2$, (c) $C_m = 0.25~\mu$F/cm$^2$, and (d) $C_m = 0.5~\mu$F/cm$^2$. The twisting of the slow manifolds produces the EADs. Insets: intersections of $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$ (solid blue) and $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{r}$ (solid red) with $\Sigma$. Also shown for comparison are the intersections of $S_0^{a,+}$ (dashed blue) and $S_0^r$ (dashed red) with $\Sigma$. The folded node is at the intersection of the dashed blue and dashed red curves.[]{data-label="fig:slowmans"}](SlowMans "fig:"){width="5in"} (-366,288)[(a)]{} (-182,288)[(b)]{} (-366,135)[(c)]{} (-185,135)[(d)]{}
Canards organize the EADs {#subsec:sectors .unnumbered}
-------------------------
The local twisting of the slow manifolds results in a finite number of intersections between $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$ and $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^r$, called [*maximal canards*]{}. For the standard parameter set, we find that there are 5 maximal canards. The outermost, $\gamma_0$, is called the [*maximal strong canard*]{} and is the phase space boundary between those trajectories that exhibit EADs near the folded node and those that do not (Fig. \[fig:sectors\]). That is, any solution of the cardiomyocyte model with initial condition to the left of $\gamma_0$ in Fig. \[fig:sectors\] is a regular $1^0$ AP (Fig. \[fig:sectors\](a) and (d); cyan curves). Any solution with initial condition between $\gamma_0$ and the secondary maximal canard $\gamma_1$ executes 1 EAD in the neighbourhood of the folded node (Fig. \[fig:sectors\](b) and (d); beige curves). Any solution with initial condition enclosed by the secondary canards $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ exhibits 2 EADs around the folded node (Fig. \[fig:sectors\](c) and (d); brown curves). In general, an orbit in the sector between the maximal secondary canards $\gamma_{k-1}$ and $\gamma_k$ will execute $k$ EADs. The innermost maximal canard, $\gamma_w$, is called the [*maximal weak canard*]{} and is the axis of rotation for both the slow manifolds and the other maximal canards. Thus, the maximal canards organize the EADs in phase space; the path taken by the trajectory relative to the maximal canards determines the number of EADs produced.
![Organization of the EADs by maximal canards for the standard parameter set. Only the first three maximal canards, $\gamma_0$ (green), $\gamma_1$ (magenta) and $\gamma_2$ (yellow), are shown. (a) A solution ($\Gamma$; cyan) outside the rotational sectors has no EADs. (b) A solution ($\Gamma$; beige) in the sector between $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_1$ exhibits 1 EAD. (c) A solution ($\Gamma$; orange) in the sector between $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ exhibits 2 EADs. (d) Corresponding time series, showing a regular AP (cyan), an AP with 1 EAD (beige), and an AP with 2 EADs (orange).[]{data-label="fig:sectors"}](Sectors "fig:"){width="5in"} (-366,256)[(a)]{} (-182,258)[(b)]{} (-366,122)[(c)]{} (-182,122)[(d)]{}
Folded Node and EAD Dynamics Are Robust {#subsec:twoparam .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
Given that the EADs arise from canard dynamics due to twisted slow manifolds around a folded node, is it possible to predict the number of maximal canards and associated EADs? The answer is ‘yes’, and it is encoded in the strong and weak eigenvalues, $\lambda_s < \lambda_w <0$, of the folded node (when considered as an equilibrium of the desingularized system). Let $\mu = \frac{\lambda_w}{\lambda_s}$ denote the eigenvalue ratio. Then, provided $\operatorname{\varepsilon}$ is sufficiently small and $\mu \gg \sqrt{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}$, the maximal number, $s_{\max}$, of EADs around the folded node is $$\label{eq:smax} s_{\max} = \lfloor \frac{\mu+1}{2\mu} \rfloor,$$ where $\lfloor \frac{\mu+1}{2\mu} \rfloor$ denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to $\frac{\mu+1}{2\mu}$ [@Brons2006; @Szmolyan2001]. The corresponding number of maximal canards is $s_{\max}+1$. For the folded node discussed in Figs. \[fig:slowflow\] – \[fig:sectors\], we find $\mu \approx 0.13$ so that the maximal number of EADs that can be observed is $s_{\max} = 4$, and there are 5 maximal canards (consistent with Fig. \[fig:slowmans\]).
Not only does the formula predict the number of EADs, it also predicts how the number of EADs changes with parameters. Bifurcations of maximal canards occur whenever $\mu^{-1}$ passes through an odd integer value [@Wexy2005]. That is, if the system parameters are varied so that $\mu^{-1}$ increases through $3$, then $s_{\max}$ increases from $1$ to $2$. If the system parameters are varied so that $\mu^{-1}$ increases through $5$, then $s_{\max}$ increases from $2$ to $3$, and so on.
![Genericity of canard-induced EADs. The $(g_K,V_K)$ parameter plane has been partitioned according to the properties of the folded singularity. Folded nodes and EADs exist in the region enclosed by the blue ($\mu=0$) curves and the red ($\mu=1$) curve. Within this region, the maximal number of EADs that can be observed increases as the parameters are moved from the red $\mu = 1$ boundary to the blue $\mu=0$ boundaries. The two thick arrows indicate possible effects of drugs that reduce the [K$^+$]{} current conductance (leftward arrow) or increase the magnitude of the [K$^+$]{} Nernst potential (downward arrow). []{data-label="fig:twoparam"}](TwoParam){width="3in"}
There are two special cases, $\mu = 0$ and $\mu=1$, where the folded node ceases to exist and hence the canard-induced EADs are eliminated. The resonance $\mu = 1$ corresponds to the boundary where the folded node becomes a folded focus. Folded foci do not possess any canards. Hence, the $\mu=1$ resonance serves as the transition between regular $1^0$ APs and APs with EADs. This is illustrated in a two-parameter diagram, where the conductance of the [K$^+$]{} current ($g_K$) and the [K$^+$]{} Nernst potential ($V_K$) are varied and the asymptotic state of the system is shown (Fig. \[fig:twoparam\]). The red curve is the set of parameter values for which $\mu=1$. For parameter values within the region enclosed by the red curve the folded singularity is a folded focus, so only APs are produced (without EADs).
The dark green curves in Fig. \[fig:twoparam\] are parameter combinations such that $\mu=1/3$, so in the region delimited by these curves and the red $\mu=1$ curve there is a single maximal canard ($s_{\rm max}=1$) and APs with a single EAD are possible. On the olive curves $\mu=1/5$ and in the region delimited by these curves and the dark green curves APs with two EADs are possible. This process can be continued to higher odd integer values of $\mu^{-1}$; in the region between the olive curves and blue curves APs with three or more EADs are possible.
On the blue curves $\mu = 0$. The $\mu = 0$ resonance is known as a folded saddle-node (FSN) bifurcation and can occur in several distinct ways. The FSN bifurcation of type II (FSN II) is a bifurcation of the desingularized system in which a folded singularity and an ordinary singularity coalesce and swap stability in a hybrid transcritical bifurcation [@Guckenheimer2008; @Krupa2010]. That is, for $\mu>0$, the folded singularity on $L^+$ is a folded node and the ordinary singularity on $S_0^r$ is a saddle equilibrium. For $\mu<0$, the folded singularity on $L^+$ is a folded saddle and the ordinary singularity has moved to $S_0^{a,+}$ where it is a stable node. Hence, the FSN II bifurcation corresponds to the transition between EADs and stable depolarized steady states (Fig. \[fig:twoparam\]; left blue curve).
The other way in which the FSN bifurcation can occur in the desingularized system is via a true transcritical bifurcation of folded singularities. That is, for $\mu>0$, there is a folded node on $L^+$ and there is a folded saddle on the $V$-axis. At $\mu = 0$, the folded node and folded saddle coalesce, and for $\mu <0$, the folded singularity on $L^+$ is a folded saddle whereas the folded singularity on the $V$-axis is a folded node. The slow flow around the folded node on the $V$-axis is directed away from the $V$-axis, and so EADs will not be observed. Thus, for $\mu<0$, orbits of the slow flow encounter regular fold points on $L^+$, and the corresponding rhythm exhibits regular APs (without EADs). Hence, this FSN bifurcation corresponds to the transition between EADs and regular APs (Fig. \[fig:twoparam\]; right blue curve). We note that, to the best of our knowledge, this type of FSN bifurcation (in which a pair of folded singularities undergo a true transcritical bifurcation) has not yet been reported or studied.
The two-parameter diagram (Fig. \[fig:twoparam\]) illustrates that, in this model, there is a large set of $g_K$, $V_K$ parameters in which EADs can be produced. Thus, the behavior is generic, not limited to small regions of parameter space. It also illustrates the precision that GSPT provides in the determination of when EADs are possible, and the maximum number of EADs that are possible. Finally, the diagram shows that decreasing the [K$^+$]{} conductance, as is done with drugs like azimilide that act as [K$^+$]{} channel antagonists, can induce EADs (thick leftward arrow). Also, increasing the magnitude of the [K$^+$]{} Nernst potential, as in hypokalemia, can induce EADs (thick downward arrow). These observations are consistent with experimental studies [@Madhvani2011; @Sato2010; @Yan2001].
Periodic Stimulation & Mixed-Mode Oscillations {#sec:global .unnumbered}
==============================================
We have established that EADs originate from canard dynamics around a folded node, and that the canards organize the EADs in both phase and parameter space. In this section, we restore the periodic stimulation and study the stimulus-driven EAD attractors. Our aim is to explain the bifurcation diagram in Fig. \[fig:restitution\]. We will show that the variety of AP morphologies exhibited under various PCLs can be explained by the canards.
High- and low-frequency pacing: canard-induced mixed-mode oscillations {#subsec:mmos .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that when there is periodic stimulation, $I_{\rm sti}$, the system entrains to the driving oscillator. For low PCLs (i.e., high-frequency pacing), the attractor is a $1^2$ AP with EADs (see Figs. \[fig:restitution\](a) and (e)). Using the results of our geometric analysis from the ‘’ section above, we now deconstruct the $1^2$ rhythm (Fig. \[fig:highfrequency\]) and find that it consists of
(i) canard-induced EADs around the folded node due to twisted slow manifolds,
(ii) a fast transition from the depolarized folded node region to the hyperpolarized slow manifold, and
(iii) a stimulus-driven transition from the hyperpolarized slow manifold to the depolarized slow manifold.
A representative example is shown in Fig. \[fig:highfrequency\], where we compare the $1^2$ attractor to the slow and fast subsystems (panel (a)) and to the twisted slow manifolds (panel (b)). Note in Fig. \[fig:highfrequency\](a) that the weak canard is approximately given by the stable manifold of the (cyan) saddle, and that the EADs are centered on this weak canard (i.e., the weak canard is the axis of rotation).
. (a) Comparison of $\Gamma$ with the slow subsystem flow (thin black) and fast subsystem geometric structures. The stimulus (cyan segment) induces a transition from the hyperpolarized sheet to the funnel of the folded node on the depolarized sheet. (b) Comparison of $\Gamma$ with the slow manifolds; $\Gamma$ lies in the sector bounded by the canards $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, and thus has 2 EADs.[]{data-label="fig:highfrequency"}](HighFrequency "fig:"){width="5in"} (-362,135)[(a)]{} (-192,135)[(b)]{}
The periodic stimulus provides the mechanism for returning orbits to the neighbourhood of the folded node. More specifically, the stimulus switches ‘on’ during the slow hyperpolarized segment of the trajectory. This drives the orbit away from the hyperpolarized sheet before it can reach the lower firing threshold $L^-$. Moreover, the amplitude of the stimulus pulse is large enough that it pushes the orbit past the repelling sheet of the critical manifold and into the basin of attraction of the depolarized sheet, $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$. The timing of the stimulus is also such that the orbit is injected into the rotational sector enclosed by the maximal canards $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, and hence exhibits 2 EADs. This combination of a local canard mechanism (for the EADs) and a global (stimulus-induced) return mechanism is known as a canard-induced mixed-mode oscillation (MMO) [@Brons2006].
Similarly, we find that for large PCLs (i.e., low-frequency pacing), the stimulus-driven $1^3$ attractor is a canard-induced MMO with period set by the PCL (see Fig. \[fig:restitution\](d) and (e)). The $1^3$ MMO attractor consists of (local) canard-induced EADs around the folded node combined with a global stimulus-driven return that projects orbits from the hyperpolarized sheet into the rotational sector enclosed by the canards $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$ (Fig. \[fig:lowfrequency\]).
. (a) Comparison of $\Gamma$ with the slow subsystem flow (thin black) and fast subsystem geometric structures in the $(V,n)$ projection. The stimulus (cyan segment) projects the orbit into the funnel of the folded node on the depolarized sheet. (b) The orbit is injected into the rotational sector delimited by the canards $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$, and hence exhibits 3 EADs.[]{data-label="fig:lowfrequency"}](LowFrequency "fig:"){width="5in"} (-362,135)[(a)]{} (-192,135)[(b)]{}
Intermediate-frequency pacing: EAD alternans due to reinjection into adjacent rotational sectors {#subsec:alternans .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:restitution\](e), we found that there is a band of intermediate pacing frequencies for which the stimulus-driven attractor is a $1^2 1^3$ alternator (see Fig. \[fig:restitution\](b) for a representative time series). We now compare the $1^2 1^3$ attractor with the underlying geometric structures of the model cell (Fig. \[fig:intfreqalternans\]). As in the low- and high-frequency forcing cases, we find that the $1^2$ and $1^3$ segments are each canard-induced MMOs. The difference here is that the timing of the stimulus is such that the orbit visits different (contiguous) rotational sectors on each stimulus pulse.
. (a) Comparison of $\Gamma$ with the slow flow (thin black). The stimulus (cyan) projects the orbit into the funnel at different locations, causing $\Gamma$ to visit different rotational sectors. (b) The orbit alternately enters the rotational sector enclosed by $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ (2 EADs), and the rotational sector enclosed by $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$ (3 EADs).[]{data-label="fig:intfreqalternans"}](IntFreq_Alternans "fig:"){width="5in"} (-362,135)[(a)]{} (-192,135)[(b)]{}
The $1^2 1^3$ alternans attractor, $\Gamma$, decomposes as follows. Starting on the hyperpolarized sheet, the first stimulus pulse (Fig. \[fig:intfreqalternans\](a); leftmost cyan segment) projects the orbit $\Gamma$ into the rotational sector enclosed by $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$ (Fig. \[fig:intfreqalternans\](b); inset – black marker above $\gamma_2$). Thus, $\Gamma$ exhibits 3 EADs. After these 3 EADs are completed, the orbit transitions to the hyperpolarized sheet where it slowly drifts towards the firing threshold $L^-$. Before it can reach $L^-$, the next stimulus pulse (Fig. \[fig:intfreqalternans\](a); rightmost cyan segment) projects the orbit into the rotational sector enclosed by $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ (Fig. \[fig:intfreqalternans\](b); inset – black marker below $\gamma_2$), and thus $\Gamma$ exhibits only 2 EADs. The orbit then returns to the hyperpolarized sheet where it again slowly drifts towards $L^-$. Since $\Gamma$ only underwent 2 EADs, the APD is shorter (compared to the previous one) and the corresponding diastolic interval (DI) is longer. As such, the orbit is able to drift further along the hyperpolarized sheet before the next stimulus occurs. Once the stimulus ‘switches on’, the process repeats periodically, thus producing the $1^2 1^3$ attractor.
Intermediate-frequency pacing: dynamical chaos and intermittency due to sensitivity near maximal canards {#subsec:chaos .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:restitution\](e), we found a band of intermediate pacing frequencies for which the model cell exhibited seemingly chaotic and intermittent behaviour. Here, we show that the complex EAD signatures arise from the crossing of a maximal canard. We do this for a representative $1^2 (1^3)^3$ attractor (Fig. \[fig:intfreqchaos\]), which we denote by $\Gamma$. As before, the individual APs with EADs are canard-induced MMOs. The variability in the number and magnitude of the EADs is due to the stimulus, which perturbs the orbit away from the hyperpolarized sheet at different locations on each pulse.
. (a) Projection of the $1^2 (1^3)^3$ attractor, $\Gamma$, into the $(V,n)$ plane. (b) The orbit stays close to the maximal canard $\gamma_2$ on each return to $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$. (c) Zoom of the $(V,n)$ plane where the stimuli are applied. (d) Zoom of the EADs as they peel off the maximal canard $\gamma_2$. (e) Time series of $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_{3j}$ for $j=1,2,3$. The APD (DI) is the time spent above (below) the threshold $V = -70~$mV (dashed purple). []{data-label="fig:intfreqchaos"}](IntFreq_Chaos "fig:"){width="5in"} (-340,198)[(a)]{} (-188,198)[(b)]{} (-370,66)[(c)]{} (-276,66)[(d)]{} (-176,66)[(e)]{}
Let $\Gamma_2$ denote the $1^2$ segment of $\Gamma$, and $\Gamma_{3,j}, j=1,2,3$ denote the $1^3$ segments of $\Gamma$, i.e., $\Gamma = \Gamma_2 \cup \Gamma_{31} \cup \Gamma_{32} \cup \Gamma_{33}$. Starting with $\Gamma_2$, the stimulus (Fig. \[fig:intfreqchaos\](c); cyan) induces a fast transition to the depolarized sheet close to $\gamma_2$ and in the sector between $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ (Fig. \[fig:intfreqchaos\](b)), and hence there are 2 EADs. The intrinsic dynamics of the model cell return $\Gamma_2$ to $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,-}$ where it slowly drifts to smaller $n$. The next stimulus initiates $\Gamma_{31}$ and causes the orbit to enter the depolarized phase in the rotational sector bound by $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$. The additional EAD produced in $\Gamma_{31}$ extends the APD compared to that of $\Gamma_2$ (Fig. \[fig:intfreqchaos\](e)). As such, the DI of $\Gamma_{31}$ is shorter than that of $\Gamma_2$. This means $\Gamma_{32}$ is initiated on $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,-}$ at a larger $n$ value (Fig. \[fig:intfreqchaos\](c)), and enters $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$ closer to $\gamma_2$. Since $\Gamma_{32}$ follows $\gamma_2$ more closely than $\Gamma_{31}$, (i) the resulting EADs are larger amplitude (Fig. \[fig:intfreqchaos\](d)), (ii) the APD is longer, and (iii) the DI is shorter. Consequently, $\Gamma_{33}$ is initiated on $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,-}$ at a larger $n$ value, enters $S_{\operatorname{\varepsilon}}^{a,+}$ closer to $\gamma_2$, and hence exhibits the (i) largest EADs, (ii) longest APD, and (iii) shortest DI.
The other complex MMO signatures reported in Fig. \[fig:restitution\](e) emerge by the same mechanism. That is, the $(1^2)^p (1^3)^q$ attractors for $p,q \in \mathbb{N}$ arise because the PCL is such that the orbit enters the depolarized sheet close to the maximal canard $\gamma_2$. Since the behaviour of trajectories near a maximal canard is exponentially sensitive [@Wexy2005], small changes in the PCL manifest as significant changes in the number, amplitude, and duration of EADs on each pulse. Likewise, at such PCL values, small changes in initial conditions have large effects on the $V$ time course, the hallmark of chaos.
Discussion {#sec:discussion .unnumbered}
==========
It has been demonstrated previously that early afterdepolarizations produced by a simple cardiomyocyte model [@Sato2010], a reduction of the Luo-Rudy 1 model [@Luo1991], are the consequence of carnard dynamics in the vicinity of a folded node singularity [@kugler2018], a result further illuminated through the geometric analysis shown in Figs. \[fig:slowflow\]–\[fig:sectors\]. We showed that these dynamics are robust in the $(g_K,V_K)$ parameter plane (Fig. \[fig:twoparam\]). These parameters were chosen since they can be modulated by drugs or environment; $g_K$ is reduced by [K$^+$]{} channel antagonists such as azimilide, while $V_K$ is increased in magnitude in hypokalemia. Figure \[fig:twoparam\] predicts that both manipulations can induce EADs, and indeed both manipulations have been shown to do this in experiments [@Madhvani2011; @Sato2010; @Yan2001].
The second set of results from our study involves the paced system, which receives periodic depolarizing stimuli (Fig. \[fig:restitution\]). Each stimulus pushes an orbit into the basin of attraction of the depolarized attracting sheet, triggering an action potential that can be a mixed-mode oscillation if EADs are produced. For high- and low-frequency pacing, orbits land in the rotational sectors delimited by the maximal canards and stay far from any of the maximal canards, so that the voltage time course exhibits regular, periodic behavior. At high stimulus frequencies, the orbits land in the rotational sector with 2 EADs, so each AP is a mixed-mode oscillation with 2 EADs. At low stimulus frequencies, the orbits land in the rotational sector with 3 EADs, so each AP is a mixed-mode oscillation with 3 EADs. The number of EADs depends upon the rotational sector in which the orbit lands in response to the stimulus (Figs. \[fig:highfrequency\]–\[fig:intfreqchaos\]). The EAD alternans observed for intermediate-frequency pacing emerge because the stimulus current alternately projects the orbit into different rotational sectors on each pulse. In some cases, the outcome can be quite complex, with a sequence of mixed-mode oscillations of different durations and numbers of EADs. This behavior is what was referred to as “dynamical chaos" in earlier publications [@Sato2010; @Tran2009].
The advantage of the minimal model for the analysis presented here is its low dimensionality. More realistic cardiomyocyte models can have 40 or more dimensions, reflecting many types of ionic currents and in many cases equations for [Ca$^{2+}$]{} handling in the cytosol, the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR), and the subspace between the SR and the cell membrane [@Luo1994b; @Luo1994a; @Kurata2005; @Ohara2011; @Williams_sb2010]. One major advantage of these larger models is that they have more biological detail that allows for simulation of, for example, the application of pharmacological agents that act as antagonists for specific types of ion channels, such as inward-rectifying [K$^+$]{} channels, while the minimal model incorporates only a single type of [K$^+$]{} current and a single type of [Ca$^{2+}$]{} current. With the correct parameterizations, these more complete models are capable of reproducing the various forms of EADs that have been characterized, each with different, but partially overlapping, biophysical mechanisms [@Antzelevitch2011], while the minimal model was developed to produce EADs of a particular type. EADs are divided broadly into types according to the timing of the events: “phase-2 EADs" occur during the plateau of an elongated AP, and “phase-3 EADs" occur during the falling phase of the AP. There are also “depolarizing afterdepolarizations" that occur after the completion of the action potential. The analysis that we performed herein on a minimal model suggests that the dynamics underlying some phase-2 EADs are canard induced, and we speculate that this will be the case in more complete biophysical models. While the full geometric singular perturbation analysis done with the minimal model is not possible with the high-dimensional models, it is possible to perform a less complete analysis, such as determining the existence of folded node singularities. Indeed, such an analysis is important for establishing that canard dynamics are the basis of phase-2 EADs in more complete models, and is currently being undertaken by our group.
Why does it matter whether EADs are due to canard dynamics near a folded node singularity? Although it sounds very abstract, the ramifications of knowing this can be very important and useful. As we have demonstrated, if the EADs are associated with a folded node singularity, then one can simply analyze the eigenvalues of the reduced desingularized system at the folded node to determine how many EADs are possible. Also, through analysis of the eigenvalues, one can determine parameter changes that will enhance EAD production or eliminate the EADs. In particular, one can determine regions of parameter space where canard-induced EADs are not possible, without the need to perform any numerical integrations (as in Fig. \[fig:twoparam\] and [@kugler2018]). So once EADs are linked to folded node singularities, one gains a great deal of predictive capability. In addition to this, knowing the dynamical mechanism for the EADs helps in the understanding of complex behavior, such as dynamical chaos, that would be hard or impossible to understand from the viewpoint of interacting ionic currents (i.e., a biophysical interpretation). Knowing which ion channels are key players in EADs is of course important, and can provide targets for pharmacological or genetic manipulation, but the complexity of the multiscale nonlinear dynamical system provides limitations to interpreting behavior without mathematical tools such as GSPT.
The theory of folded singularities has been applied to numerous biological systems. This includes intracellular [Ca$^{2+}$]{} dynamics [@Harvey2011], the electrical activity of neurons [@Rotstein2008; @Rubin2007; @Rubin2008] and pituitary cells [@Vo2013], and mixed-mode oscillations that are likely canard-induced have been observed in the oxidation of platinum [@Krischer1992], dusty plasmas [@Mikikian2008], and chemical oscillations [@Petrov1992; @Rotstein2003]. The demonstration that some forms of EADs are canard-induced, at least in a minimal cardiomyocyte model, adds cardiac cells to the growing list of the biological and chemical systems whose dynamics are organized by folded singularities. Our system is novel, however, in that it is periodically forced under normal (i.e., physiological) conditions, where the forcing is initiated at the sinoatrial node. As we demonstrated here, this forcing can lead to complicated dynamics due to the injection of the orbit into different rotational sectors, so that the number of EADs produced following each stimulus can vary. The result can appear to be unpredictable, and chaotic, and sensitive to small changes in the forcing frequency and initial conditions. Whether this complex behavior is exhibited in a physiological setting, within an intact heart, is unclear. It is generally accepted that EADs can lead to arrythmias [@Cranefield1991; @Lerma2007stochastic; @Shimizu1997; @Shimizu1991], including ventricular tachycardia, but it has not been establshed that complex, chaotic behavior at the single myocyte level contributes to this.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
In this report, we showed the benefits of a 2-slow/1-fast analysis of a model for cardiac early afterdepolarizations. Knowing that the small EADs are due to canards organized around a folded node singularity not only explains the origin of the EADs, but provides a viewpoint through which one can comprehend important behaviors. For example, an analysis of the eigenvalues of the folded-node singularity provides information on the number of EADs that are possible for different parameter sets. It also explains why inhibition of [K$^+$]{} channels or a hypokalemic environment facilitates EAD production. Finally, it provides a solid basis for understanding the effects of periodic stimulation of cardiomyocytes. We used this technique to show why more EADs are generated at low-frequency pacing than at a higher pacing frequency. The technique was also used to explain the origin of complex alternan behavior that occurs with intermediate-frequency pacing. Overall, the use of slow-fast analysis provides information on the dynamics of this multi-timescale system that are hard or impossible to comprehend from a purely biophysical analysis (i.e., in terms of the effects of different ionic currents) or from computer simulations alone.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, FSU, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA (<[email protected]>)
[^2]: Department of Mathematics and Programs in Neuroscience and Molecular Biophysics, FSU, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA ([[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]))
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Let $(X_t)$ be a one-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with initial density function $f:\RR_+\to\RR_+$, which is a regularly varying function with exponent $-(1+\eta), \ \eta \in(0,1)$. We prove the existence of a probability measure $\nu$ with a Lebesgue density, depending on $\eta$, such that for every $A\in{\cal{B}}(\RR_+)$: $$\lim_{t\to\infty}P_f(X_t\in A \mid T_0^X>t)=\nu(A).$$'
---
0.5cm -0.25in 16.5cm -0.7in 0em 2ex
0[[\_0]{}]{}
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
[**Domain of attraction of the quasi-stationary distributions for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process.**]{}
[by]{} [**MANUEL LLADSER**]{} [^1] [^2] and [**JAIME SAN MARTIN**]{} $^1$ [^3]
Introduction
============
Let $\Omega= {\cal C}([0,\infty),\RR)$ be the space of real continuous functions, and ${\cal F}$ the standard Borel $\sigma$-field on $\Omega$. For a probability measure $\mu$ on $(\RR,{\cal{B}}(\RR))$ we denote by $P_\mu$ the probability measure on $(\Omega,{\cal F})$ such that $B_t(w)=w(t)$ is a Brownian Motion with initial distribution $\mu$. If $\mu=\delta_x$ is the Dirac mass at $x \in \RR$ we denote $P_x$ instead of $P_{\delta_x}$. Similarly, if $\mu$ has a density $f$ we use the notation $P_f$ instead of $P_\mu$.
Consider a one-dimensional diffusion process $(X_t)$ which in differential form may be written as $$\label{gede}
dX_t=dB_t-\alpha (X_t)dt, \; X_0=B_0,$$ where the drift $\alpha:\RR\rightarrow\RR$ is a given function. We denote by $\cal{L}$ the infinitesimal operator of the process $(X_t)$. That is $$\label{ol}
{\cal{L}}f :=\frac 12\partial_{xx}f -\alpha \partial_x f,$$ We also denote by $\cal{L}^*$ the formal adjoint operator of $\cal{L}$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure. In other words $$\label{oal}
{\cal{L}^*}f:=\frac 12\partial_{xx}f +\partial_x(\alpha f).$$
The hitting time of zero $T_0^X$ is defined as the first time that the process $(X_t)$ reaches zero. That is $T_0^X:=\inf \left\{ t\geq 0:X_t=0\right\}$. A similar notation will be used for the hitting time of zero for $(B_t)$: $T_0^B$.
A probability measure $\nu$ is said to be a quasi-stationary distribution ($qsd$) if $$\label{qsd}
\forall t, \forall A \in {\cal{B}}(\RR) \
P_\nu (X_t\in A \mid T_0^X>t)=\nu(A).$$ If the drift is regular, this condition is equivalent to the existence of $\lambda \in \RR_+$ such that $$\label{qsd2}
\forall t, \forall A \in {\cal{B}}(\RR) \
P_\nu (X_t\in A, T_0^X>t)=e^{-\lambda t}\nu(A),$$ which implies that $\nu=\nu_\lambda$, the probability measure concentrated on $\RR_+$ with smooth density proportional to the unique solution of the differential problem $$\label{edoqs}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \cal{L}^{*}\varphi _\lambda =
-\lambda \varphi _\lambda \\ \varphi _\lambda (0)=0\quad ,\quad
\varphi _\lambda ^{\prime }(0)=1. \end{array} \right.$$ That is $\forall A \in {\cal B}(\RR_+)$ we have $\nu_\lambda(A):=\left(\int_0^\infty\varphi_\lambda(x)dx\right)^{-1}
\int_A\varphi_\lambda(x)dx$.
We remark that in particular from (\[qsd2\]) the absorption time is exponentially distributed when the initial distribution is $\nu_{\lambda}$, that is $P_{\nu_\lambda} (T_0^X>t)=e^{-\lambda t}$. Usually the set of values of $\lambda$ for which (\[edoqs\]) has a positive and integrable solution is an interval $(0,\underline\lambda]$ and moreover $\underline\lambda$ coincides with the ground state of $\cal{L}^{*}$. We shall prove this result in the context of a Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, but this holds in many others situations (see [@Servet0], [@Jaime3] and [@Jaime2] for example).
This paper deals with the domain of attraction of the $qsd$. We say that $\mu$ is in the domain of attraction of the $qsd$ $\nu$ if $$\label{lqsd} {\lim \limits_{t\rightarrow \infty }}P_\mu (X_t\in \cdot \mid T_0^X>t)=\nu(\cdot),$$ where the limit is taken in the weak topology. We notice that from (\[qsd\]) $\nu$ belongs to its own domain of attraction. We work with absolutely continuous initial distributions $\mu$, whose density $f$ is a regularly varying function (see definitions on section 3). Our main result is the following theorem, where we assume that the drift is linear $\alpha=a x$ with $a>0$, that is $(X_t)$ is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process.
[**Theorem**]{}Let $f:\RR_+\to\RR_+$ be a density function with exponent $-(1+\eta)$ where $\eta\in(0,1)$. Then for all $A\in{\cal B}(\RR_+)$ $$\lim_{t\to\infty} P_f(X_t\in A\mid T^X_0>t)=\nu_{\lambda^*} (A)$$ where $\lambda^*:=a\eta\in(0,a)$.
We remark that, in the case that the density function $f$ is smooth, the condition $\lim\limits_{u\to\infty} {uf'(u)\over f(u)}=-(1+\eta)$ is enough to ensure that $f$ has the desired exponent.
In the literature there are two works directly related with the problem mentioned above. The first one was published by P. Mandl [@Mandal] who consider general drift assumptions. He proved that the bottom of the spectrum of $\cal{L}^*$ is given by $=\sup\{\lambda\in\RR:\varphi_\lambda$ does not change sign$\}$. Also he proved that under certain hypothesis on the behaviour of the Fourier transform of the initial density function $f$ around the point , the limit in (\[lqsd\]) exists and $\nu$ is the probability measure $\nu_{\underline \lambda}$. The measure $\nu_{\underline{\lambda }}$ is called the minimal $qsd$. Because of this, we say that Mandl’s result only deals with the domain of attraction of the minimal $qsd$. For the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process it is not hard to see that $\underline \lambda=a$.
The other related result is due to S.Martinez et al [@Jaime2]. They studied the domain of attraction of $qsd$ for a Brownian Motion with constant drift $\alpha(x)\equiv a$ with $a>0$. In this setting ${\underline{\lambda}}=a^2/2$. They prove that the limit in (\[lqsd\]) exists if ${\lim \limits_{u\rightarrow\infty }}-\frac{\ln f(u)}u=\beta > 0$. Moreover, when $\beta \in (0,a]$ $\nu$ is the probability measure $\nu_{\lambda^*}$ where $\lambda^*=a\beta-\frac{\beta^2}{2}$. When $\beta\ge a$ then $\nu=\nu_{\underline{\lambda}}$.
The present paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we present general and well known facts about the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process which we include for the sake of completeness. In section 3 we present the proof of the main result of this paper.
Some facts about the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process
===============================================
From now on, $(X_t)$ denotes an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, that is to say, the process that solves the stochastic differential equation (\[gede\]) for a linear drift $\alpha(x):=ax$ with $a>0$ constant.
As usual $P_x(B_t\in dy)/dy:={1\over\sqrt{2\pi t}}e^{\frac{(y-x)^2}{2t}}$ denotes the transition density of a Brownian Motion starting from $x$. We define the functions $h$ and $g$ by the formulas $$\label{fhfg}
h(t):=\frac{1-e^{-2at}}{2a}\qquad,\qquad g(t):=\frac{e^{2at}-1}{2a}.$$ The transition density of the process $(X_t)$ starting from $x$ can be computed as $$\label{td} p(t,x,y):=P_x(X_t\in dy)/dy=P_{e^{-at}x}(B_{h(t)}\in dy)/dy$$ On the other hand, an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process satisfies a reflection principle. In words, conditioning on $T^X_0$, using the strong Markov property and the fact that $(X_t)$ and $(-X_t)$ have the same law under $P_0$, one obtains for $x,t>0$ and $A\in{\cal B}(\RR_+)$ $$\label{rp1}
P_x(X_t\in A ,T_0^X>t)=P_x(X_t\in A)-P_x(-X_t\in A).$$
Consequently, using formulas (\[td\]) and (\[rp1\]), and the reflection principle for a Brownian Motion, we obtain for every $x,t>0$, $$\label{rp2} P_x(T_0^X>t)=P_{e^{-at}x}(T_0^B>h(t)).$$ We also have a formula for $q$ the transition density of the submarkovian process $(X_t 1_{T_0^X>t})$ given by $$\label{inutil}
q(t,x,y)=p(t,x,y)-p(t,x,-y)=\sqrt{2\over\pi h(t)} e^{-\{{(e^{-at}x)^2
\over2h(t)}+{y^2\over2h(t)}\}}sinh\left(e^{-at}xy\over h(t)\right),$$ where it is assumed that $xy>0$.
We remark that formulas (\[fhfg\]) and (\[rp2\]) will help us to rewrite probabilities about the process $(X_t)$ in terms of the probabilities about the Brownian motion $(B_t)$. Also, before ending the section, we notice that the reflection principle for the process $(X_t)$ essentially holds for any diffusion process $(Y_t)$ that starting from zero has the same distribution as $(-Y_t)$. Certainly, this is the case when a process $(Y_t)$ solves an stochastic differential equation, of the type (\[gede\]), for which the drift $\alpha$ is an odd function and uniqueness in distribution holds.
Proof of the main result
========================
Our main theorem relies on the concept of regularly varying functions (for a complete reference, see [@BGT], [@Feller]). A non-negative measurable function $f:\RR_+\to\RR_+$ it is said to be [**regularly varying with exponent**]{} $\bf\beta$ (briefly, $f$ has exponent $\beta$), if for all $c>0$ $$\lim_{u\to\infty}{f(cu)\over f(u)}=c^{\beta}.$$ In order to make a discussion in the same terms of our main result, we deal with a function $f$ with exponent of the form $-(1+\eta)$ with $\eta\in\RR$. Since the function $f(u)u^{1+\eta}$ varies slowly, we have the following asymptotic for $\ln f$ ( see [@BGT] Proposition 1.3.6) $$\label{H1}
\lim_{u\to\infty }\frac{\ln f(u)}{\ln u}= -(1+\eta).$$
We start the proof of the main Theorem by proving that the set of measures $\left\{P_f(X_t\in \cdot \mid T_0^X>t)\right\}_{t\ge1}$ is tight. The next Lemma is technically important for that purpose.
\[ldm\]
If $f:\RR_+\to\RR_+$ is a density function with exponent $-(1+\eta)$ for some $\eta\in(0,1)$ then for all $\gamma\in(0,\eta)$ $$\label{cldm}
\lim\limits_{u\to\infty}\:u^{1-\gamma}\:{\int_u^\infty\:x^\gamma f(x)
dx\over\int_0^u xf(x)dx} = {1-\eta\over\eta-\gamma}<\infty.$$
[**Proof:**]{} From the hypothesis assumed on $f$ it follows immediately that $x^\gamma f(x)$ is integrable near $\infty$. Therefore from [@Feller], Theorem 1 on section VIII.9, we have the following limits exist $$\lim_{u\to\infty } \frac{u^{\gamma+1} f(u)}{\int^\infty_u x^\gamma f(x) dx}
=\eta-\gamma>0,$$ and $$\lim_{u\to\infty } \frac{u^2 f(u)}{\int^u_0 x f(x) dx}
=1-\eta>0,$$ from which the result follows.$\Box$
\[ldlt\]
If $f:\RR_+\to\RR_+$ is a density function with exponent $-(1+\eta)$ for some $\eta\in(0,1)$, then the set of probability measures: $\:\left\{\:P_f\left(X_t\in\cdot\:\left\vert\right.\:T^X_0>t\right)\:\right\}_{t\ge1}\:$ is tight.
[**Proof:**]{} It is enough to check that $\limsup\limits_{t\to\infty}\:E_f\left(X_t^\gamma\left\vert\right.T^X_0>t\right)<\infty$ for some $1\ge \gamma>0$, where $$\label{machupichu}
E_f\left(X_t^\gamma\left\vert\right.T^X_0>t\right)
={I(0,\infty,0,\infty) \over J(0,\infty,0,\infty)},$$ and $$I(A,B,C,D):=\int_A^B\int_C^D f(x)\:y^\gamma\:q(t,x,y)\:dy\:dx,\:
J(A,B,C,D):=\int_A^B\int_C^D f(x)\:q(t,x,y)\:dy\:dx.$$
It can be checked using (\[inutil\]) that there exists a constant $c_1=c_1(a)>0$ such that for every $t\ge1$ and $x\in[0,e^{at}]$ $$1\:\le\:{\int_0^\infty y^\gamma q(t,x,y)dy\over \int_0^1
y^\gamma q(t,x,y)dy}\:\le\:c_1.$$ From (\[machupichu\]) and the last inequality we have that
$$\begin{array}{lll}
E_f\left(X_t^\gamma\left\vert\right.T^X_0>t\right) \le
{I(0,e^{at},0,\infty)\over J(0,e^{at},0,1)}
\left\{1+{I(e^{at},\infty,0,\infty) \over I(0,e^{at},0,\infty)}\right\}
&\le& c_1{I(0,e^{at},0,1) \over J(0,e^{at},0,1)}
\left\{1+{I(e^{at},\infty,0,\infty) \over I(0,e^{at},0,1)}\right\} \\
&\le& c_1\left\{1+{I(e^{at},\infty,0,\infty) \over I(0,e^{at},0,1)} \right\}.
\end{array}$$
Therefore to prove the Lemma is enough to find $1\ge \gamma>0$ such that
$$\label{nacanacalapirinaca}
\limsup\limits_{t\to\infty}{\int_{e^{at}}^\infty\int_0^\infty f(x)y^\gamma\:q(t,x,y)\:dydx
\over \int_0^{e^{at}}\int_0^1 f(x)y^\gamma\:q(t,x,y)\:dydx}\:<\:\infty.$$
But since $0<h(1)\le h(t)\le{1\over 2a}$ for every $t\ge1$ and $sinh(z)\ge z$ for all $z\ge0$, we see from (\[inutil\]) that
$$\int_0^{ e^{at}}\int_0^1 f(x)y^\gamma\:q(t,x,y)\:dydx \ge
\:{4a^{3/2} \over \sqrt{\pi}e^{at}}
\int_0^{e^{at}}xf(x)e^{-{(e^{-at}x)^2\over2h(t)}}dx
\int_0^1y^{\gamma+1}\:e^{-{y^2\over2h(t)}}dy.$$ On the other hand $q(t,x,y)\le p(t,x,y)$. Thus, using (\[td\]) and the last inequality, it follows the existence of a constant $c_2=c_2(a)>0$ such that
$$\label{tamoslistongo}
{\int_{ e^{at}}^\infty\int_0^\infty f(x)y^\gamma\:q(t,x,y)\:dydx
\over\int_0^{ e^{at}}\int_0^1 f(x)y^\gamma\:q(t,x,y)\:dydx}\le
c_2\:e^{at} \:{\int_{e^{at}}^\infty\:f(x)
\left(\int_0^\infty\:y^\gamma\:e^{-a(e^{-at}x-y)^2}dy\right)dx\over\int_0^{e^{at}}xf(x)dx}.$$
Now, if $0< \gamma \le 1$ there exists a constant $c_3>0$ such that for $x\ge e^{at}$ $$\int_0^\infty\:y^\gamma\:e^{-a(e^{-at}x-y)^2}dy\le c_3(e^{-at}x)^\gamma,$$ hence from (\[tamoslistongo\]) we can conclude that
$$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{t\to\infty}{\int_{ e^{at}}^\infty\int_0^\infty f(x)y^\gamma\:q(t,x,y)\:dydx
\over\int_0^{ e^{at}}\int_0^1 f(x)y^\gamma\:q(t,x,y)\:dydx} &
\le& c_2c_3\limsup_{t\to\infty} e^{at(1-\gamma)}{\int_{e^{at}}^\infty\:f(x)x^\gamma dx
\over\int_0^{e^{at}}xf(x)dx} \\
&=& c_2c_3\limsup\limits_{u\to\infty}\:u^{1-\gamma}\:{\int_u^\infty\:x^\gamma f(x)
dx\over\int_0^u xf(x)dx}.\end{aligned}$$
To finish the proof we notice that Lemma \[ldm\] ensures that the right hand side in the last inequality is finite for any $0<\gamma<\eta$. This proves assertion (\[nacanacalapirinaca\]), and therefore the desired result follows.$\Box$
\[ldps\]
Let $0<b<c$ and $x>0$. Then $$1\le{P_x(T^B_0>b)\over P_x(T^B_0>c)}\le\left({c\over b}\right)^{3/2}.$$
[**Proof:**]{} The first inequality is direct. On the other hand (see [@Karatzas], page 197) after a linear substitution we get $$\begin{aligned}
{P_x(T^B_0>b)\over P_x(T^B_0>c)}=
\frac{\int\limits_b^\infty {1\over\sqrt{u^3}}e^{-{x^2\over 2u}}du}
{\int\limits_c^\infty {1\over\sqrt{u^3}}e^{-{x^2\over 2u}}du}\le
\frac{\int\limits_b^\infty {1\over\sqrt{u^3}}e^{-{x^2\over 2u}}du}
{\int\limits_b^\infty {1\over\sqrt{(1+{c-b\over u})^3}}
{1\over\sqrt{u^3}}e^{-{x^2\over 2u}}du}\le \left({c\over b}\right)^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$
The last inequality follows since the function $u\to\left(1+{c-b\over u}\right)$ is decreasing.$\Box$
\[ldpj\]
If $f:\RR_+\to\RR_+$ is a density function with exponent $\:-(1+\eta)$ where $\eta\in(0,1)$, then for every $t>0$ and $c>0$ $$\label{ufuf}
\lim\limits_{u\to\infty}{\int_0^{ln(u)/c}f(x)P_{c{x\over u}}(T^B_0>t)dx\over
\int_{ln(u)/c}^\infty f(x)P_{c{x\over u}}(T^B_0>t)dx}=0.$$
[**Proof:**]{} Since the function $x\to P_x(T^B_0>t)$ is increasing on $\RR_+$ we obtain $$\int_0^{ln(u)/c} f(x)P_{c{x\over u}}(T^B_0>t)dx \le
P_{ln(u)\over u}(T^B_0>t)
\int_0^{ln(u)/c} f(x)dx \le P_{ln(u)\over u}(T^B_0>t).$$
But the function $x\to P_x(T^B_0>t)$ is differentiable at $x=0$, hence, there exists a constant $c_1>0$, which depends on t, such that for $u>0$ sufficiently large $$\label{pelaito}
\int_0^{ln(u)/c} f(x)P_{c{x\over u}}(T^B_0>t)dx\le c_1 {ln(u)\over u}.$$ On the other hand, since $f$ is regularly varying, from (\[H1\]) if $\kappa\in(\eta,1)$ we have for large $x$ the inequality $f(x)\ge{1\over x^{1+\kappa}}$. In particular, for $u>0$ large enough we have that $$\int_{ln(u)/c}^\infty f(x)P_{c{x\over u}}(T^B_0>t)dx\ge
\left(c\over u\right)^\kappa \int_{ln(u)/u}^\infty {1\over x^{1+\kappa}}P_x(T^B_0>t)dx.$$ Now, since the function $u\to {ln(u)\over u}$ is asymptotically decreasing to $0$, there exists a constant $c_2>0$, which also depends on $t$, such that for big $u>0$ $$\label{pelaote}
\int_{ln(u)/c}^\infty f(x)P_{c{x\over u}}(T^B_0>t)dx\ge {c_2\over u^\kappa}.$$ From (\[pelaito\]) and (\[pelaote\]), and the fact that $\kappa<1$, it follows the result.$\Box$
\[ldpf/pf\]
If $f:\RR_+\to\RR_+$ is a density function with exponent $\:-(1+\eta)$ where $\eta\in(0,1)$, then for every $s\ge0$
$$\label{manu}
\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}{P_f(T^X_0>t+s)\over P_f(T^X_0>t)}=e^{-(a\eta)s}.$$
[**Proof:**]{} Let $s>0$ and $h$ be the function defined on (\[fhfg\]). Then, using (\[rp2\]), it follows for every $t>0$ that
$${P_f(T^X_0>t+s)\over P_f(T^X_0>t)}={\int_0^\infty f(x)
P_{e^{-a(t+s)}x}(T^B_0>h(t+s))dx\over\int_0^\infty f(x) P_{e^{-at}x}(T^B_0>h(t))dx}.$$
Notice that $h(t)<h(t+s)<{1\over 2a}$ and $\lim\limits_{t\to\infty}h(t)={1\over 2a}$. Therefore, using the bound obtained in Lemma \[ldps\] and setting $u=e^{at}$, it can be easily seeing that (\[manu\]) is equivalent to
$$\label{ifeas/ifeas}
\lim_{u\to\infty} {\int_0^\infty f(x)
\label{if2a/if2a}
P_{e^{-as}{x\over u}}(T^B_0>{1\over 2a})dx\over\int_0^\infty f(x)
P_{x\over u}(T^B_0>{1\over 2a})dx}=e^{-(a\eta)s}.$$
Writing
$${\int_0^\infty f(x) P_{e^{-as}{x\over u}}(T^B_0>{1\over 2a})dx
\over\int_0^\infty f(x) P_{x\over u}(T^B_0>{1\over 2a})dx}=
{\left(\int\limits_0^{e^{as}ln(u)}+
\int\limits_{e^{as}ln(u)}^\infty\right) f(x) P_{e^{-as}{x\over u}}(T^B_0>{1\over 2a})dx
\over \left(\int\limits_0^{ln(u)}\quad+\quad
\int\limits_{ln(u)}^\infty\right)\quad f(x) P_{x\over u}(T^B_0>{1\over 2a})dx},$$
from lemma \[ldpj\] and using the substitution $y=e^{-as}x$ in the numerator, to check (\[ifeas/ifeas\]) it is sufficient to prove that $$\lim_{u\to\infty}{\int_{ln(u)}^\infty f(e^{as}x) P_{x\over
u}(T^B_0>{1\over 2a})dx\over \int_{ln(u)}^\infty f(x) P_{x\over
u}(T^B_0>{1\over 2a})dx }=e^{-a(1+\eta)s}.$$ But, $f$ is regularly varying therefore $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}{f(e^{as}x)\over f(x)}
=e^{-a(1+\eta)s}$ for all $x>0$. From this fact, it follows the result.$\Box$
\[ldfqs\]
(a)
: $\left\{\lambda\:\vert\:\varphi_\lambda\hbox{ does not change sign }\right\}=(-\infty,a]$;
(b)
: For every $\lambda\in(0,a]$, $\int_0^\infty\varphi_\lambda(x)dx<\infty$.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $\varphi_\lambda$ be the solution of (\[edoqs\]). Then $\psi_\lambda(u)=e^{a u^2}\varphi_\lambda(u)$ is the unique solution of the equation $$\label{eqspfpsi}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mathrel{{\cal L}\psi_\lambda}\:=\:-\lambda\:\psi_\lambda \\
\psi_\lambda(0)=0 \quad,\quad\psi_\lambda'(0)=1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Hence, to prove \[ldfqs\](a), we just need to concentrate our attention on $\psi_\lambda$. Note that $\psi_\lambda$ is an analytic function. Setting $\psi_\lambda(u)=\sum\limits_{k\ge0}b_{k} u^{k}$ one sees that $b_0=0,\ b_1=1$ and one obtains a recursion for $b_{k+2}$ in terms of $b_k$ which shows that $\forall k\ge 0 \ b_{2k}=0$ and for $k \ge 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{csm1}
b_{2k+1}={a^k\over (2k+1) k!}\prod\limits_{i=0}^{k-1}
\left( 1-{\lambda a^{-1}\over 2i+1} \right).\end{aligned}$$
In particular $\psi_\lambda$ cannot change sign if $\lambda\le a$. Notice also that $\psi_a(u)=u$.
On the other hand, if $\lambda\in(a,3a)$ then from (\[csm1\]) we get that $b_{2k+1}<0$ for every $k\ge 1$. Thus, $\lim\limits_{u\to\infty}\psi_\lambda(u)=-\infty$. But $\psi_\lambda(0)=0$ and $\psi_\lambda'(0)>0$, hence, from the last limit, we see that there exists $x_0>0$ such that $\psi_\lambda>0$ on $(0,x_0)$ and $\psi_\lambda(x_0)=0$.
Let $\lambda>a$. We prove then that $\psi_\lambda$ has to change its sign. Letting $\kappa\in(a,min\{3a\:,\lambda\})$ we just proved the existence of some $x_0>0$ such that $\psi_\kappa>0$ on $(0,x_0)$ and $\psi_\kappa(x_0)=0$. But, simultaneously
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\left(e^{-au^2}\psi_\lambda'(u)\right)'+2\lambda e^{-au^2}\psi_\lambda(u)=0 \\
\left(e^{-au^2}\psi_\kappa'(u)\right)'+2\kappa e^{-au^2}\psi_\kappa(u)=0.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Since $\lambda>\kappa$, by the Sturn-Liouville’s theorem (see [@Sotomayor], page 104), there exists $y_0\in(0,x_0)$ such that $\psi_\lambda(y_0)=0$. Hence, to prove that $\psi_\lambda$ changes sign, it is sufficient to check that $\psi_\lambda'(y_0)\ne0$. If this were not the case it can be easily checked out that $\psi_\lambda^{(k)}(y_0)=0$ for all $k\ge0$. Thus, $\psi_\lambda\equiv0$ on $[0,\infty)$. This can not occur because $\psi_\lambda'(0)\ne0$. Consequently, for $\lambda>a$, $\psi_\lambda'(y_0)\ne0$ which implies that $\psi_\lambda$ changes its sign. This proves \[ldfqs\](a).
Now, we prove part \[ldfqs\](b). For $\lambda\in(0,a]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty\varphi_\lambda(u)du &=& {1\over 2a}\sum_{k\ge0} \:{k!\over a^k}\:b_{2k+1}
={1\over 2a}\left\{1+\sum_{k\ge1} {1\over2k+1}\prod_{i=0}^{k-1}
\left( 1-{\lambda a^{-1}\over 2i+1} \right)\right\} \nonumber \\
&\le& {1\over 2a}\left\{1+\sum_{k\ge1} \:{1\over 2k+1}\:exp
\left(-\lambda a^{-1}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}{1\over 2i+1}\right)\right\} \\
&\le& {1\over 2a}\left\{1+\sum_{k\ge1}
\:{1\over 2k+1}\:exp\left(-{\lambda \over 2a}\sum_{i=1}^{k}{1\over i}\right)\right\}.
\label{tdn}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact $1-z\le e^{-z}$, for $z\in[0,1]$. Let $d:=\sup\limits_{k>0}\left\vert
ln(k)-\sum\limits_{i=1}^k{1\over i}
\right\vert$. Since $d<\infty$, (\[tdn\]) yields $$\int_0^\infty\varphi_\lambda(u)du \le
{1\over 2a}\left\{1+{e^{\lambda d\over 2a} \over 2} \sum_{k\ge1}
{1\over k^{1+{\lambda \over 2a}}}\right\}.$$
The previous inequality shows that $\int_0^\infty\varphi_\lambda(u)du<\infty$, which proves \[ldfqs\](b).$\Box$
[**Proof of the Theorem**]{}
Let $t_n'\to\infty$. From lemma \[ldlt\], we know that there exits a subsequence $t_n\to\infty$ and a probability measure $\mu$, defined on ${\cal B}(\RR_+)$, such that $$\label{wlim}
\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}P_f(X_{t_n}\in \cdot \mid T_0^X>t_n)=\mu.$$
Now, the function $P_x(T_0^X>s)$ is continuous and bounded on $x\in\RR_+$. The strong Markov property allows us to show that for every $n$
$$\frac{P_f(T_0^X>t_n+s)}{P_f(T_0^X>t_n)}= E_f\left(P_{X_{t_n}}(T_0^X>s)\mid T_0^X>t_n\right).$$
Therefore, taking limit as $n\to\infty$ and using lemma \[ldpf/pf\], we deduce that for every $s>0$ $$\label{mami}
\int_0^\infty P_x(T_0^X>s)\mu (dx)=e^{-(a\eta)s}=e^{-\lambda^*s},$$ where $\lambda^*:=a\eta\in(0,a)$. On the other hand, by lemma \[ldfqs\](b), we see that $\varphi_{\lambda^*}\ge0$ is integrable on $[0,\infty)$. This allows us to define for each $s>0$ and $y>0$ the function $$\Lambda(s,y):=\int_0^\infty q(s,x,y) \varphi_{\lambda^*}(x)dx.$$
A simple computation shows $$\frac{\partial}{\partial s}q(s,x,y)={\cal L}_x q(s,x,y),$$ which is nothing but the classical Kolmogorov’s equation. Now, from the given definitions we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac\partial{\partial s}\Lambda (s,y)&=&
\int_0^\infty {\cal L}_x q(s,x,y) \varphi_{\lambda^*} (x)dx
=\int_0^\infty q(s,x,y) ({\cal L}_x^{*}\varphi_{\lambda^*}) (x)dx \\
&=&-\lambda^*\int_0^\infty q(s,x,y) \varphi_{\lambda^*} (x)dx
\label{edos1}= -\lambda^* \Lambda(s,y).\end{aligned}$$
Therefore $\Lambda(s,y)=\Lambda(0,y) e^{-\lambda^*s}=
\varphi_{\lambda^*}(y) e^{-\lambda^*s}$. Hence, integrating this equality over $y$ leads to $$\label{idpl}
\int_0^\infty\!\!\int_0^\infty q(s,x,y) dy
\:\varphi_{\lambda^*}(x)dx=\int_0^\infty P_x(T_0^X>s)
\;\varphi_{\lambda^*}(x) (dx)
=c e^{-\lambda^* s},$$ where $c=\int_0^\infty\varphi_{\lambda^*}(x)dx \in (0,\infty)$.
Now, define on ${\cal B}(\RR_+)$ the finite signed-measure $\rho(A):=\mu(A)-{1\over c}\int_A\varphi_{\lambda^*}(x)dx$. It follows that $\rho([0,\infty))=0$. From (\[mami\]) and (\[idpl\]), and then (\[rp2\]), we see that for every $s>0$
$$\label{completa}
\int_0^\infty P_{e^{-as}x}(T^B_0>h(s))\rho(dx)=0.$$
Using the well known distribution for the running maxima of a Brownian motion one has $P_x(T^B_0>t)={2\over\sqrt{2\pi}}
\int_0^{x\over\sqrt{t}} e^{-{y^2\over2}}dy$. This identity, a simple substitution and integrating by parts allow us to conclude from (\[completa\]) that for every $s>0$
$$\int_0^\infty \rho[0,x] \; {1\over \sqrt{2\pi g(s)}}e^{-{x^2\over 2g(s)}}dx=0,$$
where $g$ is defined as in (\[fhfg\]). Finally, because of the set of density functions $\left\{{1\over \sqrt{2\pi\theta}}e^{-{x^2\over \theta}}\right\}_{\theta>0}$ is a complete family and the range of $g$ is $[0,\infty)$, we deduce that $\rho[0,x]=0$, for every $x>0$. Therefore, for all $A\in{\cal B}(\RR_+)$, $\mu(A)={1\over c}\int_A\varphi_{\lambda^*} (x)dx=\nu_{\lambda^*}(A)$. Notice that the limiting measure does not depend on the initially chosen sequence, from which the result follows.$\Box$
We are grateful to an anonymous referee for her/his valuable suggestions and comments, and for pointing out references [@BGT] and [@Feller]. The authors are indebted to Cátedra Presidencial fellowship, FONDAP program on Applied Mathematics and project FONDEF.
[99]{}
N. Bingham, C. Goldie, J. Teugels, [*Regular Variation*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press (1987).
P. Collet, S. Mart[í]{}nez, J. San Mart[í]{}n, [*Asymptotic laws for one-dimensional diffusions conditioned to nonabsortion*]{}, The Annals of Prob., Vol.23, No.3, 1300-1314 (1995).
W. Feller [*An introduction to Probability Theory and its applications*]{}, Volume II, Wiley (1966).
P. Ferrari, H. Kesten, S. Mart[í]{}nez, [*R-positivity, quasi-stationary distributions and ratio limit theorem for a class of probabilistic automata*]{}, The Annals of Appl. Prob.,Vol. 6, No.2, 577-616, (1996).
P. Ferrari, H. Kesten, S. Mart[í]{}nez, P. Picco, [*Existence of quasi stationary distributions. A renewal dynamical approach*]{}, The Annals of Prob., Vol.23, No.2, 501-521 (1995).
R. Fierro, S. Mart[í]{}nez, J. San Mart[í]{}n, [ *Limiting conditional and conditional invariant distributions for the Poisson process with negative drift*]{}, To appear JAP. (1999).
I. Karatzas, S. Shreve, [*Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, Second Edition (1994).
P. Mandl, [*Spectral theory of semi-groups connected with diffusion processes and its application*]{}, Czech. Math. J. Vol.11, 558-569 (1961).
S. Mart[í]{}nez, P. Picco, J. San Mart[í]{}n, [*Domain of attraction of quasi-stationary distributions for the Brownian Motion with drift*]{}, Adv. Appl. Prob. 30, 385-408, (1998).
S. Mart[í]{}nez, J. San Mart[í]{}n, [*Quasi-stationary distributions for a Brownian Motion with drift and associated limit laws*]{}, JAP., Vol.31, 911-920 (1994).
L. Rogers, [*Smooth transition densities for one-dimensional diffusions*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc., Vol.17, 157-161 (1985).
J. Sotomayor, [*Lecciones de Ecuaciones Diferenciales Ordinarias*]{}, IMPA, Rio de Janeiro (1979).
[^1]: \[tb\] Departamento de Ingeniería Matemática, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 170, Correo 3, Santiago 3, Chile.
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We evidence a Kovacs-like memory effect in a uniformly driven granular gas. A system of inelastic hard particles, in the low density limit, can reach a non-equilibrium steady state when properly forced. By following a certain protocol for the drive time dependence, we prepare the gas in a state where the granular temperature coincides with its long time value. The temperature subsequently does not remain constant, but exhibits a non-monotonic evolution with either a maximum or a minimum, depending on the dissipation, and on the protocol. We present a theoretical analysis of this memory effect, at Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck equation level, and show that when dissipation exceeds a threshold, the response can be coined anomalous. We find an excellent agreement between the analytical predictions and direct Monte Carlo simulations.'
author:
- 'E. Trizac$^1$ and A. Prados$^1,^2$'
title: Memory effect in uniformly heated granular gases
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
A granular material is a system comprising a large number of particles of macroscopic size, so that the collisions between them are inelastic and mechanical energy is not conserved. As consequence, the usual thermodynamical framework cannot be directly applied to these systems. Typically, the energy needed to move a grain by one diameter is many orders of magnitude larger than the thermal energy of the grain at room temperature, which can be considered irrelevant for all practical purposes. On the other hand, the concept of *granular temperature* is often used in the literature; it is nothing but a measure of the velocity fluctuations in the system, without being connected to any notion of thermal equilibrium [@JNyB96; @bte05].
We focus here on a low density granular system, which is usually called a granular gas [@PyB03; @ByP04]. If no energy is input into the system, it freely cools (in the sense that its granular temperature monotonically decreases) and may end up in the homogeneous cooling state [@GyS95; @BRyC96; @NyE98], provided instabilities are circumvented by the choice of a small enough system. The time dependence of the system can then solely be encoded in the granular temperature, which in turn verifies Haff’s law [@Ha83]. On the other hand, if there is some mechanism that feeds energy into the system, it eventually reaches a non-equilibrium steady state in which energy input by the *thermostat* balances in average the energy loss due to collisions. To the best of our knowledge, and although this kind of thermostatted or heated granular fluids have been extensively investigated [@WM96; @NyE98; @ENTyP99; @MyS00; @SyM09; @MGyT09; @ETB06; @Z09; @GMyT12; @GMyT13; @P98a], no attention has been paid to the possible existence of memory effects. On the other hand, in other experiments with granular matter like compaction processes, memory effects have been analyzed both experimentally and theoretically [@JTMyJ00; @ByP01; @ByL01; @ByP02; @RDRNyB05; @RRPByD07]. They have shown that, in general, the evolution of a compacting granular system depends not only on the instantaneous value of its packing fraction but also on its previous history.
A classic experiment in this context is the one performed by Kovacs fifty years ago [@Ko63; @Ko79]. A sample of polyvinyl acetate was equilibrated by putting it in a thermal bath at a high temperature $T_0$, and then was rapidly quenched to a low temperature $T_1$. At this low temperature, it relaxed for a given *waiting time* $t_w$. At time $t=t_w$, the bath temperature was suddenly raised to an intermediate temperature $T$, $T_0>T>T_1$, such that the instantaneous value of the polymer volume at $t=t_w$ was equal to its equilibrium value at $T$. The behavior of the system for $t > t_w$ was quite complex: The volume did not remain constant, but increased at first, passing through a maximum, and relaxed to equilibrium only for longer times. As the pressure $P$ was kept fixed along all the process, the observed behavior means that the knowledge of the state variables $(P,
V ,T)$ does not suffice to completely characterize the state of the system. The system evolution from an initial state with given values of $(P,V,T)$ depends on the previous thermal history. This behavior is sometimes referred to in the literature as the Kovacs hump, and it has been extensively studied in glassy and other complex systems [@Br78; @ByL01; @ByB02; @MyS04; @AAyN08; @PyB10; @ByL10; @DyH11; @RyP14]. [In many of these works, the physical quantity displaying the Kovacs hump is the energy instead of the volume. In connection with the work presented here, it should be emphasized that the granular temperature is essentially the internal energy of the granular gas.]{} We refer to the driving program in which $T_{1}<T<T_{0}$ as the “cooling” protocol. Conversely, a “heating” protocol in which the temperature jumps are reversed and $T_{1}>T>T_{0}$ has been recently considered [@DyH11]. Within this scheme, the relevant physical quantity, typically the volume or the energy, displays a minimum instead of a maximum.
[First, it is important to stress that a relevant question is the number and type of variables characterizing the macroscopic state of granular gases. In the homogeneous cooling state [@GyS95; @BRyC96; @NyE98], and also in the Gaussian thermostated case [@MyS00; @Lu01; @BRyM04], the granular temperature suffices. For other energy injection mechanisms, like the stochastic thermostat, there is some evidence that additional variables must be taken into account: This uniformly driven granular gas evolves to a hydrodynamic solution ($\beta$-state) of the kinetic equation [@GMyT12; @GMyT13], over which the granular temperature is a monotonic function of time. In addition, the granular temperature and the driving intensity characterize the $\beta$-state completely, a behavior that may lead to the conclusion that no Kovacs hump should be expected. We show here that this speculative conclusion is flawed: the Kovacs effect is indeed present in driven granular gasses and, moreover, it changes sign with inelasticity. ]{}
[In light of the discussion above, it seems worthwhile to investigate the possible existence of memory effects in driven granular gases.]{} The steady value of the granular temperature is a certain function of the driving intensity, which is the externally controlled parameter in this case. Thus, the granular temperature plays the role of the volume in the Kovacs experiment, while the intensity of the driving is the analogue of the bath temperature: we may start from the stationary state corresponding to a high value of the driving, and let the system relax to a new steady state by rapidly quenching the driving to a low value. This relaxation is subsequently interrupted after a waiting time $t_w$, and the driving is readjusted to an intermediate value, whose corresponding steady granular temperature equals its instantaneous value at the waiting time. The existence or non-existence of a Kovacs hump in this program undoubtedly answers whether the granular temperature, together with the driving intensity, thoroughly characterizes or not the state of the heated granular system.
In this paper, we investigate the existence of such a hump in the granular temperature when the above sketched stepwise driving program, à la Kovacs, is implemented in an homogeneously driven granular gas. We do this analysis both in the usual “cooling” protocol (by decreasing the driving from its initial value) and for the “heating” protocol (by increasing the driving from its initial value). In both cases, we show that the granular temperature indeed displays this Kovacs hump, thus proving that the granular temperature does not uniquely characterize the state of the granular system. This is in agreement with recent investigations in the so-called universal reference state [@GMyT12], which plays the main role in the derivation of linear hydrodynamics for driven granular gases [@GMyT13]. However, it will appear that an additional quantity should be kept in the dynamical description, measuring non-Gaussianities. Interestingly, there is a value of the restitution coefficient for which the sign of the hump reverses. For the cooling (resp. heating) protocol, while the granular temperature has a maximum (resp. minimum) for high enough restitution coefficient (small inelasticities), it shows a minimum (resp. maximum) when the restitution coefficient is smaller than a critical one (high inelasticities). The theoretical results, obtained from the Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck equation, by (i) considering the first Sonine approximation and (ii) neglecting nonlinear terms in the excess kurtosis, are compared to direct Monte Carlo simulations thereof, and an excellent agreement is found. It is also shown that the expression of the Kovacs hump so obtained tends to the universal reference state [@GMyT12] for very long times.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec2\], we introduce our model and summarize some of the previous results that are relevant for the work presented here. In particular, we write the evolution equations for both the granular temperature and the excess kurtosis of the velocity distribution function. We put forward a Kovacs-like program for the driving in Sec. \[sec3\], and obtain approximate analytical expressions for the time evolution of both the granular temperature and the excess kurtosis. These analytical expressions are compared to direct Monte Carlo simulation results. We present a physical discussion of the sign and magnitude of the memory effect in Sec. \[sec:sign\_and\_mgnitude\]. We also discuss the long time limit and the tendency to the universal reference state in Sec. \[sec3b\]. Some final remarks, relevant to put our work in a proper context, are presented in Section \[sec4\]. Preliminary accounts on parts of this work were published in [@PyT14].
Uniformly heated granular gas {#sec2}
=============================
We consider a system of $N$ inelastic smooth hard particles of mass $m$ and diameter $\sigma$. The collisions between them are inelastic and characterized by the coefficient of normal restitution $\alpha$, which we assume does not depend on the relative velocity. In a binary collision of particles $i$ and $j$, the relation between the pre-collisional velocities $({\bm{v}}_i,{\bm{v}}_j)$ and the post-collisional velocities $({\bm{v}}'_i,{\bm{v}}'_j)$ is $$\label{1.1}
{\bm{v}}'_i={\bm{v}}_i-\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\left(\hat{\bm{\sigma}}\cdot{\bm{v}}_{ij}\right)\bm{\sigma}, \quad {\bm{v}}'_j={\bm{v}}_j+\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\left(\hat{\bm{\sigma}}\cdot{\bm{v}}_{ij}\right)\bm{\sigma},$$ where ${\bm{v}}_{ij}\equiv{\bm{v}}_i-{\bm{v}}_j$ is the relative velocity and ${\widehat{\bm{\sigma}}}$ is the unit vector pointing from the center of particle $j$ to the center of particle $i$ at the collision. Moreover, independent white noise forces act over each grain, so that the following Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck equation holds for a homogeneous system [@NyE98; @ENTyP99], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}f({\bm{v}}_1,t)&=&
\sigma^{d-1}\int d{\bm{v}}_2 \, \bar{T}_0({\bm{v}}_1,{\bm{v}}_2)
f({\bm{v}}_1,t)f({\bm{v}}_2,t) \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{\xi^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial{\bm{v}}_1^2}f({\bm{v}}_1,t), \label{1.2}\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ is the dimension of space, $\xi$ is a measure of the noise intensity, and $\bar{T}_0$ is the binary collision operator defined by $$\label{1.3}
\bar{T}_0({\bm{v}}_1,{\bm{v}}_2)=\int d{\widehat{\bm{\sigma}}}\,
\Theta({\bm{v}}_{12}\cdot{\widehat{\bm{\sigma}}})
({\bm{v}}_{12}\cdot{\widehat{\bm{\sigma}}})(\alpha^{-2}b_{\sigma}^{-1}-1).$$ In the equation above, the operator $b_{\sigma}^{-1}$ replaces the velocities ${\bm{v}}_1$ and ${\bm{v}}_2$ by the precollisional ones, which would be obtained by inverting . We assume here that the system remains spatially homogeneous, which is backed up by molecular dynamics simulations [@ENTyP99]: the velocity probability distribution $f$ is thus a sole function of velocity and time.
The granular temperature $T(t)$ is defined as usual, $$\label{1.4}
n \left\langle\frac{1}{2}m v^2(t)\right\rangle \equiv \int d{\bm{v}}\frac{1}{2}mv^2 f({\bm{v}},t)=\frac{d}{2} n T(t),$$ where $n$ is the density of the system. Moreover, we also introduce the *excess kurtosis* or second Sonine coefficient $a_2$ of the velocity distribution, $$\label{1.5}
a_2=\frac{d}{d+2} \frac{\langle v^4\rangle}{\langle v^2\rangle^2}-1.$$ The excess kurtosis measures the departure from a Gaussian distribution, for which $a_2$ vanishes. It is worth remembering that $\int d{\bm{v}}f({\bm{v}},t)=n$, so that $$\label{1.6}
\langle v^n\rangle \equiv \frac{1}{n}\int d{\bm{v}}\, v^n f({\bm{v}},t).$$ Starting from the Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck equation , one can derive the equation governing the time evolution of the granular temperature $$\label{1.7}
\frac{dT}{dt}=m \xi^2 - \zeta_0 T^{3/2} \left( 1+\frac{3}{16}a_2 \right),$$ where $$\label{1.8}
\zeta_0=\frac{2 n \sigma^{d-1} \left(1-\alpha^2\right) \pi^{\frac{d-1}{2}}}{\sqrt{m}\, d\,\Gamma(d/2)}.$$ Equation is valid in the so-called first Sonine approximation, and terms of $\mathcal{O}(a_2^2)$ are neglected in its derivation [@NyE98] together with higher order contributions, that do not seem to be relevant [@BP06]. In other words, the velocity distribution is expanded in the form, $$\begin{aligned}
f({\bm{v}},t) \,=\, \frac{ e^{-v^2/v_0^2}}{v_0^d \, \pi^{d/2}} \,\left[
1+ a_2 \, S_{2}(v/v_{0})\right] , \\
S_{2}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\,x^4 -\,\frac{d+2}{2} x^{2} +\frac{d(d+2)}{8}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_0$ is the time dependent typical velocity defined by $T=mv_0^2/2$, and $S_{2}(x)$ is the second Sonine polynomial. [Sonine-related techniques are often useful in kinetic theory [@Landau], to study the non equilibrium behaviour of dissipative gases [@ByP02] or in the context of ballistically controlled irreversible dynamics [@T02; @PTD02]]{}.
In the long time limit, the system approaches a steady state in which the energy input due to the white noise force balances on average the energy loss due to the collisions. Therefore, the granular temperature $T$ and the excess kurtosis $a_2$ approach their steady values $T_{\text{s}}$ and $a_2^{\text{s}}$, respectively, which verify $$\label{1.9}
m\xi^2=\zeta_0 T_{\text{s}}^{3/2} \left( 1+\frac{3}{16}a_2^{\text{s}}\right).$$ The evolution equation or its particularization to the steady state are not closed for the granular temperature, because of the terms proportional to the excess kurtosis in them. The steady value of the excess kurtosis can be calculated in the first Sonine approximation [@NyE98; @SyM09] $$\label{1.10}
a_2^{\text{s}}=\frac{16(1-\alpha)(1-2\alpha^2)}
{73+56d-24d\alpha-105\alpha+30(1-\alpha)\alpha^2}.$$ Then, the steady value of the temperature is $$\label{1.11}
T_{\text{s}}=m\left[\frac{d\Gamma(d/2)\xi^2}
{2\pi^{\frac{d-1}{2}}n\sigma^{d-1}(1-\alpha^2)(1+\frac{3}{16}a_2^{\text{s}})}\right]^{2/3}.$$ Let us turn Eq. into an evolution equation for the dimensionless variable $$\label{1.12}
\beta=\sqrt{\frac{T_{\text{s}}}{T}}$$ that measures the separation of the temperature from its steady value. A simple calculation yields $$\label{1.13}
\frac{d\beta}{dt}=\frac{\zeta_0}{2} \sqrt{T_{\text{s}}} \left[ 1+\frac{3}{16}a_2-\left(1+\frac{3}{16}a_2^{\text{s}}\right) \beta^3 \right].$$
The evolution equation for the excess kurtosis can also be derived from the Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck equation [@GMyT12]. We again consider the first Sonine approximation and neglect nonlinear terms in the excess kurtosis, to obtain that $$\label{1.14}
\beta \frac{da_2}{dt}= 2\zeta_0 \sqrt{T_{\text{s}}} \left[ \left(1-\beta^3\right) a_2+B \left( a_2^{\text{s}}-a_2 \right) \right].$$ The parameter $B$ has been computed in [@GMyT12; @typo], with the result
$$\label{1.15}
B=\frac{73+8d(7-3\alpha)+15\alpha[2\alpha(1-\alpha)-7]}
{16(1-\alpha)(3+2d+2\alpha^2)
+a_2^{\text{s}}[85+d(62-30\alpha)+3\alpha(10\alpha(1-\alpha)-39)]},$$
which is then a given function of the restitution coefficient and of the dimension of space. It turns out, however, that it can be obtained from a self-consistent argument [@PyT14]. In the limit where the forcing $\xi$ is so small that $\beta\to 0$, the excess kurtosis should evolve to its homogeneous cooling state value, given by [@SyM09] $$a_2^{\text{HCS}}=\frac{16(1-\alpha)(1-2\alpha^2)}{25 +2\alpha(\alpha-1) + 24 d + \alpha ( 8 d-57 )}.
\label{eq:a2hcs}$$ This yields a strong constraint on $B$, which has to be compatible with this requirement. In other words, the right hand side of Eq. (\[1.14\]), when $\beta$ can be neglected, should admit $a_2^{\text{HCS}}$ as a root. Thus, $$a_2^{\text{HCS}}+B \left( a_2^{\text{s}}-a_2^{\text{HCS}}\right)= 0$$ from which we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
B &=& \frac{a_2^{\text{HCS}}}{a_2^{\text{HCS}}-a_2^{\text{s}}} \\
&=&\frac{73+8d(7-3\alpha)+15\alpha[2\alpha(1-\alpha)-7]}
{16(1-\alpha)(3+2d+2\alpha^2)} .
\label{eq:B}\end{aligned}$$ This expression, interestingly, is derived in a more straightforward way than in Ref. [@GMyT12]. [They differ by the the term proportional to $a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}$ in the denominator of Eq. , which reduces to Eq. if this term is omitted.]{} In the following analysis, we will make use of Eq. instead of Eq. , since it turns out to be more accurate as compared to simulation results. In addition, [this]{} is consistent with the linearization in $a_{2}$ in Eq. : Therein, $B$ multiplies $a_{2}-a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}$, so that any terms proportional to the excess kurtosis in $B$ should be neglected.
Equation , together with , constitute a closed set of two differential equations for the time evolution of the rescaled temperature $\beta$ and the excess kurtosis $a_2$. We can also introduce a rescaled excess kurtosis $$\label{1.16}
A_2=\frac{a_2}{a_2^{\text{s}}}, \quad A_2^{\text{s}}=1,$$ and rewrite Eqs. and in the following way,
\[1.17\] $$\label{1.17a}
\frac{d\beta}{d\uptau} \,=\, 1-\beta^3 +\frac{3}{16}a_2^{\text{s}}\left( A_2-\beta^3 \right),$$ $$\label{1.17b}
\beta \frac{dA_2}{d\uptau} \,=\, 4 \left[ \left(1-\beta^3\right) A_2+ B \left( 1-A_2 \right) \right],$$
where we have introduced a rescaled time $$\label{1.18}
\uptau \, = \, \frac{\zeta_0 \sqrt{T_{\text{s}}}}{2} \, t.$$ Equations are nonlinear in $\beta$ but linear in the excess kurtosis, consistently with our approach. Obviously, $\beta=1$ and $A_2=1$ is a stationary solution.
Memory effect {#sec3}
=============
![Sketch of the drive time dependence for the cooling and heated protocols. The resulting [*normal*]{} temperature evolution is depicted. The system is first in a non-equilibrium steady state at temperature $T_s(\xi_0$) under a drive $\xi_0$. $T(t_w)$ coincides with $T_s(\xi)$. (a) Cooling protocol: The driving $\xi_{1}$ in the waiting time window $0<t<t_{w}$ is smaller than its initial value $\xi_{0}$, and the granular temperature would display a maximum before returning to its steady value for $t>t_{w}$. (b) Heating protocol: We have that $\xi_{1}>\xi_{0}$ and the granular temperature would display a minimum for $t>t_{w}$. []{data-label="fig:protocol"}](protocol_v3.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
We are interested in analyzing the following experiment. First, we let a system of inelastic hard particles reach the steady state corresponding to some value of the driving, say $\xi_0$. Then, at $t=0$ we quench the driving to either $\xi_1 <\xi_0$ (cooling protocol), or to $\xi_1 >\xi_0$ (heating protocol), and the system subsequently evolves for a time $t_w$, the *waiting time*. At $t=t_w$, we measure the granular temperature and suddenly change the driving to the value $\xi$ such that the stationary granular temperature $T_{\text{s}}(\xi)$ equals the measured value at $t_w$, $T(t=t_w)$. This amounts to $\xi_1<\xi<\xi_0$ in the cooling case, and $\xi_1>\xi>\xi_0$ in the heated one, see Fig. \[fig:protocol\]. If the state of the system were completely determined by the granular temperature, as is the case in the homogeneous cooling state, the temperature would remain constant for $t>t_w$. But, since the values of the excess kurtosis for $t=t_w$ and for the steady state corresponding to the final driving $\xi$ are different, the granular temperature will separate from its steady value at first, pass through an extremum, and only return to its steady (initial) value for longer times. We may refer to this behavior as the Kovacs hump, because it is similar to the so-called behavior in polymers, structural glasses and other complex systems [@Ko63; @Ko79; @Br78; @ByB02; @MyS04; @AAyN08; @PyB10; @ByL10; @DyH11; @RyP14].
In the analogous experimental situation for molecular systems, when the “driving” is first lowered ($\xi_0\to\xi_1$) and afterwards increased to an intermediate value ($\xi_1\to\xi<\xi_0$), the measured quantity, typically the volume [@Ko63; @Ko79; @MyS04; @ByL10] or the energy [@Br78; @ByB02; @AAyN08; @PyB10; @DyH11; @RyP14], always passes through a maximum. An analogous behavior is expected for any physical quantity that increases with increasing temperature. On the other hand, within the heated protocol, a minimum is expected, as theoretically predicted by linear response theory [@PyB10]. Moreover, in the nonlinear regime, the existence of this minimum for the heated protocol has been recently checked for a simple model [@DyH11]. We will refer to this behavior, in which the time derivative of the energy changes sign at $t_{w}$, [that is, the energy displays a rebound]{}, as ‘normal’. [It]{} must be stressed here that the final state of the granular gas is not an equilibrium one, but an out-of-equilibrium stationary state, and thus the behavior of the granular temperature may be different.
Analytical results {#ssec:analytical}
------------------
The evolutions in the waiting window ($0\leq t\leq t_w$), and for $t\geq t_w$ both obey the differential equations , but with different initial conditions. At $t=0$, we have $A_2=1$ with either $\beta<1$ (cooling protocol) or $\beta>1$ (heating protocol). At $t=t_w$, a ’reversed’ condition should be enforced, with $\beta=1$ while $A_2$ results from the dynamics in the waiting window. $A_2(t_w)$ turns out to be larger than 1 for the cooling protocol, and smaller than 1 in the heated case (see Sec. \[ssec:optimaltw\]). Since the waiting time dynamics only enters through the value of $A_2(t_w)$, we assume the latter given, and concentrate on the evolution at $t>t_w$. We shall use the rescaled time $\uptau$ introduced in , with $\uptau_w = \zeta_0 \sqrt{T_{\text{s}}} \, t_w/2$.
![Plot of $ a_2^{\text{HCS}}/a_2^{\text{s}}$ as a function of the restitution coefficient $\alpha$, for a system of inelastic hard disks ($d=2$), following from the accurate expressions obtained in [@SyM09]. The top and bottom insets show the excess kurtosis for the steady state $a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}$ and the parameter $B$ as functions of $\alpha$, as given by Eq. and , respectively. []{data-label="fig:a2ratio"}](a2ratio_B_a2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
Equations with the initial conditions $$\label{2.2}
\beta(\uptau=\uptau_w)=1, \quad A_2(\uptau=\uptau_w)
\equiv A_2^{{\text{ini}}},$$ do not seem to admit an analytical solution, but an approximate and accurate method can be found in the following way. The initial value of $A_2$ is of the order of unity: In the cooling case, $A_{2}$ is bounded from above by $a_2^{\text{HCS}}/a_2^{\text{s}}$, shown in Fig. \[fig:a2ratio\] and, in the heated case, we have that $0<A_2^{\text{ini}}<1$, as shown in Sec. \[ssec:optimaltw\] below. The idea is next to expand both $\beta$ and $A_2$ in powers of $a_2^{\text{s}}$. The rationale for this expansion is the smallness of $a_2^{\text{s}}$ throughout the whole inelasticity range, namely $|a_2^{\text{s}}|\leq 0.086$. Thus we introduce the series expansions
\[2.5\] $$\label{2.5a}
\beta(\uptau)=\beta_0(\uptau)+a_2^{\text{s}}\beta_1(\uptau)+\ldots,$$ $$\label{2.5b}
A_2(\uptau)=A_{20}(\uptau)+a_2^{\text{s}}A_{21}(\uptau)+\ldots,$$
into , and write the subsequent equations up to linear order in $a_2^{\text{s}}$. To the zero-th order we have $$\label{2.6}
\frac{d\beta_0}{d\uptau}=1-\beta_0^3, \quad \beta_0 \frac{dA_{20}}{d\uptau}=4 \left[(1-\beta_0^3)A_{20}+B(1-A_{20})\right],$$ submitted to the initial conditions $\beta_0(\uptau=\uptau_w)=1$ and $A_{20}(\uptau=\uptau_w) = A_2^{\text{ini}}$. Therefore, $\beta_0(\uptau)=1$, $\forall \uptau$, $$\label{2.7}
\quad \frac{dA_{20}}{d\uptau}=-4B\left(A_{20}-1\right).$$ The zero-th order solution is then
\[2.8\] $$\label{2.8a}
\beta_0(\uptau)=1,$$ $$\label{2.8b}
\quad A_{20}(\uptau)=1+\Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}e^{-4B(\uptau-\uptau_w)}, \quad \Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}\equiv A_2^{\text{ini}}-1.$$
To this order, the granular temperature $\beta_0$ remains constant while $A_{20}$ relaxes exponentially from its initial to its steady state value with a characteristic time (in the $\uptau$ scale) $$\label{2.9}
\uptau_c=(4B)^{-1}.$$ There is consequently no memory effect to zeroth order.
The equation for the first order contribution to the scaled temperature is $$\label{2.10}
\frac{d\beta_1}{d\uptau}=-3\beta_1 +\frac{3}{16} \Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}e^{-4B(\uptau-\uptau_w)}, \quad \beta_1(\uptau=\uptau_w)=0,$$ whose solution is readily obtained as $$\label{2.11}
\beta_1(\uptau)=\gamma \Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}\left( e^{-3(\uptau-\uptau_w)}-e^{-4B(\uptau-\uptau_w)} \right).$$ We have introduced the definition $$\label{2.12}
\gamma=\frac{3}{16(4B-3)}>0,$$ which is positive definite because $B>3/4$, see Fig. \[fig:a2ratio\]. The parameter $\gamma$ depends on the restitution coefficient $\alpha$ and the dimension of space $d$, as does $B$. [Note that we have only needed the zero-th order approximation $A_{20}$ for calculating the evolution of the temperature up to first-order in the perturbation parameter $a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}$, that is, $\beta_{1}$. This stems from the mathematical structure of the equation for $\beta$ in , in which $A_{2}$ only appears in the term proportional to $a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}$. We will consider the first-order correction $A_{21}$ to the excess kurtosis in Sec. \[sec3b\], in connection with the long time behavior of the solution.]{}
[Equation implies]{} that the sign of $\beta_1(\uptau)$ is the same as the sign of $A_2^{\text{ini}}-1$, which can be shown to be positive for the cooling procedure, and negative in the heated case. We will come back to this feature in Sec. \[ssec:optimaltw\]. The time evolution for the temperature, obtained by substituting and into , is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta(\uptau)-1 & = & a_2^{\text{s}}\gamma \Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}\left( e^{-3(\uptau-\uptau_w)}-e^{-4B(\uptau-\uptau_w)} \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \gamma \left(a_2^{\text{ini}}-a_2^{\text{s}}\right) \left( e^{-3(\uptau-\uptau_w)}-e^{-4B(\uptau-\uptau_w)} \right) , \nonumber \\
&& \label{2.13}\end{aligned}$$ up to higher order terms in $\mathcal{O}(a_2^{\text{s}})^2$. Thus, the sign of the “distance” $\beta-1$ of the granular temperature to its steady value is the same as that of $(a_2^{\text{ini}}-a_2^{\text{s}})$. If $\alpha$ is changed, it affects both $a_2^{\text{s}}$ and $a_2^{\text{ini}}$ so that $(a_2^{\text{ini}}-a_2^{\text{s}})$ and $a_2^{\text{s}}$ share the same sign, which changes at a certain value of the restitution coefficient, $\alpha_c \simeq 1/\sqrt{2}\simeq 0.707$ [@rque88]: as a consequence, $a_2^{\text{s}}>0$ for $\alpha<\alpha_c$ while $a_2^{\text{s}}<0$ for $\alpha>\alpha_c$, see the top inset in Fig. \[fig:a2ratio\]. We now restrict the discussion to cooling protocols. The above reasoning implies that for high inelasticities, namely $\alpha<\alpha_c$, $\beta-1>0$ and then $\beta$ has a maximum while the granular temperature has a minimum (remember that $T=T_{\text{s}}/\beta^2$). The situation reverses for small inelasticities, $\alpha>\alpha_c$, for which $\beta-1<0$. Then, $\beta$ has a minimum, which corresponds to a maximum of the granular temperature. On the other hand, for heating protocols, the phenomenology is reversed, but ruled by very similar mechanisms. For $\alpha>\alpha_c$, $T$ shows a minimum, whereas for $\alpha<\alpha_c$, it exhibits a maximum. A more physical explanation will be provided in subsection \[ssec:physical\_mechanism\].
It should be noted here that from the structure of Eq. , the shape of the hump (the $\uptau$ dependence) and its amplitude are factorized. In other words, Eq. can be rewritten as
\[factorized\] $$\begin{aligned}
\beta(\uptau)-1 &= & g(\uptau_{w})\, h(\uptau-\uptau_{w}),
\label{eq:factorized1} \\
g(\uptau_{w})&=&a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}\Delta A_{2}^{{\text{ini}}}=a_{2}^{{\text{ini}}}-a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}, \label{eq:factorized2}\\
h(s)&=& \gamma \left(
e^{-3s}-e^{-4Bs} \right)>0.
\label{eq:factorized3}\end{aligned}$$
The prefactor $g(\uptau_{w})$ contains all the information about the details of the protocol in the waiting time window, that is, the dependence of the hump not only on $t_{w}$ but also on $\{\xi_{0},\xi_{1}\}$, while $h(\uptau-\uptau_{w})$ determines its shape. We shall show in Sec. \[ssec:optimaltw\] that $\Delta
A_{2}^{{\text{ini}}}$ has a definite sign for both cooling and heating protocols, so that $g$ also determines the sign of the hump through the steady value of the excess kurtosis $a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}$ or, equivalently, $a_{2}^{{\text{ini}}}-a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}$.
Equation or gives then the lowest order expression for the Kovacs hump, within the theoretical framework we have just developed. It clearly shows that the granular temperature is not enough for describing the state of uniformly heated granular gases, as has been already claimed by other means [@GMyT12; @GMyT13]. If that were the case, no hump at all would be present when the system is prepared with the *correct* initial granular temperature for the subsequent driving, within our à la Kovacs program. On the other hand, the existence of the Kovacs hump does not directly follow from the non-Maxwellian character of the velocity distribution. Indeed, although the velocity distribution of a granular gas is generically non-Gaussian, the granular temperature may completely specify its state in some situations. This is the case for the homogeneous cooling state but also for the equivalent system driven by the so-called Gaussian thermostat. Therein, particles are accelerated between collisions by a force proportional to their own velocity [@MyS00; @Lu01; @BRyM04], and no Kovacs hump would be observed if an analogous stepwise driving procedure were followed.
Numerical results {#sec3a}
-----------------
We compare here the analytical expression for the Kovacs hump to the results obtained by direct Monte Carlo simulations [@Bi94] of the Boltzmann-Fokker-Planck equation. We have used a system of $N=10^4$ hard disks ($d=2$) of unit mass, $m=1$, and unit diameter, $\sigma=1$, with the collision rule . The results have been averaged over a large number (ranging from $N_T=10^5$ to $1.5\times 10^6$) of realizations of the stochastic dynamics of the system. The stochastic thermostat is taken into account by the procedure first introduced in Ref. [@ENTyP99]. Over each trajectory, the hard disks are submitted to random kicks every $N_c=N/10^3=10$ collisions. In the kick, each component of the velocity of every particle is incremented by a random number extracted from a gaussian distribution of variance $\xi^2\Delta t$, where $\Delta t$ is the time interval corresponding to the number of collisions $N_c$. Moreover, every $N/10^2=100$ collisions, a possible non-vanishing center of mass velocity is eliminated to enforce conservation of momentum and avoid a spurious drift of the center-of-mass velocity.
![Plot of the Kovacs hump for $\alpha=0$ (top) and $\alpha=0.3$ (bottom). The simulation curves (points) have been averaged over $10^5$ trajectories, and they are compared to (i) the *raw* theoretical curve , evaluated with the theoretical expressions for the parameters $a_2^{\text{s}}$, $B$, and $a_2^{\text{HCS}}$ (dashed line) and (ii) the improved theory obtained by inserting into the value of the $B$-parameter given by the Monte Carlo simulation (solid line). The second route improves the agreement between theory and simulation. The specific values of the parameters for each of the plotted curves are given in Table \[table1\]. Note the smallness of $\beta-1$, which is of the order of $10^{-3}$ in both cases.[]{data-label="fig2"}](alpha0_long_corrected_v2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
![Plot of the Kovacs hump for $\alpha=0$ (top) and $\alpha=0.3$ (bottom). The simulation curves (points) have been averaged over $10^5$ trajectories, and they are compared to (i) the *raw* theoretical curve , evaluated with the theoretical expressions for the parameters $a_2^{\text{s}}$, $B$, and $a_2^{\text{HCS}}$ (dashed line) and (ii) the improved theory obtained by inserting into the value of the $B$-parameter given by the Monte Carlo simulation (solid line). The second route improves the agreement between theory and simulation. The specific values of the parameters for each of the plotted curves are given in Table \[table1\]. Note the smallness of $\beta-1$, which is of the order of $10^{-3}$ in both cases.[]{data-label="fig2"}](alpha03_long_corrected_v2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
$\alpha=0$ $\alpha=0.3$ $\alpha=0.8$
--------------- ------------ -------------- --------------
$B$ from DSMC 1.802 1.920 2.440
$B$ from 1.422 1.555 2.602
$B$ from 1.652 1.753 2.507
: Values of the excess kurtosis decay rate $B$, corresponding to the plots in Figs. \[fig2\] and \[fig3\]. For comparison with Monte Carlo data, Eq. has been used.[]{data-label="table1"}
Our analytical predictions reveal that the Kovacs effect is all the more pronounced as the difference $|a_2^{\text{ini}}-a_2^{\text{s}}|$ is large. Quite intuitively, there are two ways to maximize $|a_2^{\text{ini}}-a_2^{\text{s}}|$: either taking $\xi_1 \ll \xi_0$ (equivalently $T_s(\xi_1)\ll
T_s(\xi_0)$ in the cooling case, or in the heated situation, reversing all inequalities. We concentrate here on the cooling protocol, for which we have performed simulations such that the choice $\xi_1 \ll
\xi_0$ guaranties that the system, in the waiting time window, has an excess kurtosis that quickly evolves towards its free cooling counterpart; thus, $A_2(\uptau_w) = a_2^{\text{HCS}}/a_2^{\text{s}}$. We will discuss in subsection \[ssec:optimaltw\] the cases of finite $\xi_1
/ \xi_0$. [For the sake of simplicity, we have always used $\xi_{1}=0$, which allows us to simplify the simulation procedure, see below.]{}
[Let us explain how we calculate in the simulations the final value of the driving $\xi$ from the value of the granular temperature $T(t_{w})$ at the end of the waiting time window. For an arbitrary value of the intermediate driving $\xi_{1}$: (i) run all the realizations until the waiting time, (ii) obtain the granular temperature $T(t_{w})$ averaging over all the realizations, (iii) determine the final value of the driving $\xi$ therefrom, and (iv) continue running all the realizations. This numerical procedure introduces some (in general unavoidable) numerical errors, stemming from the fluctuations of the granular temperature over the different realizations. Nevertheless, we may take advantage of the value of the driving in the waiting time window, $\xi_{1}=0$, to eliminate these fluctuations and minimize the numerical error. For long enough waiting times [@long_enough_tw], the system cools in the homogenous cooling state, a regime where all the time evolution may be encoded in the granular temperature. Then, we proceed in the following way: (i) We choose a value of the final driving $\xi$, and calculate the corresponding steady granular temperature $T_{{\text{s}}}(\xi)$, (ii) run each realization until the shortest time $t$ such that $T(t)<T_{{\text{s}}}(\xi)$, (iii) rescale all the velocities of the particles with a factor $\sqrt{T_{{\text{s}}}(\xi)/T(t)}$, so that $T(t)=T_{{\text{s}}}(\xi)$, thus effectively eliminating the granular temperature fluctuations at the waiting time, and (iv) continue running all the realizations.]{}
In Fig. \[fig2\], we show the comparison between the numerical computation of the Kovacs hump and our theoretical prediction, in the high inelasticity regime $\alpha<\alpha_c\simeq 0.707$. Namely, we have considered (a) $\alpha=0$ and (b) $\alpha=0.3$. In both cases, there are two theoretical curves: the dashed line corresponds to the raw evaluation of Eq. with the theoretical values of $a_2^{\text{s}}$, $a_2^{\text{HCS}}$ and $B$ given by Eqs. , and , respectively. Although the qualitative agreement is reasonable, there are quantitative discrepancies. This is not surprising. While the analytical predictions for $a_2^{\text{s}}$ and $a_2^{\text{HCS}}$ turn out reliable for our purposes, Eq. does not fare as well, and may be plagued by nonlinear effects, as is the case for Eq. (\[1.15\]) [@GMyT12]. Therefore, we have followed an alternative route: We first measure $B$ from the relaxation of the excess kurtosis, as embodied in relation , see Fig. \[fig:a2decay\], which clearly exhibits an exponential behavior. The corresponding value of $B$ is then inserted in Eq. , to give the solid line in Fig. \[fig2\]. A posteriori, we have also compared the values of $B$ to their analytical counterparts, as seen in Table \[table1\]. The inaccuracy of the theoretical estimate is of approximately $10\%$ for Eq. , and 20% with Eq. , consistently with the situation found in previous studies [@GMyT12]. It appears that once an accurate value of the relaxation parameter $B$ is known, quantitative predictions can be made.
![Decay of the excess kurtosis from its initial to its steady state value. Plotted is the simulation curve obtained by DSMC (points) for $\alpha=0.3$. The long time limit is very close to its predicted value $a_2^{\text{s}}=0.00638$, following from Eq. (\[1.10\]) and shown by the dashed line. In the inset, the same decay but on a logarithmic scale (points). From the linear slope, we directly measure the parameter $B$, to be inserted into the theoretical expression for the Kovacs hump, Eq. . The obtained values are given in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:a2decay"}](a2_exp_decay_long_v2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
![Plot of the Kovacs hump for $\alpha=0.8$. The meaning of the different symbols and lines is the same as in Fig. \[fig2\]. Note that the sign of $\beta-1$ is reversed, $\beta-1<0$ as the restitution coefficient $\alpha>\alpha_c\simeq 0.707$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](alpha08_long_v2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
Figure \[fig3\] shows the Kovacs hump for a smaller value of the inelasticity, namely $\alpha=0.8>\alpha_c$. As predicted by the theory, the sign of $\beta-1$ is reversed, since $a_2^{\text{s}}<0$ for $\alpha>\alpha_c$. The simulation curve has been averaged over $1.5\times 10^6$ trajectories, because in this region not only $|a_2^{\text{s}}|$ but also $\Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}$ are of smaller magnitude, see Fig. \[fig:a2ratio\]. Thus, the amplitude of the hump is reduced roughly tenfold as compared to those in Fig. \[fig2\]. For $\alpha=0.8$, the error in the theoretical estimate of $(a_2^{\text{HCS}}-a_2^{\text{s}})$ is of the order of $20$ per cent, roughly an order of magnitude larger than the one for the highly dissipative cases of Fig. \[fig2\]. Therefore, in order to obtain a good agreement between theory and simulation (solid line), we have to insert into both the measured value of $B$ and the simulation value of the excess kurtosis difference $(a_2^{\text{HCS}}-a_2^{\text{s}})$ [@difference]. A similar situation, in which not only $B$ but also the excess kurtosis had to be taken from the simulations, was found in the analysis of the universal reference state of Ref. [@GMyT12] in the same range of inelasticities.
Sign and magnitude of the extremum {#sec:sign_and_mgnitude}
==================================
Physical origin of the effect {#ssec:physical_mechanism}
-----------------------------
We attempt here a more physical explanation of the mechanism at work here, which is, expectedly, very different from that in glassy systems. In essence, the effects we observe are subtle consequences of energy dissipation, Without loss of generality, we focus on the cooling protocol. An important feature is the shape of the velocity distribution $f({{\bm{v}}},t)$, through the sign of the excess kurtosis $a_2$. Is it “flatter” than the Gaussian (so-called platykurtic, with $a_2<0$), or is it “thinner” (so-called leptokurtic, with $a_2>0$) ? [*Distributions with $a_2<0$ dissipate less energy*]{} (and conversely, more energy when $a_2>0$). Indeed, one can show that to linear order in the excess kurtosis, $$\frac{\langle v_{12}^n \rangle }{\langle v_{12}^n \rangle_0} \,=\, 1 \, + \,
a_2 \frac{n(n-2)}{16},
\label{eq:moment}$$ where the average with index 0 refers to a Gaussian distribution of the same variance, and $v_{12}$ is the modulus of the relative velocity. The correction to unity vanishes when $n=0$ (normalization) and $n=2$ (equality of variances). Energy dissipation is related to the moment $n=3$ (one $v$ coming from the collision frequency, and a $v^2$ from the fact that we are interested in the kinetic energy). Thus $\langle v_{12}^3 \rangle <\langle v_{12}^3 \rangle_0 $, for $a_2<0$ [@rque50].
We start by discussing the behavior of the system in the cooling protocol, see Fig. \[fig:protocol\] (a), in which the driving in the waiting time window is smaller than the initial one, $\xi_{1}<\xi_{0}.$ Moreover, and for the sake of simplicity, we focus in the limiting case $\xi_{1}=0$, in which the system freely cools for $0<t<t_{w}$. We analyze the case $\xi_{1}\neq 0$ in Sec. \[ssec:optimaltw\], in which we show that this change only affect the magnitude of the effect, but not its sign. Close to elasticity, $a_2<0$, for both driven and undriven gases (platykurtic behavior). It is quite difficult to shape an intuition for the sign. It may be tempting to argue that it is a means for the system to minimize energy dissipation, in spite of the lack of a general principle holding for such non-equilibrium systems. What is more intuitive is that the unforced system shows stronger non Gaussianities than the driven one, which benefits from stochastic kicks from the forcing, [$|a_{2}^{{\text{HCS}}}|/|a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}|>1$ ]{}. Hence, at $t=t_w$, the system is in a state where $a_2$ is more negative than it asymptotically will be, and therefore, energy dissipation is, transiently, less. This implies that $T$ shows a maximum (or $\beta$ a minimum, as we observe).
The above scenario applies as long as dissipation is not too large ($\alpha >\alpha_{c}=1/\sqrt{2}$). On the other hand, for $\alpha<\alpha_{c}=1/\sqrt{2}$, the driven and undriven systems become leptokurtic ($a_2>0$, in order, in a hand-waving fashion, to cope with large dissipation). We can subsequently follow the same reasoning as above, which explains the anomalous effect. The undriven kurtosis is larger than the driven one (the driven $f$ is always the most Gaussian), so that the larger value of $a_2$ at $t_w$ brings extra dissipation. Thus, $T$ shows an undershooting (maximum of $\beta$).
For heating protocols, see Fig. \[fig:protocol\](b), we next focus on the limiting case $\xi_{1}\to\infty$. Again, a finite value of the driving in the waiting time window $\xi_{1}$ does not change the sign of the effect but only its magnitude, see next section. For a very large value of $\xi_{1}$, the system rapidly evolves to a gaussian distribution with $a_{2}=0$ in the waiting time window. Therefore, we always have that $|a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}|>|a_{2}^{{\text{ini}}}|=0$ and following the same line of reasoning as in the cooling case, it is easily shown that the separation of the temperature from its steady value is simply reversed. [The above picture remains valid for a closely related thermostat, in which the energy injection is the same but the bath provides an additional friction force [@CVyG13]. In particular, the value of the excess kurtosis for that thermostat also verifies that $|a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}|<|a_{2}^{{\text{HCS}}}|$. The introduction of this additional friction force allows the system to reach a well-defined steady state even in the elastic limit $\alpha=1$, in which the dissipation stemming from collisions disappears.]{}
The optimal waiting time {#ssec:optimaltw}
------------------------
![Evolution of excess kurtosis ratio, $A_2(\uptau_w)\equiv
a_2(\uptau_w)/a_2^{\text{s}}$, as a function of waiting time, within the cooling protocol at $\alpha=0.3$. From bottom to top, the curves correspond to $T_s(\xi_0)/T_s(\xi_1) = 2, 4, 9, 25$ and 200. The upper dashed curve is for the limit $T_s(\xi_1)/T_s(\xi_0)\to
0$. Note that $A_2(\uptau_w)$ defines the quantity $A_2^{\text{ini}}$ used throughout. For a given value of $\alpha$, the maximum possible $A_2$ is $a_2^{\text{HCS}}/a_2^s$. For $\alpha=0.3$, Fig. \[fig:a2ratio\] indicates that this ratio is close to $2.33$, which is consistent with the maximum of the dashed curve.[]{data-label="fig:waiting_cool_alpha0.3"}](A2_tauW_alpha03_cooling.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
![Same as Fig. \[fig:waiting\_cool\_alpha0.3\] but for the heated protocol. Here, from top to bottom: $T_s(\xi_1)/T_s(\xi_0)=2, 4, 9, 25$. The lower dashed curve is for $T_s(\xi_1)/T_s(\xi_0)\to \infty$[]{data-label="fig:waiting_heat_alpha0.3"}](A2_tauW_alpha03_heating.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
We now return to the cooling protocol, in the limiting case where $\xi_1/\xi_0$ is close to zero. At $\xi_1/\xi_0=0$, the waiting time $t_w$ can be arbitrarily large, since $a_2$ will evolve to $a_2^{\text{HCS}}$, and the longer one waits (in real time scale, not in the $\tau$ scale, see below), the stronger the effect. In general however, there is an optimal value of $t_w$, which depends on the ratio $T_s(\xi_1)/T_s(\xi_0)$, for which the amplitude of the Kovacs response is maximal. The reason is that the difference in kurtosis, $|a_2(t_w)-a_2^{\text{s}}|$, should be maximized. If one spends too much time in the waiting window, the system can attain its non-equilibrium steady state, $a_2(t_w)$ then reaches the value $a_2^{\text{s}}$ ($A_2\to 1$), and the humps disappears. This holds for both the cooling ($\xi_1<\xi_0$) and the heated ($\xi_1>\xi_0$) protocols, see Figures \[fig:waiting\_cool\_alpha0.3\], \[fig:waiting\_heat\_alpha0.3\] and \[fig:waiting\_cool\_alpha\_all\]. These figures therefore exhibit an extremum at a particular value of $\uptau_w$, which provides the optimal waiting time. It can be observed that in the $\uptau$ scale, this optimum depends only weakly on $\xi_1/\xi_0$ (or equivalently on $T_s(\xi_1)/T_s(\xi_0)$), and likewise, quite weakly on dissipation.
The trends observed in the Figures, with a maximum (resp. minimum) in the cooling (resp. heating) case, can be understood as in Sec. \[ssec:physical\_mechanism\], and are fully consistent with the argument put forward there. In the extreme case $T_s(\xi_1)/T_s(\xi_0) \to \infty$ (that is, $\xi_1/\xi_0\to\infty$), the velocity distribution is provided enough time to become Gaussian, with thus a vanishing $a_2$ (and $A_2$). This is the behavior shown in Fig. \[fig:waiting\_heat\_alpha0.3\]. Yet, the dashed line also shows that for any finite $T_s(\xi_1)/T_s(\xi_0)$, no matter how large, the optimal waiting time becomes vanishingly small in the $\tau$ scale, which reflects the fact that under extreme forcing $\xi_1$, the system is so much driven that it is able to quickly reach its steady-state. It is at this point interesting to turn to the dashed line in Fig. \[fig:waiting\_cool\_alpha0.3\] for the cooled extreme case $\xi_1/\xi_0\to 0$. It also reveals that the optimal $\tau_w$ also vanishes, whereas, on intuitive grounds, it should be that one can wait arbitrarily long without seeing the system depart from the homogeneous cooling state it quickly attains. In other words, one may expect that the optimal waiting time should diverge upon decreasing the forcing. This is the case, but it can only be appreciated by returning to the original $t$ scale: it turns out that the optimal $t_w \propto \tau_w/\sqrt{T_s(\xi_1)}$ diverges when $\xi_1 \to 0$, due to the vanishing of $T_s(\xi_1)$.
![Excess kurtosis ratio as a function of waiting time (cooling protocol), for different dissipations, and $T_s(\xi_1)/T_s(\xi_0)=1/25$.[]{data-label="fig:waiting_cool_alpha_all"}](A2_tauW_alpha_all_cooling.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
[We attempt here a summary of the main results reported in this Section. The Kovacs-like protocol used throughout this paper can be described by three dimensionless parameters: (i) the restitution coefficient $\alpha$, (ii) the ratio $\xi_{1}/\xi_{0}$ of the intermediate driving $\xi_{1}$ to the initial one $\xi_{0}$, and (iii) the dimensionless waiting time $\uptau_{w}$, which in turn fixes the ratio $\xi/\xi_{1}$. The sign of the hump is completely determined by the first two, $\alpha$ and $\xi_{1}/\xi_{0}$, while the third only affects the magnitude of the extremum. A *phase diagram* of the Kovacs hump is sketched in Fig. \[phase\_diag\]. The “normal” behavior is similar to the one observed in molecular systems when controlling the bath temperature and measuring the energy (or the volume). The lines in the diagram indicate the values of the parameters for which no Kovacs hump would be observed. The solid line $\xi_{1}=\xi_{0}$ separating heating and cooling protocols delineates a “trivial” boundary, with no change in the driving and thus no hump. On the other hand, the dashed line $\alpha=\alpha_{c}$ separating the low and high inelasticity regions is less expected, and follows from the accurate prediction of the first Sonine approximation for the change of sign in the Kovacs hump.]{}
![\[phase\_diag\] Phase diagram of the Kovacs hump. The line $\xi_{1}/\xi_{0}=1$ (solid) separates the “cooling” ($\xi_{1}<\xi_{0}$) and the “heating” ($\xi_{1}>\xi_{0}$) protocols. The dashed line $\alpha=\alpha_{c}=1/\sqrt{2}$ separates systems with “high inelasticity” ($\alpha<\alpha_{c}$) from those with “low inelasticity” ($\alpha>\alpha_{c}$). [Note that the plots are for the granular temperature $T$, a maximum in $T$ corresponds to a minimum in the $\beta$ variable defined in Eq. ]{}. ](phase_diagram.pdf){width="3.25in"}
Long time behavior and compatibility with the universal reference state {#sec3b}
=======================================================================
On close inspection, the trends reported above for the time evolution of $\beta$ are not compatible with the requirement that the system should asymptotically evolve towards the universal state brought to the fore in Ref. [@GMyT12]. We discuss and resolve that question here. In a nutshell, the time evolution is slightly more complex than the simplified expressions obtained in Section \[ssec:analytical\]. For the sake of simplicity, we use in this section the shifted time variable $\uptau=\zeta_0\sqrt{T_s}(t-t_w)/2$, which vanishes at $t=t_{w}$. Let us consider the equation for the first-order correction to the excess kurtosis, $$\label{2.14}
\frac{dA_{21}}{d\uptau}+4BA_{21}=-\left[ (12-4B) A_{20}+ 4B \right] \beta_1.$$ We do not write here its complete solution, but only its leading behavior for long times. The solution of is a linear combination of exponentials with different relaxation times. For $\uptau\to\infty$, the rhs of behaves, to dominant order, as $$\label{2.14bis}
h(\uptau)=-12\gamma \Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}e^{-3\uptau} ,$$ as follows from Eq. and (\[2.11\]). The term in $A_{21}$ coming therefrom is $$\label{2.15}
A_{21}^h(\uptau)=-64 \gamma^2 \Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}e^{-3\uptau},$$ and asymptotically dominates $$\label{2.16}
A_{21}(\uptau)\sim A_{21}^h(\uptau), \quad \uptau\gg 1.$$ Interestingly, this term is much bigger than $A_{20}(\uptau)$ for very long times, and thus gives the long time tendency to the steady value of the rescaled excess kurtosis, $$\label{2.17}
A_2(\uptau)-1 \sim a_2^{\text{s}}A_{21}^h(\uptau), \quad \uptau\gg 1.$$ The condition for the asymptotic result in to hold is, more concretely, $\exp(-4B\uptau) \ll \exp(-3\uptau)$ or, equivalently, $\exp[-(4B-3)\uptau]\ll 1$. It is worth noting that the sign of $A_{21}^h(\uptau)$ is opposite to that of $\Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}$ and therefore different from that of the zero-th order contribution $A_{20}(\uptau)-1$, see Eq. (\[2.8b\]). As $a_2^{\text{s}}<0$ for weakly dissipative systems, $\alpha>\alpha_c$ while $a_2^{\text{s}}>0$ in the highly dissipative case, $\alpha<\alpha_c$, Eq. predicts that, for long times $\uptau\gg 1$, the sign of $A_2-1$ is the opposite to that of $A_{20}-1$ for $\alpha<\alpha_c$. This means that $A_2$ has a minimum and tends to unity from below in the highly dissipative case. This behavior was overlooked by the analysis performed in previous sections. The effect is quite small and thus difficult to measure in the simulations, but it has important theoretical consequences. In Ref. [@GMyT12] it was proved that, for long enough times, a uniformly heated granular gas reaches the *universal reference $\beta$-state*, over which all the time dependence can be encoded in $\beta$. In other words, for long enough times, all the moments of the velocity distribution function (for instance, the excess kurtosis) forget their initial conditions and become only a function of the “distance” $\beta$ to the steady state. Afterwards, for even longer times, $\beta$ approaches its steady value. For the excess kurtosis, and in the linear regime close to the steady state, this universal behavior is given by $$\label{2.18}
A_2-1 \sim\left. \frac{dA_2}{d\beta}\right|_{\beta=1}(\beta-1)=-\frac{12}{4B-3}(\beta-1).$$ The value of the derivative $dA_2/d\beta|_\beta=1$ has been calculated by applying L’Hôpital rule to Eq. (19) of Ref. [@GMyT12].
If we take the lowest order approximation for both $A_2-1$, which is $A_{20}-1$, and for $\beta-1$, which is given by $\beta_1$, we have that $$\label{2.19}
\lim_{\uptau\to\infty} \frac{A_{20}-1}{\beta-1}=0,$$ in strong disagreement with , which predicts a value $-12/(4B-3)<0$ instead. This problem is mended if we consider, as should be done, $A_2-1$ and $\beta-1$ up to the same order. Since the dominant term for long times in the decay of $A_2$ is proportional to $A_{21}^h$, as given by , and the long time behavior of $\beta-1$ can be straightforwardly inferred from , $$\label{2.20}
\beta(\uptau)-1 \sim a_2^{\text{s}}\gamma \Delta A_2^{\text{ini}}e^{-3\uptau},$$ one obtains that $$\label{2.21}
\frac{A_2-1}{\beta-1}\sim -64\gamma \,=\, \frac{-12}{4B-3} , \quad \uptau\gg 1,$$ where the definition of $\gamma$, Eq. , has been used. The result in is in agreement with .
Figure \[fig:reference\] shows the tendency of the system to approach the universal reference state for very long times. Although to the zero-th order the overall relaxation of the excess kurtosis to the steady state is very well described by a single exponential, see Fig. \[fig:a2decay\], for very long times $a_2-a_2^{\text{s}}$ changes sign and tends to zero from below. This is in full agreement with the approach to the universal reference state, as described by Eq. or . The minimum is tiny, being four orders of magnitude smaller than the initial distance to the steady state for the plotted case ($\alpha=0.3$). This makes it very difficult to measure this effect in simulations. However, it is crucial from a theoretical point of view, since it shows that the theoretical approach developed here is compatible with the general long time behavior derived in Ref. [@GMyT12].
![Tendency to the universal reference state for very long times. We show a zoom of the long time behavior ($\uptau-\uptau_{w}\geq 1$) of the decay of the excess kurtosis to its steady value, $|a_2-a_2^{\text{s}}|\leq 2 \times
10^{-5}$. The overall picture is that of Fig. \[fig:a2decay\], which also corresponds to $\alpha=0.3$, for which $a_2^{\text{ini}}-a_2^{\text{s}}\simeq 0.086$. Plotted here is the excess kurtosis decay obtained from (i) the numerical integration of Eq. with initial conditions (solid line) (ii) the asymptotic behavior given by Eq. and (dashed line). []{data-label="fig:reference"}](a2_asympt_longtimes_v3.pdf "fig:"){width="3.25in"}\
Final remarks {#sec4}
=============
In conclusion, we have studied from a granular gas perspective a memory effect that pertains to glassy phenomenology. A striking consequence of the analysis is that the sign of the Kovacs hump changes as the restitution coefficient is varied from the quasi-elastic limit $\alpha\to 1^-$ to the completely inelastic case $\alpha=0$. There is a critical value of the restitution coefficient $\alpha_c$, which coincides with the point at which the stationary value of the excess kurtosis changes sign. First, we recapitulate the behavior for cooling protocols as the one depicted in Fig. \[fig:protocol\](a). For weakly dissipative systems, in the sense that $\alpha>\alpha_c$, the granular temperature passes through a maximum, larger than its corresponding steady value $T_{{\text{s}}}$ ($\beta=\sqrt{T_{\text{s}}/T}<1$). The sign of the hump changes for highly dissipative systems, in which $\alpha<\alpha_c$: the temperature passes through a minimum ($\beta>1$). Conversely, for heating protocols, in which $\xi_0<\xi<\xi_1$ as sketched in Fig. \[fig:protocol\](b), we simply have a reversal of the sign of the hump: the granular temperature displays a minimum for small inelasticity, $\alpha>\alpha_{c}$ and a maximum for high inelasticity $\alpha<\alpha_{c}$. Table \[table:summary\] summarizes the phenomenology. On the other hand, in a molecular system, the measured quantity in the analogous experimental situation [@molecular] always exhibits a maximum (resp. minimum) in the cooling (resp. heating) protocol. This stems from the mathematical structure of the analytical expression for the Kovacs hump within linear response theory, but the same result seems to remain valid in the nonlinear regime [@PyB10; @DyH11; @RyP14].
protocol inelasticity $\alpha$ $a_{2}^{{\text{ini}}}-a_{2}^{{\text{s}}}$ dissipation $T$ hump Kovacs effect
---------- -------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ---------- --------------- --
cooling “low” $\; >\alpha_{c} \;$ $\; <0 \;$ smaller than stationary maximum normal
cooling “high” $\; <\alpha_{c} \;$ $\; >0 \;$ larger than stationary minimum anomalous
heating “low” $\; >\alpha_{c} \;$ $\; >0 \;$ larger than stationary minimum normal
heating “high” $\; <\alpha_{c} \;$ $\; <0 \;$ smaller than stationary maximum anomalous
Therefore, the Kovacs effect for uniformly heated granular gases is *normal* for small inelasticities while it is *anomalous* in the highly inelastic case, independently of the details of the protocol followed in the waiting time window. The intermediate value of the driving $\xi_{1}$ and the waiting time $t_{w}$ do affect the amplitude of the memory effect, but not its sign and shape, as expressed by Eq. and discussed in Sec. \[sec:sign\_and\_mgnitude\]. Nevertheless, there are optimal values of $\xi_{1}$ and $t_{w}$ that maximize the amplitude of the hump for a given value of the restitution coefficient. Quite intuitively, for the usual cooling protocol the optimal choice of parameters corresponds to the limit $\xi_{1}\to 0$ with a large enough $t_{w}$, such that the system ends up in the homogeneous cooling state inside the waiting time window.
In molecular systems, energy is conserved and, within the linear response regime, the shape of the Kovacs hump is closely related to the linear relaxation function of the energy from the initial temperature $T_{0}$ to the final one $T$. This *direct* relaxation function decays monotonically because it is proportional to the equilibrium time autocorrelation function of the energy, as stated by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@vK92]. In turn, this monotonicity assures that the Kovacs hump is always positive for the usual cooling protocol [@PyB10], while it is negative for the heating protocol considered in Ref. [@DyH11]. Therefore, it seems worth investigating the anomalous character of the Kovacs hump found here for high dissipation. [Specifically]{}, it would be interesting to analyze the possible relation between the anomalous character of the Kovacs effect for high dissipation and the validity of the fluctuation-dissipation relation in [non-equilibrium systems. In the context of granular media, there is some recent work trying to establish the validity of fluctuation-dissipation relations.]{} [@PByL02; @PByV07; @MGyT09; @SVGP10; @PLyH11-12; @BMyG12]. [It seems particularly appealing to investigate simple models of dissipative systems [@PLyH11-12; @BByP02], for which the calculations may be carried out without introducing any approximations like the Sonine expansion considered here.]{}
Our main assumptions are (i) the accurateness of the first-Sonine approximation (ii) the smallness of the excess kurtosis that makes it possible to neglect nonlinear terms in $a_2$. Our expression for the Kovacs hump, as given by Eq. , is valid up to the linear order in the excess kurtosis. If nonlinear corrections in $a_2$ were incorporated to the time evolution equations, this linear order result would not be affected. The exponential decay of the excess kurtosis to the zero-th order, as given by $A_{20}$, is neither affected by the introduction of nonlinearities. The same is applicable to the long time behavior and the tendency to the universal reference state discussed in Sec. \[sec3b\]. This may be surprising at first sight, because nonlinearities in $a_2$ should certainly change the equation for the excess kurtosis first-order correction $A_{21}$. However, these nonlinearities must vanish in the steady state (as $(A_2-1)^2$ to the quadratic order), and thus they are subdominant against the leading term as given by $h(\uptau)$, Eq. . The results derived throughout the paper are therefore robust.
One of the main implications of the original work by Kovacs is that it clearly showed that the experimental macroscopic variables (pressure, volume, temperature, for polymers) do not suffice to completely characterize the system state, which in general depends on the whole previous thermal history. In this sense, the existence of the Kovacs hump here, independently of its amplitude and sign (normal or anomalous), is a crisp proof that the state of the uniformly heated granular gas is not uniquely determined by its granular temperature, and other variables must be incorporated to have a complete description thereof. At first glance, this conclusion seems similar to that reached in the analysis of its universal reference $\beta$-state [@GMyT12; @GMyT13], in which it was shown that the “distance” to the steady state $\beta$ is also necessary to describe the uniformly driven granular gas. But it must be stressed that here, we go further. While the $\beta$-state reached for long times is uniquely determined by the driving $\xi$ and the granular temperature $T$, we show the relevance of explicitly keeping track of the intrinsic dynamics of non-Gaussianities, through the decoupling of $a_2$ and $\beta$.
In principle, a similar behavior should appear for other kinds of drivings, provided that the driving intensity and the granular temperature do not suffice to completely characterize the state of the system. Within the first Sonine approximation, the magnitude of the Kovacs hump would be proportional to the difference between the initial value of the excess kurtosis $a_{2}^{{\text{ini}}}$ and its steady value for the considered thermostat [@other_driving]. In the usual cooling protocol, if a very low value of the intermediate driving $\xi_{1}$ were used, the value of the excess kurtosis after the waiting time would be close to that of the homogeneous cooling state. Therefore, non-Gaussianities are a necessary but not sufficient condition to have memory effect of the kind reported here in a driven granular gas [@gaussian_thermostat]. In all generality, the possibility of having a transition from normal to anomalous Kovacs effect is encoded in the change of sign of $a_2^{\text{ini}}-a_2^{\text{s}}$.
The Kovacs hump in granular gases occurs over the kinetic time scale. For the time at which the temperature passes through its extremum, the system has not reached the *hydrodynamic* stage [@Re77] in which the all the time dependence of the velocity distribution function occurs through the hydrodynamic fields (density, average velocity and temperature), and initial conditions have been forgotten. Over the hydrodynamic $\beta$-state of uniformly driven gases, the decay of the temperature (or of $\beta$) to its steady value is a monotonic function of time [@GMyT12; @GMyT13]. Here, this monotonicity condition is only fulfilled for times greater than that of the extremum. Then, the system reaches this hydrodynamic solution of the Boltzmann equation only for very long times, when it is linearly close to the steady state.
We acknowledge useful discussions with M.I. García de Soria and P. Maynar. This work has been supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad grant FIS2011-24460 (AP). AP would also like to thank the Spanish Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte mobility grant PRX12/00362 that funded his stay at the Université Paris-Sud in summer 2013, during which this work was carried out.
[99]{}
H. Jaeger, S. R. Nagel, and R. Behringer, [Rev. Mod. Phys. ]{}[**68**]{} 1259 (1996).
A. Barrat, E. Trizac, and M. H. Ernst, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**17**]{}, S2429 (2005).
T. Pöschel and N. Brilliantov eds., *Granular Gas Dynamics*, (Springer, Berlin, 2003).
N. Brilliantov and T. Pöschel, *Kinetic Theory of Granular Gases* (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2004).
A. Goldshtein and M. Shapiro, J. Fluid. Mech. [**282**]{}, 75 (1995).
J. J. Brey, M. J. Ruiz-Montero, and D. Cubero, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**54**]{}, 3664 (1996).
T. P. C. van Noije, and M. H. Ernst, Granular Matter [**1**]{}, 57 (1998).
P. K. Haff, J. Fluid. Mech. [**134**]{}, 401 (1983).
D. R. M. Williams and F. C. MacKintosh, Phys. Rev. E [**54**]{}, R9 (1996).
T. P. C. van Noije, M. H. Ernst, E. Trizac, and I. Pagonabarraga, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**59**]{}, 4326 (1999).
J. M. Montanero and A. Santos, Granular Matter [**2**]{}, 53 (2000).
A. Santos and J. M. Montanero, Granular Matter [**11**]{}, 157 (2009).
P. Maynar, M.I García de Soria, and E. Trizac, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics [**179**]{}, 123 (2009).
M. H. Ernst, E. Trizac, and A. Barrat, J. Stat. Phys. [**124**]{}, 549 (2006).
K. Vollmayr-Lee, T. Aspelmeier, and A. Zippelius Phys. Rev. E [**83**]{}, 011301 (2011).
M. I. García de Soria, P. Maynar, and E. Trizac, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**85**]{}, 051301 (2012).
M. I. García de Soria, P. Maynar, and E. Trizac, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**87**]{}, 022201 (2013).
A slight variant of the model can be found in [@P98b; @CVyG13; @PSD13].
C. Josserand, A. V. Tkachenko, D. M. Mueth, and H. M. Jaeger, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}[**85**]{}, 3632 (2000).
J. J. Brey and A. Prados, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**63**]{}, 061301 (2001).
A. Barrat and V. Loreto, [Europhys. Lett. ]{}[**53**]{}, 297 (2001).
J. J. Brey and A. Prados, J. Phys: Cond. Matt. [**14**]{}, 1489 (2002).
P. Richard, M. Nicodemi, R. Delannay, P. Ribière, and D. Bideau, Nature Materials [**4**]{}, 121 (2005).
Ph. Ribière, P. Richard, P. Philippe, D. Bideau, and R. Delannay, [Eur. Phys. J. E ]{}[**22**]{}, 249 (2007).
A. J. Kovacs, [Adv. Polym. Sci. (Fortschr. Hochpolym. Forsch.)]{} [**3**]{}, 394 (1963).
A. J. Kovacs, J. J. Aklonis, J. M. Hutchinson, and A. R. Ramos, [J. Pol. Sci.]{} [**17**]{}, 1097 (1979).
S. A. Brawer, [Phys. Chem. Glasses]{} [**19**]{}, 48 (1978).
L. Berthier and J. P. Bouchaud, [Phys. Rev. ]{} B [**66**]{}, 054404 (2002).
S. Mossa S and F. Sciortino, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}[**92**]{}, 045504 (2004).
G. Aquino, A. Allahverdyan, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}[**101**]{}, 015901 (2008).
A. Prados and J. J. Brey, J. Stat. Mech. P02009 (2010).
E. Bouchbinder and J. S. Langer, Soft Matter [**6**]{}, 3065 (2010).
G. Diezemann and A. Heuer, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**83**]{}, 031505 (2011).
M. Ruiz-García and A. Prados, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**89**]{}, 012140 (2014).
J. Lutsko, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**63**]{}, 061211 (2001).
J. J. Brey, M. J. Ruiz-Montero, and F. Moreno, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**69**]{}, 051303 (2004).
A. Prados and E. Trizac, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}[**112**]{}, 198001 (2014), arXiv:1404.6162.
N. V. Brilliantov and T. Pöschel, Europhys. Lett. [**74**]{}, 424 (2006).
L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Physical Kinetics (Pergamon Press, New York, 1981).
E. Trizac, Physical Review Letters [**88**]{}, 160601 (2002).
J. Piasecki, E. Trizac, M. Droz Physical Review E [**66**]{}, 066111 (2002).
There is a typo in the expression for $B$ of Ref. [@GMyT12], concretely in the sign of the term in the denominator proportional to $(62-30\alpha)$, which has been corrected upon writing Eq. .
It can be noted that under the stochastic forcing with drag studied in Ref. [@CVyG13], the excess kurtosis does also change sign at $\alpha=1/\sqrt{2}$, keeping a functional dependence on $\alpha$ that is close to that considered here.
G. Bird, *Molecular Dynamics and the Direct Simulation of Gas Flows* (Clarendon, Oxford, 1994).
A long enough $t_{w}$ is easily attained by starting from a high enough initial value of the driving $\xi_{0}$, that is, a high enough granular temperature.
For $\alpha=0.8$, the theoretical estimates of the excess kurtosis are $a_2^{\text{HCS}}=-0.02243$ and $a_2^{\text{s}}=-0.01349$, so that $a_2^{\text{HCS}}-a_2^{\text{s}}=-0.00895$, while the simulation values are $a_2^{\text{HCS}}=-0.02635$ and $a_2^{\text{s}}=-0.01495$, which lead to $a_2^{\text{HCS}}-a_2^{\text{s}}=-0.01140$.
Note however that for the moment $n=1$ (related to the collision frequency), the inequality is reversed. The change of sign of the correction, between $n=1$ and $n=3$, illustrates the subtleness of the effect. Platykurtic shapes exhibit depleted distributions for small velocities, then enhanced population around the thermal scale, and again depletion for slightly larger velocities (not speaking about the truly large velocity tail, which does not matter here, and which is overpopulated [@NyE98; @BT03]). It is the balance of these over/under populations that leads to Eq. (\[eq:moment\]) above. Note also that Eq. (\[eq:moment\]) explains the presence of the contribution $3 \,a_2/16$ in Eq. (\[1.7\]), see also [@NyE98].
M. G. Chamorro, F. Vega-Reyes, and V. Garzó, J. Stat. Mech. (Theor. Exp.) P07013 (2013).
Let us remember that, in molecular systems, the role of the granular temperature is usually played by the volume or the energy, while the role of the driving is played by the bath temperature. The steady value of the granular temperature is an increasing function of the driving, a trend that is similar to the increase of the equilibrium value of the energy or volume with increasing bath temperature.
N. G. van Kampen, *Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry* (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1997).
A. Puglisi, A. Baldassarri, and V. Loreto, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**66**]{}, 061305 (2002).
A. Puglisi, A. Baldassarri, and A. Vulpiani, J. Stat. Mech: Theor. Exp. P08016 (2007).
A. Prados, A. Lasanta, and P. I. Hurtado, [Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}[**107**]{}, 140601 (2011); [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**86**]{}, 031134 (2012).
J. J. Brey, P. Maynar, and M. I. García de Soria, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[**86**]{}, 061308 (2012).
A. Sarracino, D. Villamaina, G. Gradenigo, A. Puglisi, EPL [**92**]{}, 34001 (2010).
A. Baldassarri, U. Marini Bettolo Marconi, and A. Puglisi, [Phys. Rev. E ]{}[ **65**]{}, 051301 (2002); [Europhys. Lett. ]{}[**58**]{}, 14 (2002).
This has been very recently checked, see for instance Eq. (37) of Ref. [@BGMyB14], in which this kind of memory effect has been analyzed for a different thermostat, within the first Sonine approximation.
The case of the so-called Gaussian thermostat would then be special, because it can be mapped onto the homogeneous cooling state. Thus, all the time dependence of the system is encoded in the temperature and, in particular, the value of the excess kurtosis is known [@MyS00].
P. Résibois and M. de Leener, *Classical Kinetic Theory of Fluids* (John Wiley, New York, 1977).
A. Puglisi, V. Loreto, U. M. B. Marconi, and A. Vulpiani, Phys. Rev. E [**59**]{}, 5582 (1999).
V. V. Prasad, S. Sabhapandit and A. Dhar, EPL [**104**]{}, 54003 (2013).
A. Barrat and E. Trizac, Eur. Phys. J. E [**11**]{}, 99 (2003).
J. J. Brey, M. I. García de Soria, P. Maynar, and V. Buzón, arXiv:1404.6381.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ferrofluid dynamics theory is applied to thermodiffusive problems in magnetic fluids in the presence of magnetic fields. The analytical form for the magnetic part of the chemical potential and the most general expression of the mass flux are given. By employing these results to experiments, global Soret coefficients in agreement with measurements are determined. Also an estimate for a hitherto unknown transport coefficient is made.'
author:
- Adrian Lange
bibliography:
- 'h:/tex/bib/mf\_general.bib'
- 'h:/tex/bib/mf\_conv.bib'
title: 'Magnetic Soret effect: application of the ferrofluid dynamics theory'
---
Introduction
============
Magnetic fluids (MFs) are colloidal suspensions of ferromagnetic nanoparticles dispersed in a nonmagnetic carrier liquid. MFs behave superparamagnetically in a magnetic field and have a far reaching application potential spanning from sealants in rotary shaft to heat dissipaters in loud speaker coils [@handbook] to carrier liquids for medical substances [@clinical_appl99]. Starting in the mid-sixties of the last century, when MFs were first available, research on those fluids had been proceeding on the calm fairway of an established and well founded field of research. Particularly the theoretical work had been based on the achievements of the two pioneers, Rosensweig [@rosensweig] and Shliomis [@shliomis71; @shliomis74]. But 10 years ago a series of papers [@liu93; @liu95; @liu98; @mueller01] started to appear pointing specifically to the deficiencies of the microscopic approach in [@shliomis71; @shliomis74] and proposing “ ... a general, strictly macroscopic approach relying solely on symmetry considerations, conservation laws, and thermodynamics.” [@mueller_reply03]. This approach, called ferrofluid dynamics (FFD), sparked an impassioned discussion [@shliomis_comment03; @mueller_reply03] about which theory explains better the experimental facts for the reduced viscosity of a MF in an ac magnetic field [@bacri95] or for the magnetovortical resonance [@gazeau97; @gazeau96]. That new theory also triggered an experiment [@odenbach02_flow] confirming a proposed nonzero transport coefficient which is zero in the microscopic approach [@shliomis71; @shliomis74]. Other proposed effects as shear-excited sound [@mueller02_sound; @mueller_erratum03] await their confirmation yet.
For the description of thermal convection in magnetic fluid, the fluid has been considered as a one-component fluid with effective properties in many studies (see [@auernhammer00; @huang98_thermo; @recktenwald98] and references therein). The limits of this coarse grained view onto the colloidal suspension of ferromagnetic nanoparticles are just being revealed. Considering a magnetic fluid as a binary liquid, the thermal convection is found to set in at Rayleigh numbers well below the threshold for a MF considered as a single-component fluid [@ryskin03].
The thermodiffusive or Soret effect describes the establishment of concentration gradients in response to temperature gradients for a two-(or multi-)component fluid. Since the motion of the ferromagnetic nanoparticles in the MF can be influenced by external magnetic fields, the Soret effect in MFs shows a strong dependence on any nonzero magnetic field strength [@voelker02_phdBook; @voelker03; @voelker03_prl]. In a vertical layer the Soret coefficient $S_T$ depends [*non*]{}monotonously on the strength of the field in the cases where the field is either parallel or perpendicular to the temperature gradient [@voelker03; @voelker02_phdBook]. Contrary, for both orientations of the magnetic field the Soret coefficient depends monotonously on the strength of the field if the layer is horizontal [@voelker03_prl]. The changes of $S_T$ can be up to six times its zero field value [@voelker03] and even a change of the sign of $S_T$ was measured for strong fields [@voelker02_phdBook; @voelker03; @voelker03_prl].
The known theoretical approaches for the Soret effect in magnetic fluids [@blums98; @shliomis02] need as an essential input an expression for the magnetophoretic velocity of the nanoparticles with respect to the carrier liquid. For that purpose certain microscopic properties are assumed as a dilute colloid containing spherical particles of equal size and the applicability of the Stokes hydrodynamic drag [@blums98; @shliomis02]. Also assumptions about the deformation of the temperature distribution around the particle are made if its thermal conductivity is different from that of the surrounding carrier liquid [@blums98]. A comparison with the known experimental results shows great differences: the microscopic theory [@blums98; @blums_book] gives only changes of $S_T$ which are about [*three*]{} orders of magnitude smaller than the experimentally measured ones ([@voelker03] and Fig. 23 in [@voelker02_phdBook]). Also in the frame of a thermodynamic approach [@bacri95_forced] it is not possible to describe the drastic changes of $S_T$ measured in the experiment. That means that with respect to thermodiffusive processes in MF in the presence of magnetic fields a wide gap between experiment and theory has to be bridged. Therefore it is the aim of this work to present a different approach, where in the frame of a macroscopic theory, the FFD, the experimental results can be described significantly better.
Usually an external temperature gradient causes both convection and thermodiffusion in any colloidal suspension. How these two effects are interacting with each other is not yet finally resolved as the discussion about the possibility of a state of relaxation-oscillation convection highlights [@shliomis00; @ryskin03]. The mutual interference of convection and thermodiffusion is even more severe if additionally an external magnetic field is applied as in the case of MFs [@voelker02_phdBook; @voelker03; @voelker03_prl; @shliomis02; @shliomis_jmmm02]. The problems caused by that mutual interference for the determination of the Soret effect are outlined in [@voelker03_prl] and result in a new experimental setup for a horizontal layer of MF which is analyzed theoretically in this work.
Ferrofluid dynamics: chemical potential and mass flux
=====================================================
The macroscopic FFD approach is presented without magnetodissipation, i.e. the magnetization ${\bf M}$ is always parallel to the magnetic field ${\bf
H}$, but with dissipative mass fluxes for the two constituents of the MF. The analysis will result in an analytical expression for the magnetic part of the chemical potential and a general expression for the mass flux without any assumption about the properties of the MF and the temperature distribution.
The principal structure of the ferrofluid dynamics theory was given in [@mueller01]. It is based firstly on general principles as symmetry considerations and conservations laws and on irreversible thermodynamics. The second independent component of which a macroscopic theory is made of is the set of material-dependent parameters as susceptibilities and transport coefficients. The latter can be determined by suitable experiments which are used here to determine transport coefficients for thermodiffusive processes in magnetic fluids in the presence of magnetic fields.
As usual in theories based on thermodynamical considerations, one starts with the thermodynamic energy density $u$. It is taken as a function of the entropy density $s$, the density $\rho^{(1)}$ of the magnetic part of the fluid, the momentum density ${\bf g}=\rho{\bf v}$, the total density $\rho$, and the magnetic induction ${\bf B}=\mu_0({\bf M} + {\bf H})$ [@mueller01], $$\label{eq:1}
du = Tds +\tilde\mu_c d\rho^{(1)} +v_i dg_i+\mu^{(2)}d\rho + H_i dB_i \; ,$$ where $\tilde\mu_c=\tilde\mu^{(1)} - \tilde\mu^{(2)}$ is the difference in the chemical potentials of the two constituents. The conservation laws for the density of the magnetic and nonmagnetic part $\rho^{(2)}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2}
\partial_t \rho^{(1)} &=& -\nabla_i \left( \rho^{(1)} v_i -j_i^D\right)\; ,\\
\label{eq:3}
\partial_t \rho^{(2)} &=&-\nabla_i\left( \rho^{(2)} v_i +j_i^D\right)\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $j_i^{D(1)}\!=\!-j_i^{D(2)}\!=\!j_i^D$ was used to ensure the conservation of the total density $\rho\!=\!\rho^{(1)}+\rho^{(2)}\!=\!\phi\rho_{\rm m}
+(1-\phi)
\rho_{\rm cl}$. The density of the magnetic particles (carrier liquid) is denoted by $\rho_{\rm m}$ ($\rho_{\rm cl}$) and $\phi$ is the volume fraction of magnetic particles in the fluid. The dissipative mass flux ${\bf j}^D$ is proportional to the gradient of the chemical potential with $\tilde\mu_c = \tilde\mu_c (\rho , \rho^{(1)}, T, {\bf v}, {\bf H})$ and the temperature gradient [@groot_mazur84]. It is assumed that the magnetic part of the chemical potential can be separated [@landau_lifshitzVIII], $$\label{eq:4}
\tilde\mu_c = \mu_c (\rho ,\rho^{(1)}, T, {\bf v}) +\mu_c^m(\rho , \rho^{(1)},
T, {\bf v}, {\bf H})\; .$$ This assumption guarantees a nonzero chemical potential for ${\bf H}=0$ and is confirmed by calculations for MF with chains, where the magnetic part contributes additive to the total chemical potential [@zubarev02]. The nonmagnetic part of the chemical potential is given by $\mu_c\!=\!(k_B T/m_{\rm m})\ln c_1 - (k_{\rm B} T/m_{\rm cl})\ln c_2$, where $m_{\rm m}$ ($m_{\rm cl}$) is the mass of a magnetic (carrier liquid) particle [@groot_mazur84]. The experiments [@voelker02_phdBook; @voelker03; @voelker03_prl] show that [*any*]{} nonzero strength of the magnetic field influences the thermodiffusive processes. Thus the general ansatz for the dissipative mass flux is (following the notation in [@mueller01]) $$\label{eq:5}
j_i^D = \xi_1\nabla_i T +\xi \nabla_i \tilde\mu_c +\xi_\parallel M_i M_j
\nabla_j \tilde\mu_c
+ \xi_\times \varepsilon_{ijk}M_j \nabla_k \tilde\mu_c\; .$$ Whereas the first two terms characterize isotropic mass fluxes caused by gradients in the temperature or in the chemical potential, the last two terms describe anisotropic mass fluxes, namely parallel and perpendicular to the direction of ${\bf M}$. The last term corresponds to that one in the analogous ansatz for the heat flux, where the phenomenon is called transversal Righi-Leduc effect [@groot_mazur84] since the primary current is perpendicular to the produced effect.
It was emphasized in [@mueller01] that the “proliferation of transport coefficients”, i.e. $\xi \rightarrow (\xi , \xi_\parallel , \xi_\times)$, takes place in the case of strong magnetic fields. But the experiments show that at least for thermodiffusive processes that general statement seems not to be true. In the figures in [@voelker02_phdBook; @voelker03; @voelker03_prl] with respect to the changes of $S_T$ it is evident that small magnetic fields in the order of less than 50 kA/m are sufficient to generate effects, where one can clearly distinguish between a parallel or a perpendicular orientation between temperature gradient and field. Therefore the in [@mueller01] firstly introduced coefficients $\xi_\parallel$ and $\xi_\times$ are considered here as nonzero for all magnetic field strengths.
With the above given dependences of the chemical potential in Eq. (\[eq:4\]), its gradient is $$\label{eq:6}
\nabla_i \tilde\mu_c = {\partial \tilde\mu_c \over \partial \rho}\nabla_i \rho
+{\partial\tilde\mu_c \over \partial \rho^{(1)}}\nabla_i \rho^{(1)}
+{\partial\tilde\mu_c \over \partial T}\nabla_i T
+{\partial\tilde\mu_c \over \partial v_j}\nabla_i v_j
+{\partial \mu_c^m \over \partial H_j}\nabla_i H_j\; .$$ The first expression in Eq. (\[eq:6\]) will become later the term for the barodiffusion and can be neglected in an incompressible fluid not subjected to any pressure gradient. For the fourth and fifth term [@bacri95_forced; @bacri95_transient] hold $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:7}
{\partial \tilde\mu_c \over \partial v_j} &=& -{\partial (\rho v_j)\over
\partial
\rho^{(1)}}\equiv 0 \; ,\\
\label{eq:8}
{\partial \mu_c^m \over \partial H_j} &=& -\mu_0{\partial\over
\partial\rho^{(1)}}
(H_j + M_j) = - \mu_0{\partial M_j\over \partial\rho^{(1)}}\; .\end{aligned}$$ The transformation $\tilde u= u-v_j g_j-
H_jB_j$ was made in order to match the dependences of the energy density and the chemical potential and usage of the fact that derivatives of quantities are zero which are independent of each other. From the last equality the analytical result for the magnetic part of the chemical potential follows, $$\label{eq:9}
\mu_c^m= -\mu_0\int_0^H{\partial M\over\partial\rho^{(1)}}dH' \; ,$$ where $M$ and $H$ denote the absolute value of the magnetic field and the magnetization. Eq. (\[eq:9\]) allows a direct determination of $\mu_c^m$ if the magnetization $M(H,\rho^{(1)},T)$ is known without any assumption about the properties of the MF in contrast to [@zubarev02; @blums_book; @bacri95_forced; @bacri95_transient]. According to these references the determination of the chemical potential needs the knowledge of quantities like the volume concentration of the nanoparticles [@zubarev02; @blums_book] or the strength of the magnetodipole interaction [@zubarev02] or the effective field experienced by a single particle in the MF [@blums_book; @bacri95_forced; @bacri95_transient]. Compared with the effort to evaluate these microscopic details, the advantage of the macroscopic approach of the FFD is apparent. A measurement of the magnetization as function of the magnetic field and the density is sufficient to determine the chemical potential for any magnetic fluid.
Inserting Eq. (\[eq:6\]) into Eq. (\[eq:5\]) and using Eqs. (\[eq:7\], \[eq:8\]) an expression for the mass flux results, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{{\bf j}^D\over \rho} &=&
\left( {\xi_1\over \rho} +{\xi\over \rho}{\partial\mu_c \over \partial T}\right)\nabla T
+{\xi\over \rho}{\partial \mu_c^m\over \partial T}\nabla T
+{\partial \tilde\mu_c \over \partial T}\left[ {\xi_\parallel\over \rho}{\bf M}\left({\bf M}\nabla T\right)
+{\xi_\times\over \rho}\left({\bf M}\!\times\! \nabla T \right)\right]\\
\nonumber
&&
+\xi{\partial\mu_c \over \partial\rho^{(1)}}\nabla c_1
+\xi{\partial \mu_c^m \over \partial\rho^{(1)}}\nabla c_1
+{\partial \tilde\mu_c \over \partial\rho^{(1)}}\left[ \xi_\parallel {\bf M}\left({\bf M}\nabla c_1\right)
+\xi_\times \left({\bf M}\!\times\! \nabla c_1 \right)\right]\\
\label{eq:10}
&&
-{\mu_0\over \rho}{\partial M\over \partial\rho^{(1)}} \left[ \xi\nabla H +\xi_\parallel {\bf M}
\left({\bf M}\nabla H\right)
+\xi_\times \left({\bf M}\!\times\! \nabla H \right)\right] \; ,\end{aligned}$$ which is generally valid, independent of the size distribution of the magnetic particles, concentration inhomogeneities in the suspension or the form of the temperature gradient. Therefore Eq. (\[eq:10\]) is the generalization of the mass flux given in [@blums98]. The concentration of the magnetic particles $c_1=\rho^{(1)}/\rho$ is defined by means of the mass fraction of the total density $\rho$ [@groot_mazur84]. The first four terms describe mass flow caused by thermophoresis ($\sim\!\nabla T$), the second four terms by diffusiophoresis ($\sim\! \nabla c_1$), and the last three by magnetophoresis ($\sim\! \nabla H$). There are two unknown transport coefficients, $\xi_\parallel$ and $\xi_\times$, since for zero magnetic field, Eq. (\[eq:10\]) reduces to the classical result (see Eq. (227), Chapt. XI in [@groot_mazur84]) $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{{\bf j}^D\over \rho} &=& \left( {\xi_1\over \rho} +{\xi\over \rho}
{\partial\mu_c \over \partial T}\right)\nabla T
+\xi{\partial\mu_c \over \partial\rho^{(1)}}\nabla c_1\\
\label{eq:11}
&=&c_1 c_2 D_T \nabla T + D_c \nabla c_1\end{aligned}$$ with ($D_T$) $D_c$ the (thermal) diffusion coefficient known for MFs from previous experiments [@lenglet02] and $c_2=1-c_1$. According to the philosophy of the FFD approach, the determination of the unknown transport coefficients $\xi_\parallel$ and $\xi_\times$ needs suitable experiments which were conducted just recently [@voelker03_prl].
Application to experiments and discussion
=========================================
According to the experiments for a horizontal layer of MF of thickness $h$ [@voelker03_prl], a horizontally unbounded layer of a dielectric, viscous, and incompressible MF sandwiched between two perfect conducting plates is considered. The lower plate is cooled to $T_1$ and the upper one is heated to $T_2$. The resulting temperature gradient stabilizes the quiescent conductive state. From the equation of heat conduction, $$\label{eq:11.1}
{\partial T\over \partial t} = \kappa\Delta T\; ,$$ and the boundary conditions, $$\label{eq:11.2}
T(z=h/2)=T_2 \qquad\qquad T(z=-h/2)=T_1\; ,$$ the temperature profile of the conductive state $$\label{eq:11.3}
T=T_0+{(T_2-T_1)\over h}z$$ follows with $T_0\!=\!(T_1+T_2)/2$ and $\kappa$ denotes the thermal diffusivity. Since the plates are impenetrable, the diffusion equation, $$\label{eq:11.4}
{\partial c_1\over \partial t} = {{\rm div}}\left( {{\bf j}^D\over \rho}\right) \; ,$$ has to be supplemented with the boundary condition $$\label{eq:11.5}
j_z^D(z=\pm h/2)=0.$$ Rearranging this boundary condition with the help of Eq. (\[eq:11\]), $$\label{eq:12}
{-h \over c_1 c_2 (T_2 -T_1)}{\partial c_1\over \partial z}\biggr|_{z=\pm h/2}
={D_T \over D_c} = S_T\; ,$$ the Soret coefficient in the zero field case can be expressed. In the same way the global Soret coefficient, measured in [@voelker03_prl], in the presence of a magnetic field can be determined by using Eq. (\[eq:10\]).
If a spatially homogeneous static magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the layer, the resulting magnetic field gradient inside the fluid is parallel to the temperature gradient. Therefore this setup is called parallel and is analyzed first.
Taking diffusion processes into account, the magnetization in the fluid can be written in the form $$\label{eq:13}
{\bf M}=\left[ M_0 +\chi (H-H_0)-K(T-T_0)+{\partial M\over \partial \phi}(\phi
-\phi_0)\right]{\bf e}_z\; ,$$ where $M_0=M_0(H_0, T_0, \phi_0)$ is the reference magnetization belonging to the reference values $H_0$, $T_0$, and $\phi_0$ for the magnetic field, the temperature, and the volume fraction. Extending the expressions given in [@auernhammer00], magnetization and magnetic field for the conductive state are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:14}
M &=& M_0 + {K(T_1-T_2)\over h\,(1+\chi)}z + N (c_1-c_{1,0})\; ,\\
\label{eq:15}
H &=& H_0 - {K(T_1-T_2)\over h\,(1+\chi)}z - N (c_1-c_{1,0})\; ,\end{aligned}$$ with the susceptibility $\chi = \partial M/\partial H$, the pyromagnetic coefficient $K =-\partial M/\partial T$, the densomagnetic coefficient $N=\partial M/\partial c_1 =
(\rho/\rho_m)(\partial M/\partial \phi)$, and $c_{1,0}=c_1(T_0)$. Inserting Eqs. (\[eq:14\], \[eq:15\]) into Eq. (\[eq:10\]) and rearranging the boundary condition (\[eq:11.5\]) in the same manner as in the zero field case, the global Soret coefficient in the parallel setup reads: $$\label{eq:16}
S_T^\parallel = {S_T +\displaystyle{{1\over c_{1,0}\, c_{2,0}\, \rho}\left[
{\xi\over D_c}{\partial\mu_c^m\over \partial T}+{\xi_\parallel\over D_c}
{\partial\mu_c\over \partial T} M^2-\mu_0{\partial M\over \partial\rho^{(1)}}
\left( {\xi\over D_c}+{\xi_\parallel\over D_c}M^2\right){K\over (1+\chi)}
\right] }\over \displaystyle{1+{\xi\over D_c}{\partial\mu_c^m\over
\partial\rho^{(1)}} + {\xi_\parallel\over D_c}{\partial\mu_c\over
\partial\rho^{(1)}}M^2 + {\mu_0\over \rho}{\partial M\over \partial\rho^{(1)}}
\left( {\xi\over D_c}+{\xi_\parallel\over D_c}M^2 \right) N
}}\; .$$
Knowing $M(H,\rho^{(1)},T)$ in analytical form allows one to calculate $\mu_c^m$ and its derivatives. The measured magnetization curve (from Fig. 57 in [@voelker02_phdBook]) could be nicely fitted with $M = M_b \lambda_\phi \phi L(\lambda_d \alpha)$, where $L(\lambda_d \alpha)=\coth (\lambda_d \alpha)-1/(\lambda_d \alpha)$ is the Langevin function, $\alpha = \mu_0 m H/(k_{\rm B} T)$ the Langevin parameter, $m = M_b\pi d^3/6$ the magnetic moment of a particle, and $k_{\rm B}$ the Boltzmann constant. $\lambda_d$ and $\lambda_\phi$ are two geometrical fit parameters. They reflect small deviations from the volume fraction $\phi\! =\! 0.2$ and the $\delta$-shaped size distribution (Fig. 59 in [@voelker02_phdBook]). Using $\lambda_d= 0.99$, $\lambda_\phi = 0.84$ and the material data $M_b =450$ kA/m (magnetization of the magnetic bulk solid), $d =9$ nm, $\rho_m = 5.15$ g/cm$^3$ from [@voelker02_phdBook], the solid line in Fig. \[fig:magnetization\] shows a very good agreement with the measured magnetization ($\circ$). Considering the chosen values for $\lambda_d$ and $\lambda_\phi$, only the volume fraction $\phi$ had to be adjusted to the measured data. Variations in $\phi$ are likely caused by a nonmagnetic surface layer of the nanoparticles [@blums97] and its solvability in the carrier liquid. According to the statement at the beginning of the paragraph, one has $$\label{eq:16.1}
\mu_c^m = {\lambda_\phi\over \lambda_d}{M_b\, k_{\rm B} T\over 2\rho_{\rm m}
m}\left\{ \ln\left[ \coth^2(\lambda_d \alpha)-1\right] + 2\ln (\lambda_d \alpha)\right\}\; ,$$ from which one can calculate the derivatives with respect to $T$ and $\rho^{(1)}=\phi\rho_m$.
![Experimental data ($\circ$) from Fig. 57 in [@voelker02_phdBook] and theory (solid line) for the magnetization at room temperature $T=293$ K. The details of the used Langevin function are given in the text.[]{data-label="fig:magnetization"}](magnetization.eps){width="8.6cm"}
With the pyromagnetic coefficient $K$ taken from Fig. 4 in [@voelker02_phdBook], it remains the four unknowns $S_T$, $D_c$, $\xi$, and $\xi_\parallel$ in Eq. (\[eq:16\]). To fit $S_T^\parallel$ to the experiment, the combined quantities $\xi/D_c$ and $\xi_\parallel/ D_c$ are used as fit parameters, since $S_T\!=\!0.15$ K$^{-1}$ was measured in the zero field case [@voelker03_prl] but not $D_c$. The solid line in Fig. \[fig:ex\_theo\] gives the best two parameter fit, yielding $\xi/D_c\!=\!8.2$ kg$\,$s$^2/$m$^5$ and $\xi_\parallel/ D_c\!=\!-1.41\cdot 10^{-7}$ kg$\,$s$^2/($m$^3\,$A$^2)$. The difference in the absolute values of about $8$ orders of magnitude is not surprisingly, since one would assume such a relation according to the argument that anisotropic fluxes in the mass flux (\[eq:5\]) are relevant only for strong fields [@mueller01]. Inspecting Eq. (\[eq:16\]) closer, it is revealed that $\xi_\parallel/ D_c$ is multiplied by $M^2$ which gives already for small magnetic fields a factor of $\sim\!\!10^6$. The two other terms are not so relevant because $0\!\leq\! \partial\mu_c/\partial T \!\leq\! 0.016\,$J/(K$\,$kg) and $0\leq \partial\mu_c/\partial\rho^{(1)}\leq 0.35\,$Jm$^3$/kg$^2$ for $0\leq H
\leq
350\,$kA/m. To underline the relevance of $\xi_\parallel/ D_c$ even for small fields, the dot-dashed line in Fig. \[fig:ex\_theo\] displays $S_T^\parallel$ for $\xi_\parallel/ D_c\!=\!0$ and all other parameters as before. Now the theoretical curve misses the measured data ($\Box$) clearly. Taking a typical value for the diffusion coefficient, $D_c\sim 10^{-11}$ m$^2/$s [@lenglet02], the new transport coefficient can be estimated to $\xi_\parallel\sim -10^{-18}$ kg$\,$s$/($m$\,$A$^2)$ for the MF in [@voelker03_prl; @voelker02_phdBook]. Thus those experiments deliver the necessary input for determining the material-dependent transport coefficients which are a priori unknown in a macroscopic theory as the FFD. Another example for the experimental determination of diffusion and thermodiffusion coefficients is presented in [@lenglet02], whereas in [@bringuier03] these coefficients were calculated on the basis of a microscopic theory.
![Global Soret coefficients $S_T^\parallel$ and $S_T^\perp$ against the magnetic field strength for the parallel ($H\parallel\nabla T$) and perpendicular setup ($H\!\!\perp\!\!\nabla T$). The solid line shows the best fit of $S_T^\parallel$ \[see Eq. (\[eq:16\])\] with $\xi/D_c\!=\!8.2$ kg$\,$s$^2/$m$^5$ and $\xi_\parallel/ D_c\!=\!-1.41\cdot 10^{-7}$ kg$\,$s$^2/($m$^3\,$A$^2)$ to the experimental data ($\Box$). The dot-dashed line displays $S_T^\parallel$ for the same parameters but $\xi_\parallel/ D_c\!=\!0$. The dashed line indicates the best fit of $S_T^\perp$ \[see Eq. (\[eq:19\])\] with $\xi/D_c\!=\!8.2$ kg$\,$s$^2/$m$^5$ and $F\! =\!3.75\cdot 10^{-2}$ kg$\,$s$^2/($m$^5$A) to the experimental data ($\triangle$). For $F$ and all other values see text.[]{data-label="fig:ex_theo"}](ex_theo.eps){width="8.6cm"}
In contrast to the parallel setup, in the perpendicular setup the spatially homogeneous static magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the temperature gradient, i.e. the magnetic field is parallel to the layer. The diffusion equation gets now the form $$\label{eq:17}
{\partial c_1\over \partial t} ={\partial \tilde\mu\over\partial \rho^{(1)}}
\left[ (\xi+\xi_\parallel M^2){\partial^2 c_1\over \partial x^2}
+\xi\left({\partial^2 c_1\over \partial y^2}+{\partial^2 c_1\over \partial z^2}
\right)\right] \; .$$ The boundary condition for the $z$-component of the mass flux yields $$\label{eq:18}
{\partial c_1\over \partial z} = -{\xi_\perp M\over \xi}{\partial c_1\over \partial y}
-{\displaystyle{c_1\, c_2\, D_T + {\xi\over \rho}{\partial\mu_c^m\over \partial T}}
\over\displaystyle{D_c +\xi{\partial\mu_c^m\over \partial \rho^{(1)}}}}
{\rm ~at~}z=\pm h/2\; .$$ Since no analytical solution for that boundary value problem is known, the following coarse approximation is made: $(\partial c_1/\partial
y)_{z=\pm h/2}$ shall be a constant $C$ for all $H$-values tested here. The global Soret coefficient in the perpendicular setup can be approximated than by $$\label{eq:19}
S_T^\perp = {h\over (T_2-T_1)\,c_1\, c_2}F{M\over \displaystyle{\xi\over D_c}}
+{\displaystyle{ S_T +{\xi\over D_c}{1\over c_1\, c_2\,\rho}{\partial\mu_c^m\over \partial T}}
\over\displaystyle{ 1+ {\xi\over D_c}{\partial\mu_c^m\over \partial
\rho^{(1)}}}}\; ,$$ where $F\!=\!(\xi_\perp C)/D_c$ will be used as the only fit parameter since $\xi/D_c$ was determined in the parallel setup. With $T_2-T_1\!=\!1$ K, $\phi\!=\!0.2$, and $h\!=\!1$ mm [@voelker03_prl], the best fit yields $F\! =\!3.75\cdot 10^{-2}$ kg$\,$s$^2/($m$^5$A). The inferior match with the experimental data (see $\triangle$ and dashed line in Fig. \[fig:ex\_theo\]) in comparison with the parallel setup is due to the approximation that $(\partial c_1/\partial y)_{z=\pm h/2}$ is constant. In the real system it will depend on the magnetic field since the solution for $c_1$ depends on the magnetic field.
conclusion
==========
The ferrofluid dynamics theory is applied to thermodiffusive problems in magnetic fluids in the presence of magnetic fields, where the MF is considered as a binary mixture. In the frame work of this theory the chemical potential could be determined analytically. Also a general expression for the mass flux is given which is independent of the fluid properties, temperature distribution and assumptions about the concentration of the nanoparticles. Applying these results to the experiments [@voelker03_prl], their data could be interpreted better (see Fig. \[fig:ex\_theo\]) than with the previous theory [@blums98] which gave values about three orders of magnitude too small. Three transport coefficients, which are inherent parts the macroscopic ferrofluid dynamics theory [@mueller01], had to be used to fit this theory with the only sets of experiments available at present. In general, it is shown that for thermodiffusive problems in magnetic fluids, i.e. in colloidal suspensions sensitive to external fields, anisotropic mass fluxes are relevant and no small contributions for any nonzero strengths of the magnetic field. To elucidate this insight, more well designed experiments and further theoretical analyses are needed to improve the knowledge about thermodiffusive processes in magnetic fluids.
Acknowledgement
===============
The author would like to thanks Thomas Völker for providing the experimental data and Konstantin Morozov as well as Stefan Odenbach for stimulating discussions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'By using the matrix-model representation, we show that correlation numbers of boundary changing operators (BCO) in $(2,2p+1)$ minimal Liouville gravity satisfy some identities, which we call the null identities. These identities enable us to express the correlation numbers of BCO in terms of those of boundary preserving operators. We also discuss a physical implication of the null identities as the manifestation of the boundary interaction.'
---
-----------
UTHEP-737
-----------
\
[The null identities for boundary operators in the $(2,2p+1)$ minimal gravity]{}
Goro I<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shiki</span>$^{1),2)}$, Hisayoshi M<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">uraki</span>$^{3)}$ and Chaiho R<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">im</span>$^{4)}$
$^{ 1)}$ [*Tomonaga Center for the History of the Universe, University of Tsukuba,* ]{}\
[*Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan*]{}\
$^{ 2)}$ [*Graduate School of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba,* ]{}\
[*Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan*]{}\
$^{ 3)}$ [*Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics,* ]{}\
[*Pohang, Gyeongbuk 37673, Korea*]{}\
$^{ 4)}$ [*Department of Physics, Sogang University,* ]{}\
[*Seoul 04107, Korea* ]{}\
Introduction
============
The 2-dimensional gravity coupled with a minimal model of CFT has been studied as a good example of well-defined quantum gravitational theories [@Knizhnik1988], which also allows a non-perturbative discrete formulation given by matrix models [@BK1990; @DS1990; @GM1990; @Ginsparg:1991bi].
In this paper, we follow the one-matrix model description [@MSS1991; @BZ2009] of the $(2, 2p+1)$ minimal gravity on Riemann surfaces but focus on the description in the presence of boundaries [@BR2010; @IR2010]. The boundary conditions of the minimal gravity, also referred to as FZZT branes [@FZZ2000], are specified by the value of the boundary cosmological constant $\mu_B$ and the Kac label $(1,m)$ of the matter Cardy state. In [@IR2010], it was shown that such boundary conditions are realized in the matrix model by introducing a generalization of the resolvent operators. The disk partition function for the $(1,m)$ Cardy state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
F_m = -\langle {\rm tr} \log f_m(M) \rangle,
\label{disk with a single boundary}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_m(M)$ is a monic polynomial of the Hermitian matrix $M$ with degree $m$ and $\langle \cdots \rangle $ stands for the expectation value of the one-matrix model. After some renormalizations, the coefficients of $f_m(M)$ are related to the sources of boundary operators, which preserves the $(1,m)$ boundary condition.
One can introduce some impurities on the boundary, which interpolate two different boundary conditions. These are called the boundary changing operators (BCO). Between two boundary segments of $(1,m_1)$ and $(1,m_2)$ with different boundary cosmological constants, one can put a $(1,k)$ primary operator dressed by the Liouville factor $e^{\beta_k \phi}$, where $k=|m_1-m_2|+1, |m_1-m_2|+3, \cdots, m_1+m_2-1$, $\beta_k =\frac{(k+1)b}{2}$ and $b^2=2/(2p+1)$. It was shown in [@IR2010] that these operators are described in the one-matrix model as follows. One extends the disk partition functions to the $2\times2$ block matrix of the form $$\begin{aligned}
F_{m_1m_2} = -\ll {\rm tr} \log \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
f_{m_1} (M) & g_{m_1m_2}(M) \\
g_{m_1m_2}^{\dagger}(M) & f_{m_2}(M) \\
\end{array}
\right) \rr.
\label{perturbed partition function}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $g_{m_1m_2}(M)$ is a polynomial of $M$ with degree less than ${\rm min}(m_1,m_2)$. The coefficients of $g_{m_1m_2}(M)$ provides sources of BCOs between the $(1,m_1)$ and $(1,m_2)$ boundaries. Correlation numbers with more different boundary conditions can also be treated in the similar way by introducing more block structures. It was shown that this formulation correctly reproduces the correlation numbers of BCOs, computed in the Liouville theory approach.
In this paper, we demonstrate that the correlation numbers of BCOs satisfy some nontrivial identities, which we call null identities. The idea for deriving the null identities is the following. The perturbed partition function (\[perturbed partition function\]) can be diagonalized to the form, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{m_1m_2} =-\ll {\rm tr} \log \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
f'_{m_1} (M) & 0 \\
0 & f'_{m_2}(M) \\
\end{array}
\right) \rr,\end{aligned}$$ where $f'_{m_1}$ and $f'_{m_2}$ are new polynomials of $M$ with degree $m_1$ and $m_2$, respectively. This shows that the sources of BCOs, which were originally encoded in the coefficients of $g_{m_1m_2}(M)$, are actually redundant and can be absorbed into the redefinitions of the sources of the boundary preserving operators in $f_{m_1}$ and $f_{m_2}$. Thus, after the redefinitions, the partition function becomes independent of the sources of BCOs. In terms of the original parametrization, this implies that there exist differentials $\nabla_n \; (n=1,2, \cdots, {\rm min}(m_1,m_2))$ such that they are given by linear combinations of the derivatives of the sources and satisfy $\nabla_n (F_{m_1m_2}) =0$. This is the simplest example of what we call the null identities. These identities enable us to write the correlation numbers of BCOs in terms of those of boundary preserving operators. We will present a general derivation of the null identities and show that $\nabla_n$ can be constructed in such a way that the curvature is vanishing (i.e. $[\nabla_n, \nabla_l]=0$). Then, we will discuss physical implications of the identities.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we derive the null identities. In section 3 we show some examples of the differentials $\nabla_n$ and the null identities, and discuss physical implications of them. Section 4 is devoted to conclusion and discussion on a possible extension to the cases where more than two boundary conditions are allowed. We present the case with three boundary parameters in some detail.
The null identities
===================
Under the double scaling limit of the one-matrix model, insertions of the matrix $M$ in the path integral can be replaced with insertions of a quadratic differential operator $Q$, which acts on the space of eigenvalues of $M$ [@BDSS1989; @D1989]. Additive and multiplicative constants appear in this replacement: $M\rightarrow \epsilon Q+c$. For insertions of polynomials of $M$, these constants can be absorbed into renormalizations of the coefficients of the polynomials and the overall factors of the operators. After the renormalization, the perturbed partition function takes the form, \[matrix:free:ene\] F\_[m\_1m\_2]{} = - R\_[m\_1m\_2]{}(Q) , R\_[m\_1m\_2]{} (Q)= (
[cccc]{} C\_[m\_1]{}(Q) & c(Q)\
c(Q) & C\_[m\_2]{}(Q)
), where $C_{m_i}(Q)$ and $c(Q)$ are polynomials obtained by renormalizing $f_{m_i}$ and $g_{m_1m_2}$, respectively. They are written as C\_[m\_i]{}(Q)&=\_[k=1]{}\^[m\_i]{}(Q+a\^[(i)]{}\_k), c(Q)=\_[n=0]{}\^[d]{} c\_[1+d-n]{} Q\^[n]{}, where $d=-1+{\rm min}\left(m_1,m_2\right)$ and $c_k$ real. The coefficients of $C_{m_i} (Q)$ and $c(Q)$ correspond to the sources of boundary preserving and changing operators, respectively. We will discuss this correspondence later in more detail after we derive the null identities in the following.
By the formula ${\rm tr }\log R(Q) = \log {\rm det}R(Q)$, the perturbed partition function (\[matrix:free:ene\]) can be written as the expectation value of the logarithm of ${\rm det}(R(Q))$. As a polynomial of $Q$, the degree of ${\rm det}(R(Q))$ is $m=m_1+m_2$ and it has $m$ independent coefficients. However, the matrix $R(Q)$ has $m+d+1$ parameters in (\[matrix:free:ene\]). Hence, $d+1$ parameters are redundant and those extra coefficients can be absorbed into redefinitions of the coefficients. This implies that there exist $d+1$ constraints on the partition function: \[nullid2by2\] \_n F\_[m\_1m\_2]{}=0, which we refer to as null identities. Here $n=1,2, \cdots , d+1$ and $\nabla_n$ are linear differential operators given by combinations of $\left\{ \frac{\p}{\p a^{(i)}_k},
\frac{\p}{\p c_n} \right\}$. The differential operators $\nabla_n$ are specified by the condition \[nabla def0\] \_n ([det]{} R\_[m\_1m\_2]{}(x))=0, where $x$ is a formal parameter representing $Q$. We express ${\rm tr}\, R_{m_1m_2}(x)$ as R\_[m\_1 m\_2]{}(x) x\^m+\_[k=1]{}\^m \_k x\^[m-k]{}. \[def:zeta\] The operators $\nabla_n$ specified by are equivalently defined by requiring the following conditions: For $ \forall k\in\{1,2,\dots,m\}$ \_n \_k=0. \[nabla def\]
A general solution to (\[nabla def\]) can be constructed as follows. First, note that for each $c_n$ there should exists an independent differential operator satisfying (\[nabla def\]). Then, we put an ansatz, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_n
=\frac{\p}{\p c_n} + \tilde{\nabla}_n,
\label{ansatz for derivative}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\nabla}_n$ is a linear differential operator consisting of $\{a_k=a^{(1)}_k ; a_{k+m_1}=a^{(2)}_k\}$. Specifically, $\tilde{\nabla}$ is written as \_n = \_[i,k]{} [\^[(n)]{}\_k]{} , where $\eta^{(n)}_k$ are functions of $\{a_k; c_n\}$. The coefficients $\eta^{(n)}_k$ can be determined by requiring the conditions (\[nabla def\]). Let us introduce a set of variables, \_i = \_[1j\_1<j\_2<…<j\_i m]{} a\_[j\_1]{} a\_[j\_2]{}…a\_[j\_i]{} . \[def:xi\] Then, if $\zeta_k-\xi_k \ (\forall k\in\{1,2,\dots,m\})$ has no explicit $a_i$-dependence (which is always the case for $2\times2$ block matrix dealing with two boundary parameters), the differential operator is given by \[null-for-2-by-2\] \_n = -\_[k=1]{}\^m.
The conditions for the differential operators allow an ambiguity in the overall normalizations. This ambiguity is fixed in by setting the coefficients of the $c_n$-derivatives to be unity. This choice is very useful, since with this choice, the operators mutually commute: $[\nabla_n, \nabla_l]=0$. This can be seen as follows. In general, $[\nabla_n, \nabla_l]$ is a linear differential operator. Since both of $\nabla_n$ and $\nabla_l$ satisfies , their commutator $[\nabla_n, \nabla_l]$ should also satisfy . Then $[\nabla_n, \nabla_l]$ should be again given by a linear combination of $\{\nabla_n \}$: $$\begin{aligned}
[\nabla_n, \nabla_l]= \sum_k \alpha^{nlk}\nabla_k.
\label{lie algebra}\end{aligned}$$ With the choice of , the left-hand side of (\[lie algebra\]) does not contain $c_n$-derivatives, while the right-hand side does. This means that $\alpha^{nlk}=0$ and thus $[\nabla_n, \nabla_l]=0$.
Physical implications for correlation numbers
=============================================
The null identities provide important facts that any correlation numbers of boundary changing operators can be rewritten in terms of the correlation of boundary preserving operators. The possibility is due to the fusion rule between BCO operators.
Let us consider the simplest case $ F_{11}=-\ll\log{\rm det}(R_{11}(Q))\rr $, where $R_{11}(Q))$ is a $2 \times 2$ matrix $$\begin{aligned}
R_{11}(Q) = \matt[Q+a_1 , c , c , Q+a_2],
\label{partition function for 1,1}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_i$’s are cosmological constants of (1,1) boundaries and assumed to take different values $a_1\neq a_2$. The off-diagonal component $c$ couples to the boundary changing operator $B_{11}$ intertwining two different (1,1) boundaries and produces one null operator $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla
=\frac{\p}{\p c}+2c\frac{\p}{\p \xi_{2}},
\label{nabla for 1,1}\end{aligned}$$ with $ \xi_1=a_1+a_2$ and $ \xi_2=a_1a_2$. We have the null identity $ \nabla^N F_{11}=0$ where $N$ is a positive integer. For $N=1$, the identity shows 0= . F\_[11]{}|\_[c=0]{} = . |\_[c=0]{}, which is consistent with the fact that the one-point correlation of BCO is not allowed, since the boundary conditions contradict with each other. For $N=2$, the two-point correlation of BCO is given in terms of one-point boundary preserving correlation numbers: \[2BCO-11\] B\_[11]{} B\_[11]{} = . |\_[c=0]{} = -2 I\_2 , where we define \^k = . |\_[c=0]{} . Using $\p/\p\xi_2=- (1/a_{12})(\p/\p a_1-\p/\p a_2)$ with $a_{12}= a_1 - a_2$, the result can be rewritten as I\_2 = , where O\_i = . |\_[c=0]{} = 1[Q+ a\_i]{} . The one-point correlation $\langle O_i \rangle$ becomes $u^{1 / b^{2}} \cosh \left(\frac{\pi s_i}{b}\right)$ if one evaluates it at value $a_i=u \cosh \left(\pi b s_i \right)$, where $u$ is a scale factor and $s_i$ a boundary parameter.
It is noted that the free energy is given as \[F11-solution\] F\_[11]{} = e\^[-c\^2 ]{} F\_[11]{}\^[(D)]{}(a\_1,a\_2), where $F_{11}^{(D)}$ is the $c$-independent part. This shows that the cubic correlation of the BCO is absent and four-point correlation B\_[11]{} B\_[11]{} B\_[11]{} B\_[11]{} = . |\_[c=0]{} = 12 . |\_[c=0]{} =12 I\_2 I\_2 . In a similar manner, from null identities obtained by successive applications of $\nabla$, one can find identities relating higher-point correlation numbers of BCOs with lower-point correlation numbers of boundary preserving operators.
One may look into a little complicated case: BCO between $(1,1)$ boundary and $ (1,2)$ boundary. This can be investigated using $F_{12}
=-\ll\log {\rm det}(R_{12}(Q))\rr,$ where $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12}(Q) = \matt[Q+a_1 , c , c , \left(Q+a_2\right)\left(Q+a_3\right)].\end{aligned}$$ In this case also there is one off-diagonal parameter which couples to BCO $B_{12}$. The null operator is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla
=\frac{\p}{\p c}+2c\frac{\p}{\p \xi_{3}},\end{aligned}$$ with $\xi_3=\mu_1\mu_2\mu_3$ and provides a similar null identity as in between $ (1,1)$ boundaries: $\nabla^N F_{12}=0$. It is obvious that one has an alternative expression of the free energy as in \[F12-solution\] F\_[11]{} = e\^[-c\^2 ]{} F\_[12]{}\^[(D)]{}. In this case as well, correlation numbers with insertions of odd number of BCO $B_{12}$ are prohibited. Two-point correlation is similarly given as in \[2BCO-12\] B\_[12]{} B\_[12]{} = -2 . |\_[c=0]{} = -2 I\_3 . Here $\langle I_3 \rangle$ is given in terms of one-point correlations of the boundary preserving operator $O_i$: B\_[12]{} B\_[12]{} = -2( + + ), with $a_{ij}:=a_i-a_j$. It is noted that $(1,2)$ boundary condition is realized when $a_2=\mu_+$ and $a_3=\mu_-$ with $\mu_{\pm}=u \cosh \left(\pi b (s_2\pm ib)\right)$ and $s_2$ real. In this case one has $\left.\ll O_2\rr\right|_{a_2=\mu_+}=\left.\ll O_3\rr\right|_{a_3=\mu_-}
=-u^{1/b^2}\cosh(\pi b/s_2)$ and the two-point correlation of BCO becomes[^1] B\_[12]{} B\_[12]{} \_\* =- , with $s_{p}=s_1+s_2$ and $s_{m}=s_1-s_2$ [@IR2010].
Suppose we consider BCO between two different $(1,2)$ boundaries: $F_{22} =-\langle \log{\rm det} (R_{22}(Q))\rangle $ where R\_[22]{}(Q) = . The off-diagonal terms has two real parameters $c_1$ and $c_2$ and thus there are two independent commuting null operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_1&
=\frac{\p}{\p c_1}+2\left(c_1\frac{\p}{\p \xi_{2}}+c_2\frac{\p}{\p \xi_{3}}\right),
\\
\nabla_2&
=\frac{\p}{\p c_2}+2\left(c_1\frac{\p}{\p \xi_{3}}+c_2\frac{\p}{\p \xi_{4}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_i$ is defined by , implying null identities $\nabla_1^{N_1} \nabla_2^{N_2} F_{22}=0$. The free energy can be written in the form F\_[22]{} = e\^[-c\_1\^2 - 2 c\_1c\_2 -c\_2\^2 ]{} F\_[22]{} \^[(D)]{}, and therefore, no correlations with odd number of BCOs $B_{22}^{(1)}$ and $B_{22}^{(2)}$, which are associated with coupling constants $c_1$ and $c_2$, respectively, are allowed. There are 3 kinds of two-point correlations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2B22}
\langle B_{22}^{(1)} B_{22}^{(1)} \rangle &= -2 \langle I_2 \rangle
=-2\left(
\frac{a_1^2\ll O_1\rr}{a_{21}a_{31}a_{41}}+
\frac{a_2^2\ll O_2\rr}{a_{12}a_{32}a_{42}}+
\frac{a_3^2\ll O_3\rr}{a_{13}a_{23}a_{43}}+
\frac{a_4^2\ll O_4\rr}{a_{14}a_{24}a_{34}}
\right),
\\
\langle B_{22}^{(1)} B_{22}^{(2)} \rangle &= -2 \langle I_3 \rangle
=2\left(
\frac{a_1\ll O_1\rr}{a_{21}a_{31}a_{41}}+
\frac{a_2\ll O_2\rr}{a_{12}a_{32}a_{42}}+
\frac{a_3\ll O_3\rr}{a_{13}a_{23}a_{43}}+
\frac{a_4\ll O_4\rr}{a_{14}a_{24}a_{34}}
\right),
\\
\langle B_{22}^{(2)} B_{22}^{(2)} \rangle &= -2 \langle I_4 \rangle
=-2\left(
\frac{\ll O_1\rr}{a_{21}a_{31}a_{41}}+
\frac{\ll O_2\rr}{a_{12}a_{32}a_{42}}+
\frac{\ll O_3\rr}{a_{13}a_{23}a_{43}}+
\frac{\ll O_4\rr}{a_{14}a_{24}a_{34}}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle B_{22}^{(i)} B_{22}^{(j)} \rangle
= {\partial^2 F_{22} }/{\partial c_i c_j } |_{c=0} $ and $ \langle I_i \rangle = {\partial F_{22}^{(D)} }/{\partial \xi_i } $.
To find BCO correlations between $(1,2)$ boundaries we need to put correct parameterization of $a_i$’s: $a_{1,2}=u \cosh \left(\pi b (s_1\pm ib)\right)$, $a_{3,4}=u \cosh \left(\pi b (s_2\pm ib)\right)$. It is notable that $\langle B_{22}^{(1)} B_{22}^{(2)}\rangle_* \ne 0$. One may find an orthogonal frame so that $\langle \widetilde{B}_{22}^{(1)} \widetilde{B}_{22}^{(2)} \rangle_* = 0 $, where $\widetilde{B}_{22}^{(i)}$ is a new BCO associated with a new parameter $q_i$, defined by $c_1Q+c_2 = q_1 P_1 (Q)+q_2 P_0 $ where $P_i (Q)$ is an $i$-th order polynomial in $Q$: $P_0=1$ and $P_1=Q-\frac{\langle B_{22}^{(1)} B_{22}^{(2)} \rangle_*}
{\langle B_{22}^{(2)} B_{22}^{(2)} \rangle_*}$ with
=-,
as given in [@BIR2010].
One can extend the discussion to BCOs between $(1,m_1)$ and $(1,m_2)$ boundaries without any difficulties using the null operator . It is noted that $(\p \zeta_k/\p c_n)$ has no $\xi_i$-dependence. As a result, the free energy has no correlations with odd number insertions of BCOs.
Conclusion and discussion
=========================
In this paper, we considered correlation numbers of boundary changing and preserving operators in the $(2,2p+1)$ minimal Liouville gravity on disk. In terms of the one-matrix model, we showed that those correlation numbers satisfy some identities, called the null identities in this paper. These identities enable us to express correlation numbers including boundary changing operators in terms of correlation numbers with only boundary preserving operators. This means that the correlation numbers of the boundary changing operators can be determined from those of boundary preserving operators. In addition, the null operator shows that the free energy has no cubic correlation of BCOs.
One may extend the matrix into $n \times n$ blocks to describe correlation numbers with $n$ different boundary parameters: F\_[m\_1m\_2 m\_n]{} = - R\_[m\_1 m\_2 m\_n]{}(Q) , R\_[m\_1m\_2 m\_n]{} (Q)= (
[cccc]{} C\_1(Q) & c\_[12]{}(Q) & …& c\_[1n]{}(Q)\
c\_[21]{}(Q) & C\_2(Q) & …& c\_[2n]{}(Q)\
& & &\
c\_[n1]{}(Q) & c\_[n2]{}(Q) & …& C\_n (Q)
), with $C_i(Q)$ and $c_{ij}(Q)$ respectively being C\_[i]{}(Q)&=\_[k=1]{}\^[m\_i]{}(Q+a\^[(i)]{}\_k), c\_[ij]{}(Q)=c\_[ji]{}(Q)=\_[n=0]{}\^[d\_[ij]{}]{} c\^[(ij)]{}\_[d\_[ij]{}+1-n]{} Q\^[n]{}, where $d_{ij}=-1+{\rm min}\left(m_i,m_j\right)$. The coefficients of $C_i (Q)$ and $c_{ij}(Q)$ are identified with the sources of boundary preserving and changing operators.
Under this setup, as opposed to $2\times2$ block diagonal case, there seems in general no explicit formula for mutually commuting differential operators $\nabla_n$ that satisfies $\nabla_n\left(\det R_{m_1m_2 \cdots m_n} (x)\right)=0$. However, still it is possible to find them under making ansatz by requiring the conditions , where the parameters $\{\zeta_i\}$ and $\{\xi_i\}$ are understood as straightforward extensions of and , respectively. For example, with $3\times 3$ block matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
F_{111}
=-\ll\log{\rm det}(R_{111}(Q))\rr, \;\;\;
R_{111}(Q) =
\mat3[Q+a_1, c_3, c_2,
c_3, Q+a_2, c_1,
c_2, c_1, Q+a_3].\end{aligned}$$ There are three commuting differential operators that provides the null identities: \_i =+2c\_i+2e\_i (i=1,2,3), where $\xi_2=a_{1}a_{2}+a_{2}a_{3}+a_{3}a_{1}$, $\xi_3=a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}$. The coefficients $e_i$ $(i=1,2,3)$ are explicitly given by
e\_1 &= ,\
e\_2 &= ,\
e\_3 &= ,
which depends on $\xi_i$’s unlike in the $2\times 2$ case. As a result, the free energy, satisfying the null identity $\nabla_1^{N_1}\nabla_2^{N_2}\nabla_3^{N_3}F_{111}=0$, has non-vanishing cubic correlation of BCOs, for example, B\^[a\_2a\_3]{}\_[11]{}B\^[a\_3a\_1]{}\_[11]{}B\^[a\_1a\_2]{}\_[11]{} =. |\_[c=0]{} =-2([[a\_[12]{}O\_3+a\_[23]{}O\_1+a\_[31]{}O\_2]{} ]{}).
As one considers bigger size matrix with its block components of higher order polynomials, their expression becomes more and more complicated, still one can expect to find out the differential operators case-by-case.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work of G. I. was supported, in part, by Program to Disseminate Tenure Tracking System, MEXT, Japan and by KAKENHI (16K17679 and 19K03818). The work of H. M. and C. R was partially supported by National Research Foundation of Korea grant number 2017R1A2A2A05001164.
[99]{}
V. Knizhnik, A. Polyakov, A. B. Zamolodchikov, Fractal structure of 2d-quantum gravity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A3 (1988) 819. E. Brezin, V. Kazakov, Exactly Solvable Field Theories of Closed Strings, Phys. Lett. B236 (1990) 144. M. Douglas, S. Shenker, Strings in Less Than One-Dimension, Nucl. Phys. B335 (1990) 635. D. Gross, A. Migdal, Nonperturbative Solution of the Ising Model on a Random Surface, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 717. For more references, see, for example, P. H. Ginsparg, Matrix models of 2-d gravity, hep-th/9112013. G. Moore, N. Seiberg, M. Staudacher, From loops to states in 2-d quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B362 (1991) 665–709. A. A. Belavin, A. B. Zamolodchikov, [On correlation numbers in 2d minimal gravity and matrix models]{}, J.Phys.A 42 (2009) 304004. A. A. Belavin, C. Rim, Bulk one-point function on disk in one-matrix model, Phys. Lett. B687 (2010) 264–266. G. Ishiki, C. Rim, Boundary correlation numbers in one matrix model, Phys. Lett. B694 (2010) 272. V. A. Fateev, A. B. Zamolodchikov, Al. B. Zamolodchikov, [Boundary liouville field theory I. boundary state and boundary two-point function]{} (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0001012. T. Banks, M. Douglas, N. Seiberg, S. Shenker, Microscopic and macroscopic loops in nonperturbative two-dimensional gravity, Phys. Lett. B238 (1990) 279. M. Douglas, Strings in less than one-dimension and the generalized K-D-V hierarchies, Phys. Lett. B238 (1990) 176. J. E. Bourgine, G. Ishiki, C. Rim, Boundary operators in minimal liouville gravity and matrix models, JHEP 12 (2010) 046.
[^1]: The evaluation at specific values of boundary cosmological constants shall be indicated with subscript asterisk hereafter.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=0.5cm=0.8cm
[**The properties of the quantum supergroup $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$** ]{}
Salih Celik\
[Mimar Sinan University, Department of Mathematics, 80690 Besiktas, Istanbul, TURKEY. ]{}\
and\
Sultan A. Celik\
[Yildiz Technical University, Department of Mathematics, Sisli, Istanbul, TURKEY. ]{}
In this paper properties of the quantum supermatrices in the quantum supergroup $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ are discussed. It is shown that any element of $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ can be expressed as the exponential of a matrix of non-commuting elements, like the group $GL_q(1|1)$. An explicit construction of this exponential representation is presented.
[**1. Introduction**]{}
In the past few years, Drinfeld \[1\] and Faddeev et al \[2\] constructed a new mathematical object, called the quantum group which later has been generalized to the quantum supergroup. This topic has been studied by many mathematicians and theoretical physicists.
The simplest supergroup is the group of 2x2 supermatrices with two even and two odd matrix elements, i.e. $GL(1|1)$. Even matrix elements commute with everything and odd matrix elements anticommute among themselves. The deformation of the supergroup of 2x2 matrices, i.e. the quantum supergroup $GL_q(1|1)$ can be found in Refs. 3-5. A two parameter deformation of $GL(1|1)$ was given in Ref. 6 and also Ref. 7.
It was shown in Ref. 5 that any element of $GL_q(1|1)$ can be written as the exponential of a matrix and this exponential form was explicitly constructed. This work will be along the lines of the work in Ref. 5. In sec. 2 we present a review of $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ together proofs some elementary lemmas which we use in the later sections. In sec. 3 we get the matrix elements of $T^n$, the $n$-th power of $T$, for $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$. Using these matrix elements we prove that $T^n \in GL_{p^n,q^n}(1|1)$ if $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$. This result suggests that an element of $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ can be expressed as an exponential of a matrix whose entries obey $(h_1,h_2)$-dependent commutation relations (here the parameters $h_1$ and $h_2$ are the logarithm of the deformation parameters $q$ and $p$, respectively). To prove this in sec. 4 we use the method of the paper of Schwenk et al \[5\]. We derive the explicit form of the $n$-th power of the matrix $M$ which is the natural logarithm of the matrix $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ in sec. 4. Thus, we obtain the matrix elements of $T$ in terms of $M$ and vice versa. Finally, we state that the usual relation between the superdeterminant and the supertrace, which is also satisfy in the supergroup $GL_q(1|1)$, is true again in $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$.
[**2. Notations and useful formulas** ]{}
In Ref. 3 Manin identifies a quantum supergroup with the endomorphisms acting on quantum superplanes. In the matrix representation of these endomorphisms, the commutation relations of the space coordinates include the commutation relations of the group parameters.
We state briefly some notations and useful formulas we are going to need in this work. The quantum supergroup $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ consists of all matrices in the form $$T = \left ( \matrix{ a & \beta \cr
\gamma & d \cr}
\right) \eqno(2.1)$$ where the elements $a, \beta, \gamma$ and $d$ obey the following commutation relations $$a\beta = q \beta a , ~~d\beta = q\beta d,$$ $$a\gamma = p\gamma a ,~~ d\gamma = p\gamma d, \eqno(2.2)$$ $$\beta \gamma + pq^{-1} \gamma \beta = 0 , ~~ \beta^2 = 0 = \gamma^2,$$ $$ad - da = (p - q^{-1})\gamma \beta$$ and $p, q$ non-zero complex numbers, $pq \pm 1 \neq 0$.
The quantum superdeterminant is defined as $$sD_{p,q}(T) = ad^{-1} - \beta d^{-1} \gamma d^{-1} \eqno(2.3)$$ provided $d$ is invertible. We will also suppose that $a$ is invertible. Using (2.2) it is easy to show that $sD_{p,q}(T)$ is central, that is, it commutes with $a, a^{-1}, d, d^{-1}, \beta$ and $\gamma$.
If we take $$\Delta_1 = ad -p^{-1} \beta \gamma \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
\Delta_2 = da -q^{-1} \gamma \beta \eqno(2.4)$$ the super-inverse of $T$ becomes $$T^{-1} = \left ( \matrix{ d\Delta_1^{-1} & -q^{-1} \beta \Delta_2^{-1} \cr
-p^{-1} \gamma \Delta_1^{-1} & a\Delta_2^{-1} \cr}
\right). \eqno(2.5)$$ Then the superdeterminant is given by $$sD_{p,q}(T) = a^2 \Delta_2^{-1}. \eqno(2.6)$$ Of course, the superdeterminant of $T^{-1}$ may also be defined and it is of the form $$sD_{p,q}(T^{-1}) = d^2 \Delta_1^{-1}. \eqno(2.7)$$ On the other hand, $$\left \{a^2 \Delta_2^{-1} \right \}^{-1} = d^2 \Delta_1^{-1}. \eqno(2.8)$$ So, $$sD_{p,q}(T^{-1}) = \left \{sD_{p,q}(T) \right \}^{-1}. \eqno(2.9)$$ This relation is generalized in Corollary of sec. 3.
Before passing to the next section, we give three lemmas.
[**Lemma 2.1**]{}. For any integer $n$ $$(a - \beta d^{-1} \gamma)^n = a^n - {{q^n - p^{-n}}\over {q - p^{-1}}}
\beta a^{n-1}d^{-1} \gamma. \eqno(2.10)$$
[*Proof*]{}. The relation (2.10) can be proved by a induction procedure.
We note here that if $f$ is any function of $a$ and $d$ of the form $f(a,d) = a^n d^m$ where $n$ and $m$ are integer, in the products with $\beta$ or $\gamma$, the arguments $a^n$ and $d^m$ of the function $f(a,d)$ behave as commuting quantities. So in the products by $\beta$ or $\gamma$, the element $a^n$ commutes with $d^m$, i.e., $$\beta a^n d^m = \beta d^m a^n.$$
[**Lemma 2.2**]{}. For any integers $n$ and $m$ $$a^n d^m = d^m a^n + (p^n - q^{-n}) { {p^m - q^{-m}} \over {p - q^{-1}}}
\gamma a^{n-1} d^{m-1} \beta. \eqno(2.11)$$
[*Proof*]{}. The proof of this lemma can also be proved by an induction procedure.
[**Lemma 2.3**]{}. For any integer $n$ $$\left \{ sD_{p,q}(T) \right \}^n = a^nd^{-n} -
p {{p^{-n} - q^n}\over {p - q^{-1}}} a^{n-1} \gamma d^{-n-1} \beta.
\eqno(2.12)$$
[*Proof*]{}. With (2.6), one can write $$\left \{ sD_{p,q}(T) \right \}^n = a^{2n}\Delta_2^{-n}, \eqno(2.13)$$ since $a$ and $\Delta_2$ commute. On the other hand, it may be shown by using (2.11) with $n = m$ \[or from (2.10)\] that $$\Delta_2^n = a^n d^n - p {{p^n - q^{-n}}\over {p - q^{-1}}}
a^{n-1} \gamma d^{n-1} \beta.$$ Hence, by replacing $n$ by $-n$ into the above equation one gets $$a^{2n}\Delta_2^{-n} = a^n d^{-n} - p {{p^{-n} - q^n}\over {p - q^{-1}}}
a^{n-1)} \gamma d^{-n-1} \beta = \left \{sD_{p,q}(T) \right \}^n,$$ as required.
These results will be used in the following sections.
[**3. The properties of $T^n$** ]{}
To show that $T^n \in GL_{p^n,q^n}(1|1)$ for $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ we will explicitly obtain the matrix elements of $T^n$, the $n$-power of $T$, for a matrix $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$. The matrix elements of $T^n$ in a more compact form also appear in the paper of Schwenk et al \[5\]. First we define the following functions. Let $$F_n(a,q^{-1}d) \beta \gamma =
\sum_{k=0}^{n-2} <n - k - 1>_{pq} a^{n-k-2}(q^{-1}d)^k \beta \gamma,
\eqno(3.1)$$ $$G_n(a,q^{-1}d) \beta = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} a^{n-k-1}(q^{-1}d)^k \beta,
\eqno(3.2)$$ where $$<N>_{pq} = {{1 - (pq)^{-N}}\over {1 - (pq)^{-1}}}. \eqno(3.3)$$
[**Lemma 3.1.**]{} If $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ then the matrix $T^n$, the $n$-th power of $T$, has the form $$T^n = \left ( \matrix{ A_n & B_n \cr
C_n & D_n \cr}
\right) \eqno(3.4)$$ where $$A_n = a^n + F_n(a,q^{-1}d) \beta \gamma, ~~ B_n = G_n(a,q^{-1}d) \beta,$$ $$D_n = d^n + F_n(d,p^{-1}a) \gamma \beta, ~~C_n = G_n(d,p^{-1}a) \gamma.
\eqno(3.5)$$
[*Proof.*]{} It can be done by induction on $n$ using the fact that $T^{n+1} = T^n T$.
[**Lemma 3.2.**]{} If $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ then $T^n \in GL_{p^n,q^n}(1\vert 1)$. That is, the matrix elements of $T^n$ obey the following commutation relations $$A_n B_n = q^n B_n A_n, \qquad D_n B_n = q^n B_n D_n,$$ $$A_n C_n = p^n C_n A_n, \qquad D_n C_n = p^n C_n D_n, \eqno(3.6)$$ $$B_n^2 = 0 = C_n^2, \qquad q^n B_n C_n + p^n C_n B_n = 0,$$ and $$[A_n, D_n] = (p^n - q^{-n}) C_n B_n, \eqno(3.7)$$ where $$[u,v] = uv - vu.$$
[*Proof.*]{} It is not difficult to check that the relations (3.6) are satisfied. The reader can easily prove this by using the relations (2.2) and the equations (3.5). But proof of the relation (3.7) requires some operations. The proof of (3.7) can be found in the Appendix.
The property in the Lemma 3.2 gives an opportunity for the matrix $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ to be represented as an exponential of a matrix. This will be done in the last section.
Now we want to calculate the superdeterminant of $T^n$. For this, we write the matrix $T^n$ in the form $$T^n = \left ( \matrix{ A_n & 0 \cr
C_n & D_n - C_nA_n^{-1}B_n \cr}
\right)
\left ( \matrix{ 1 & A_n^{-1}B_n \cr
0 & 1 \cr}
\right)
\eqno(3.8)$$ using the Crout decomposition. Then the superdeterminant of $T^n$ becomes $$sD_{p,q}(T^n) = A_n \left (D_n - C_nA_n^{-1}B_n \right )^{-1}
= \left (A_n - B_nD_n^{-1}C_n \right )D_n^{-1}.\eqno(3.9)$$ After some calculations one gets $$sD_{p,q}(T^n) = a^nd^{-n} - p {{p^{-n} - q^n}\over {p - q^{-1}}}
a^{n-1} \gamma d^{-n-1} \beta \eqno(3.10)$$ which is the same with (2.12). Thus we have:
[**Corollary 3.3.**]{}. For any integer $n$ $$\left \{ sD_{p,q}(T) \right \}^n = sD_{p,q}(T^n). \eqno(3.11)$$
[**4. The exponential parametrization of $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$** ]{}
The implication $T^n \in GL_{q^n}(1|1)$ for $T \in GL_q(1|1)$ suggests that $T$ can be represented by exponentiating a matrix. This was shown by Schwenk et al \[5\]. However, in sec. 3 it is show that $T^n \in GL_{p^n,q^n}(1|1)$ if $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ \[see, Lemma 3.2\]. Thus the matrix $T \in GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ can be written as the exponential of a matrix with non-commuting entries. Let $$q = e^{h_1} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad p = e^{h_2}. \eqno(4.1)$$ Suppose that $$T = e^{hM}, \qquad h = {{h_1 + h_2} \over 2} \eqno(4.2)$$ where $$M = \left ( \matrix{ x & \mu \cr
\nu & y \cr}
\right). \eqno(4.3)$$
To find the commutation relations of the matrix elements of $M$ we write the exponent as $$M = {1\over h}\ln T. \eqno(4.4)$$ The logarithm of the matrix $T$ is defined by $$\ln T = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {(-1)^{n+1}\over n} (T - I)^n \eqno(4.5)$$ as a series expansion. Now let $$(T - I)^n = \left ( \matrix{ \tilde{A}_n & \tilde{B}_n \cr
\tilde{C}_n & \tilde{D}_n \cr}
\right). \eqno(4.6)$$ Then some calculations show that $$\tilde{A}_n = (a - 1)^n + \sum_{j=0}^{n-2}\sum_{k=0}^{n-j-2} (a - 1)^k
(p^{-1}q^{-1}a - 1)^{n-k-j-2} (q^{-1}d - 1)^j \beta \gamma,$$ $$\tilde{D}_n = (d - 1)^n + \sum_{j=0}^{n-2}\sum_{k=0}^{n-j-2} (d - 1)^k
(p^{-1}q^{-1}d - 1)^{n-k-j-2} (p^{-1}a - 1)^j \gamma \beta,
\eqno(4.7)$$ $$\tilde{B}_n = \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} (a - 1)^{n-j-1} (q^{-1}d - 1)^j \beta, \qquad
\tilde{C}_n = \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} (d - 1)^{n-j-1} (p^{-1}a - 1)^j \gamma.$$ We want to obtain the matrix elements of $M$ in an explicit form. For the sake of simplicity we define $$\begin{aligned}
f_q(a,d,p) \beta \gamma
& = & {{q^2}\over {q - p^{-1}}} \left ( {{\ln a}\over {a(qa - d)}} -
{{\ln (p^{-1}q^{-1}a)}\over {a(p^{-1}a - d)}}
\right )\beta \gamma \\
& & + q^2 {{\ln (q^{-1}d)}\over {(p^{-1}a - d)(qa - d)}}
\beta \gamma \hspace*{4.3cm}{(4.8)}\end{aligned}$$ $$g(a,q^{-1}d) \beta = {{\ln a - \ln (q^{-1}d)}\over {a - q^{-1}d}} \beta,
\eqno(4.9)$$ where the logarithms of $a$ and $d$ exist and the denominators are non-zero. Then we have
[**Lemma 4.1.**]{} If $T \in GL_{p,q}(1\vert 1)$ then the expressions for the matrix elements of $M$ in terms of $T$ are as folows: $$x = {1\over h} \left \{ \ln a + f_q(a,d,p) \beta \gamma \right \}, \qquad
\mu = {1\over h} g(a,q^{-1}d) \beta,$$ $$y = {1\over h} \left \{ \ln d + f_p(d,a,q)\gamma \beta \right \}, \qquad
\nu = {1\over h} g(d,p^{-1}a) \gamma. \eqno(4.10)$$
[*Proof.*]{} Use the equation (4.4) with (4.5).
Note that the matrix elements $a$ and $d$ are behave as commuting quantities when they are in a product case by $\beta$ or $\gamma$. Thus it is not necessary to order the arguments in the equations (4.8) and (4.9).
[**Proposition 4.2.**]{} If $T \in GL_{p,q}(1\vert 1)$ then the matrix elements of $M$ obey the following commutation relations $$[x,\mu] = {{2h_1}\over {h_1 + h_2}} \mu, \qquad
[y,\mu] = {{2h_1}\over {h_1 + h_2}} \mu, \qquad \mu^2 = 0,$$ $$[x,\nu] = {{2h_2}\over {h_1 + h_2}} \nu, \qquad
[y,\nu] = {{2h_2}\over {h_1 + h_2}} \nu, \qquad \nu^2 = 0, \eqno(4.11)$$ $$xy - yx = 0, \qquad \mu \nu + \nu \mu = 0.$$
[*Proof.*]{} It is easy to see that the relations (4.11) \[if we except that the relation $xy - yx = 0$\] is satisfied. Let us prove the last relation in (4.11), here. Let $$X = [\ln a, \ln d],$$ $$Y = [\ln a, f_p(d,a,q)\gamma\beta],$$ $$Z = [\ln d, f_q(a,d,p)\beta\gamma].$$ After some calculations one gets $$Y - Z = {{4 h^2}\over {1 - pq}} \gamma a^{-1} \beta d^{-1}, \eqno(4.12a)$$ and $$X = {{\ln^2 (pq)}\over {pq - 1}} \gamma a^{-1} \beta d^{-1}. \eqno(4.12b)$$ \[The proof of (4.12b) is rather lengthy but straightforward\]. Thus we have $$X + Y - Z = 0.$$ Here we used the relations $$[\ln a,\beta] = h_1 \beta = [\ln d,\beta],$$ $$[\ln a,\gamma] = h_2 \gamma = [\ln d,\gamma]. \eqno(4.13)$$
If $T \in GL_q(1|1)$ and $T = e^{\theta M}$ where the matrix $M$ is given by (4.3) and $q = e^\theta$, we know that $x - y$ is the central element, which is known as the supertrace of the matrix $M$. This case is true in the supergroup $GL_{p,q}(1|1)$ too, i.e. the supertrace of $M$, $str M = x - y$, is the central element in the algebra (4.11).
Now we will obtain the matrix elements of $T$ in terms of $M$. First we derive the explicit form of $M^n$, the $n$-th power of $M$. It will simplify the elements of $M^n$ to define a transformation $\tau$ by $$\tau: \tau(x,y,\mu,\nu,h_1,h_2) \mapsto (y,x,\nu,\mu,h_2,h_1). \eqno(4.14)$$ Then the relation (4.11) are preserved by $\tau$. For example, $$[x,\mu]^\tau = ({{h_1}\over h} \mu)^\tau ~\Longrightarrow~
[y,\nu] = {{h_2}\over h} \nu.$$ Let $$\phi = {{h_1}\over h} ~~\mbox{and}~~ \varphi = {{h_2}\over h}. \eqno(4.15)$$
The following lemma can be proved by mathematical induction. We denote the algebra (4.11) by ${\cal M}_{h_1,h_2}$.
[**Lemma 4.3.**]{} If $M \in {\cal M}_{h_1,h_2}$ then the matrix $M^n$, has the form $$M^n = \left ( \matrix{ x^n - \mu \nu F_n & \mu G_n \cr
\nu G_n^\tau & y^n - \nu \mu F_n^\tau \cr}
\right) \eqno(4.16)$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F_n & = & F_n(x,y,\phi,\varphi) \\
& = & {x^n \over {2(x - y - \varphi)}} -
{(x + \phi + \varphi)^n \over {2(x - y + \phi)}} -
{(y + \varphi)^n \over {(x - y + \phi)(x - y - \varphi)}}
\hspace*{0.3cm}{(4.17)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
G_n & = & G_n(x,y,\phi) \\
& = & {{(x + \phi)^n - y^n} \over {x - y + \phi}}. \hspace*{7.7cm}{(4.18)}\end{aligned}$$
Now we easily obtain the expressions for the matrix elements of $T$ in terms of $M$ using the equation (4.2):
[**Lemma 4.4.**]{} If $T = e^M$ then one has $$a = e^{hx} - {{\mu \nu}\over {(x - y + \phi)(x - y - \varphi)}}\left \{
\left( {{\phi + pq\varphi}\over 2} - {{pq - 1}\over 2}(x - y) \right)
e^{hx} - pe^{hy} \right \},$$ $$d = e^{hy} - {{\nu \mu}\over {(x - y + \phi)(x - y - \varphi)}}\left \{
\left ( {{\varphi + pq\phi}\over 2} + {{pq - 1}\over 2}(x - y) \right )
e^{hy} - qe^{hx} \right \},$$ $$\beta = {{\mu}\over {x - y + \phi}}(qe^{hx} - e^{hy}), ~~
\gamma = {{\nu}\over {\varphi - (x - y)}}(pe^{hy} - e^{hx}). \eqno(4.19)$$
[**Proposition 4.5.**]{} If $M \in {\cal M}_{h_1,h_2}$ and $T = e^M$ then $T \in GL_{p,q}(1\vert 1)$.
[*Proof.*]{} To prove that the matrix $T$ is in $GL_{p,q}(1\vert 1)$ the reader can be verified the relations (2.2).
In Ref. 5 it has been shown that the usual relation between the superdeterminant and supertrace is valid, i.e. $$sD_q(T) = e^{\theta strM}, \qquad q = e^{\theta}.$$ Finally with direct calculation we can show that $$sD_{p,q}(T) = e^{h(x - y)} = e^{h strM}, \eqno(4.20)$$ where $h = {1\over 2} \ln (pq)$.
[*Remarks*]{}. In the equations (4.11) if we take $h_1 = h_2$ we obtain the algebra in Ref. 5 (the equ.s (5.7)) where $q$ replaces $q^{-1}$ for $p = q$. In this case the relations (4.19) identify the equations (5.9) in Ref. 5. Thus our work can be considered as a generalization of Ref. 5.
[**Appendix: the proof of eq. (3.7)**]{}
Now we will show that $$[A_n,D_n] = (p^n - q^{-n})C_nB_n. \eqno(A1)$$ For this, we will use the fact that $$T^{k + 1} = T^kT = TT^k. \eqno(A2)$$ It is proved by induction on $n$.
\(1) For $n = 1$, the equality (A1) identifies with the last relation in (2.2).
\(2) Assume that the equation is true for $n = k$.
\(3) With (A2) we write that $$A_{k + 1} = A_1A_k + B_1C_k, \qquad C_{k + 1} = C_1A_k + D_1C_k,$$ $$B_{k + 1} = A_1B_k + B_1D_k, \qquad D_{k + 1} = D_1D_k + C_1B_k.$$ Now some calculations show that $$\begin{aligned}
[A_{k + 1},D_{k + 1}] & = & \left ( (pq)^{k+1} - 1 \right )
\left ( C_1B_kA_1A_k - (pq)^{-k-1} D_1D_kB_1C_k
\right ) + K \\
& = & \left (p^{k+1} - q^{-k-1} \right )C_{k + 1}B_{k+1}
+ K - L, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
K & = & \left (p^{2k+1}q^k - q^{-k-1} \right )C_1A_kB_1D_k +
\left ( p^{k+1} - pq^{-k} \right )C_kA_1B_kD_1 + \\
& & p^{k+1} \left ( C_kA_1A_kB_1 - C_1A_kA_1B_k \right ) + \\
& & p^{k+1} \left ( D_kC_1B_kD_1 - D_1C_kB_1D_k \right ) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
L & = & \left (p^{k+2}q - pq^{-k} \right ) C_kA_1B_kD_1 +
\left (p^{k+1} - q^{-k-1} \right ) C_1A_kB_1D_k. \end{aligned}$$ Thus it must be $$K - L = 0.$$ In fact, $$\begin{aligned}
K - L & = & p^{k+1} \left (p^kq^k - 1 \right ) C_1A_kB_1D_k +
p^{k+1} \left (1 - pq \right ) C_kA_1B_kD_1 + \\
& & p^{k+1} \left ( C_kA_1A_kB_1 - C_1A_kA_1B_k \right ) + \\
& & p^{k+1} \left ( D_kC_1B_kD_1 - D_1C_kB_1D_k \right ) \\
& = & 0.\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} Drinfeld, V., “Quantum groups”, Proc. Int. Congr. Math., Berkeley, 1986. Faddeev, L., Reshetikhin, N. and Takhtajan, L., Alg. Anal. [**1**]{}, 178, 1987. Manin, Yu.I., Commun. Math. Phys. [**123**]{}, 163, 1989. Corrigan, E., Fairlie, B., Fletcher, P. and Sasaki, R., J. Math. Phys. [**31**]{}, 776, 1990. Schwenk, J., Schmidke, B. and Vokos, S., Z. Phys. C [**46**]{}, 643, 1990. Chakrabarti,R. and Jagannathan,R., J. Phys. A [**24**]{}, 5683, 1991. Dabrowski, L. and Wang, L., Phys. Lett. B [**266**]{}, 51, 1991.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report a theoretical study on the phase transition between superconducting states with and without spontaneous surface current. The phase transition takes place due to the formation of surface Andreev bound states in unconventional superconductors. Based on the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity, we examine the influence of atomic-scale surface roughness on the surface phase transition temperature $T_s$. To describe the surface effect, the boundary condition for the quasiclassical Green’s function is parameterized in terms of specularity (the specular reflection probability in the normal state at the Fermi level). This boundary condition allows systematic study of the surface effect ranging from the specular limit to the diffuse limit. We show that diffuse quasiparticle scattering at a rough surface causes substantial reduction of $T_s$ in the $d$-wave pairing state of high-$T_c$ cuprate superconductors. We also consider a $p$-wave pairing state in which Andreev bound states similar to those in the $d$-wave state are generated. In contrast to the $d$-wave case, $T_s$ in the $p$-wave state is insensitive to the specularity. This is because the Andreev bound states in the $p$-wave superconductor are robust against diffuse scattering, as implied from symmetry consideration for odd-frequency Cooper pairs induced at the surface; the $p$-wave state has odd-frequency pairs with $s$-wave symmetry, while the $d$-wave state does not.'
author:
- Nobumi Miyawaki
- Seiji Higashitani
title: Influence of diffuse surface scattering on the stability of superconducting phases with spontaneous surface current generated by Andreev bound states
---
Introduction
============
Theoretical studies of the $d$-wave pairing state in high-$T_c$ cuprate superconductors have predicted a surface state that carries a spontaneous surface current and locally breaks time-reversal symmetry $\mathcal{T}$. The authors of Ref. demonstrated that a pairing state with $\mathcal{T}$-breaking symmetry such as $d+is$ is stabilized near the surface by a subdominant pairing interaction and this surface state with broken $\mathcal{T}$ generates a spontaneous current. The spontaneous surface current was later shown to occur also in the absence of subdominant interactions [@SeijiJPSJ1997]. The origin of the local symmetry breaking lies in the existence of Andreev bound states (ABSs) that form, in the presence of $\mathcal{T}$, a flat band at zero energy (Fermi level) [@Hu; @TanakaKashiwaya; @KashiwayaTanaka]. Those midgap ABSs drive the instability of the $\mathcal{T}$-preserving $d$-wave phase toward a $\mathcal{T}$-breaking phase. In the latter superconducting (SC) phase, the bound-state band is shifted from the Fermi level and thereby the surface free energy can be lowered [@SigristPTP]. The self-induced vector potential associated with the spontaneous current provides a mechanism for the energy shift [@SeijiJPSJ1997; @Lofwander]. The subdominant order parameter itself also brings about the energy shift [@MatsumotoShiba; @Fogelstrom]. In restricted geometries such as thin films [@VorontsovPRL; @SeijiJPSJ2015; @MiyawakiPRB2015; @MiyawakiJLTP2017], a direct phase transition from the normal state to the $\mathcal{T}$-breaking state was shown to be possible when the confinement size is of the order of the coherent length $\xi_0$. Recently, spontaneous generation of a vortex chain structure was predicted to occur along the surface of the cuprate superconductors [@Hakansson; @Holmvall; @HolmvallPHD].
In this paper, we are concerned with the surface phase transition between the SC states with and without the spontaneous surface current. In general, the surface physics sensitively depends on the nature of the boundary condition. For example, surface roughness causes significant modification of the surface density of states (SDOS) in superconductors and superfluids [@Zhang; @Yamada; @Yamamoto; @VorontsovSauls; @NagaiJPSJ; @MurakawaPRL; @MurakawaJPSJ; @Okuda]. In the case of the $d$-wave SC state, diffuse quasiparticle scattering by the surface roughness results in substantial broadening of SDOS at zero energy [@Yamada]. The broadening of zero-energy SDOS suggests the reduction of the surface phase transition temperature $T_s$ [@Barash]. Here, we address the rough surface problem with the purpose of evaluating the robustness of the $\mathcal{T}$-breaking SC phase against diffuse surface scattering. We parameterize the boundary problem in terms of the specularity of the surface [@NagaiJPSJ; @MurakawaPRL; @MurakawaJPSJ; @Okuda]. This parameterization allows us to treat the surface effect ranging from the specular limit to the diffuse limit in a unified way (Fig.\[fig:rough\_surface\]). For simplicity, we do not take into consideration impurity effects [@Barash], subdominant pairing channels [@MatsumotoShiba; @Fogelstrom], and the possibility of the surface vortex chain state [@Hakansson; @Holmvall; @HolmvallPHD].
We consider not only the $d$-wave state but also a $p$-wave (polar) state (Fig. \[fig:system\]). The two SC states have a common symmetry such that the gap function felt by quasiparticles changes sign for specular reflection processes. Because of this symmetry, the midgap ABSs appear in both superconductors [@Hu; @HaraNagai; @OhashiTakada]. When the surface is specular, the midgap ABSs manifest in SDOS as a zero-energy peak. As mentioned above, this peak in the $d$-wave state is broadened in the presence of surface roughness. On the other hand, SDOS in the $p$-wave polar state is hardly affected by diffuse scattering [@Yamamoto]. We show that $T_s$ in the $p$-wave state is insensitive to surface roughness, while in the $d$-wave state the broadening of zero-energy SDOS gives rise to a substantial reduction of $T_s$. The difference between the two SC states in the sensitivity to surface roughness can qualitatively be understood from symmetry consideration for odd-frequency Cooper pairs induced at the surface of the two SC states. This point will be discussed in the final part of Sec. \[sec:results\].
Our calculations are based on the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity [@Eilenberger; @LarkinOvchinnikov]. We outline the theoretical formulation in Sec. \[sec:formulation\]. The rough surface effect is described by random $S$-matrix theory [@NagatoJLTP], from which one can obtain the specularity-dependent boundary condition for the quasiclassical equation. We numerically solve Maxwell’s equations along with the quasiclassical equation to determine the vector potential spontaneously induced in the $\mathcal{T}$-breaking SC phase. The surface value of the vector potential, which is proportional to the total spontaneous magnetic field, exhibits a temperature dependence typical for a second-order phase transition. We determine the transition temperature $T_s$ for various values of specularity by calculating the linear response of the system to the vector potential. Those numerical results are presented in Sec. \[sec:results\]. Our conclusions are summarized in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
![\[fig:rough\_surface\] Scattering at a rough surface parameterized by specularity (specular reflection probability) $R$. An incident quasiparticle in the normal state at the Fermi level is scattered specularly with probability $R$ and diffusively with probability $1-R$ \[see Eq. \]. The specular and diffuse limits correspond to $R = 1$ and $R = 0$, respectively.](Fig_rough_surface.eps)
Quasiclassical theory {#sec:formulation}
=====================
The quasiclassical theory is formulated in terms of a Green’s function $\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)$, which is a $4 \times 4$ matrix in Nambu space. Here, $\bm{r}$ is the real-space position vector, $\hat{p}$ a unit vector to specify the Fermi-surface position, and $\epsilon$ a complex energy variable. The four-dimensional Nambu space is spanned by spin and particle-hole degrees of freedom. From symmetry consideration, the quasiclassical Green’s function $\hat{g}$ is found to have the matrix structure (Appendix \[appendix:A\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) =
\begin{bmatrix}
ig(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) &
f(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) \\
f(\bm{r}, -\hat{p}, -\epsilon^*)^* &
-ig(\bm{r}, -\hat{p}, -\epsilon^*)^* \\
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:g-mat-ex}\end{gathered}$$ where the elements are $2 \times 2$ matrices in spin space. The spatial evolution of $\hat{g}$ is governed by the Eilenberger equation $$i\hbar \bm{v}_{\hat{p}} \cdot \nabla_{\bm{r}} \hat{g}
= [\hat{g},\ (\epsilon - \hat{\Delta})\hat{\rho}_3]
\label{eq:Eileneq}$$ supplemented by the normalization condition $$\hat{g}^2(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) = -1$$ and appropriate boundary conditions depending on the geometry of system. The gradient term on the left-hand side of Eq. connects $\hat{g}$ at different spatial points on a straight line corresponding to the classical trajectory along the Fermi velocity $\bm{v}_{\hat{p}}$. On the right-hand side, $$\hat{\Delta} =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 && \Delta(\bm{r}, \hat{p}) \\ \Delta(\bm{r}, \hat{p})^\dag && 0 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$ is the Nambu-space gap matrix and $\hat{\rho}_3$ is the third Pauli matrix in particle-hole space. In superconductors with a spontaneous surface current, a magnetic field $\bm{B}(\bm{r}) = \nabla_{\bm r}
\times \bm{A}(\bm{r})$ is induced near the surface. The current-carrying state can be treated by replacing $\epsilon$ in Eq. as $$\epsilon \to
\epsilon - \hbar \bm{v}_{\hat{p}}\cdot\bm{Q}(\bm{r})/2,
\label{eq:e-to-e}$$ where $\bm{Q}(\bm{r}) = -(2e/c\hbar)\bm{A}(\bm{r})$ with $e$ ($e<0$) being the electron charge and $c$ the speed of light. The magnetic field $\bm{B}(\bm{r})$ is related to the current density $\bm{J}(\bm{r})$ by Maxwell’s equation $$\nabla_{\bm r} \times \bm{B}(\bm{r}) = \frac{4\pi}{c}\bm{J}(\bm{r}).$$
![\[fig:system\] Semi-infinite superconductor. The surface is located at $y = 0$ and a quasi-two-dimensional superconductor occupies the $y > 0$ space. The superconductor is in the $d_{xy}$-wave (left) or $p_{y}$-wave (right) pairing states.](Fig_system.eps)
The gap matrix $\Delta(\bm{r}, \hat{p})$ and the current density $\bm{J}(\bm{r})$ can be determined from $\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p},
\epsilon)$ on the imaginary axis of the complex $\epsilon$ plane, i.e., $\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, i\epsilon_n)$ at the Matsubara energies $\epsilon_n = (2n+1)\pi/\beta$ with $n = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2,
\cdots$, and $\beta = 1/k_BT$ being the inverse temperature. The corresponding equations are $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta(\bm{r}, \hat{p}) =
N(0)\frac{\pi}{\beta} \sideset{}{'}\sum_{\epsilon_n}
\left\langle
V_{\hat{p}\hat{p}'} f(\bm{r}, \hat{p}', i\epsilon_n)
\right\rangle_{\hat{p}'},
\label{eq:gapeq}
\\
&\bm{J}(\bm{r}) =
e N(0) \frac{\pi}{\beta}\sum_{\epsilon_n}
{\rm Im} \left\langle
\bm{v}_{\hat{p}}\, {\rm Tr}\,g(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, i\epsilon_n)
\right\rangle_{\hat{p}},
\label{eq:J-g}\end{aligned}$$ where $N(0)$ is the density of states (per spin) in the normal state at the Fermi level and $V_{\hat{p}\hat{p}'}$ the pairing interaction. The notation $$\langle \cdots \rangle_{\hat{p}}
\equiv
\frac{\int (\cdots) {d^2 p_F}/{|\bm{v}_{\hat{p}}|}}
{\int {d^2 p_F}/{|\bm{v}_{\hat{p}}|}}$$ denotes the average over the Fermi surface. The prime on the sum in Eq. means that a cutoff is necessary for the Matsubara sum.
From $\hat{g}$, one can also get information on the quasiparticle density of states. The angle-resolved local density of states, normalized to be unity at an energy $E$ sufficiently larger than the SC gap, is given in terms of the diagonal elements of $\hat{g}$ with $\epsilon$ on the real axis: $$n(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, E) =
{\rm Re}\left[\frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}\,g(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, E + i\delta)\right],
\label{eq:dos-g}$$ where $\delta$ is an infinitesimal positive constant defining the retarded Green’s function.
In the actual calculation of the quasiclassical Green’s function, we used the Riccati parameterization method [@EschrigPRB]. In this method, the spin-space matrix Green’s functions $g$ and $f$ are expressed as (Appendix \[appendix:A\]) $$\begin{aligned}
g(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)
&= \frac{2}
{1 - {\mathcal{D}}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon){\mathcal{D}}(\bm{r}, -\hat{p}, -\epsilon^*)^*} - 1,
\\
f(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)
&= [g(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) + 1]{\mathcal{D}}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon),\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathcal{D}}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)$ obeying the Riccati-type differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar \bm{v}_{\hat{p}}\cdot\nabla_{\bm r} {\mathcal{D}}= 2i\epsilon {\mathcal{D}}+
\Delta(\bm{r}, \hat{p}) - {\mathcal{D}}\Delta(\bm{r},\hat{p})^\dag {\mathcal{D}}.
\label{eq:RCTeq}\end{aligned}$$ We note again that $\epsilon$ in Eq. is replaced by Eq. when surface current flows.
We apply the quasiclassical theory to a semi-infinite geometry as depicted in Fig. \[fig:system\]. A quasi-two-dimensional superconductor with a flat surface at $y = 0$ occupies the $y > 0$ space. The quasi-two-dimensionality is described by a cylindrical Fermi surface with an isotropic Fermi velocity $|\bm{v}_{\hat{p}}| =
v_F$. The surface may have atomic-scale irregularity, though it is assumed to be macroscopically flat. We consider the effect of the surface roughness by parameterizing the boundary condition for Eq. in terms of the specularity $R$ defined as the specular reflection probability in the normal state at the Fermi level (Fig. \[fig:rough\_surface\]). The boundary condition is obtained from the random-$S$ matrix theory developed in Ref.. The outline of this theory and the explicit expression for the boundary condition are given in Appendix \[appendix:B\]. We characterize the SC phase with broken $\mathcal{T}$ by the vector fields $$\bm{Q}(\bm{r}) = Q_x(y) \bm{e}_x,\
\bm{B}(\bm{r}) = B_z(y) \bm{e}_z,\
\bm{J}(\bm{r}) = J_x(y) \bm{e}_x,$$ where $\bm{e}_i$ is the unit vectors along the $i$-axis of real-space coordinate.
The above SC system is assumed to be in $d_{xy}$-wave or $p_y$-wave states with the gap matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(\bm{r}, \hat{p}) = \Delta_0(y)\zeta(\hat{p}) s_\sigma.
\label{eq:Delta-zeta}\end{aligned}$$ For the $d_{xy}$-wave state, $\zeta(\hat{p}) =
2\sqrt{2}\,\hat{p}_x\hat{p}_y$ and $s_\sigma = i\sigma_2$. For the $p_y$-wave state, $\zeta(\hat{p}) = \sqrt{2}\,\hat{p}_y$ and $s_\sigma
= \bm{s}\cdot\bm{\sigma}i\sigma_2$. Here, $\bm{\sigma} = (\sigma_1,
\sigma_2, \sigma_3)$ is the Pauli matrix and $\bm{s}$ is a unit vector in spin space. Because our model system has rotational symmetry in spin space, the direction of $\bm{s}$ may be chosen arbitrarily. The basis function $\zeta(\hat{p})$ is normalized as $\langle \zeta^2(\hat{p})
\rangle_{\hat{p}} = 1$. The single-component SC states can be characterized by the pairing interaction of the form $V_{\hat{p}\hat{p}'} = V\zeta(\hat{p})\zeta(\hat{p}')$. The interaction parameter $V$ is related to the transition temperature $T_c$ between the normal and bulk-SC states by $$\frac{1}{N(0)V} = 2\pi k_B T_c
\sideset{}{'}\sum_{\epsilon_n > 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon_n}
\approx \ln (1.13\epsilon_c/k_BT_c),$$ where $\epsilon_c$ denotes the cutoff energy for the Matsubara sum.
Numerical results {#sec:results}
=================
For numerical calculation of $Q_x(y)$, $B_z(y)$, and $J_x(y)$, we introduce the dimensionless quantities $$\begin{aligned}
q_x(y) &= \xi_0 Q_x(y),\\
b_z(y) &= \frac{2|e|}{\hbar c}\lambda_0\xi_0 B_z(y),\\
j_x(y) &= \frac{8\pi|e|}{\hbar c^2}\lambda_0^2\xi_0 J_x(y)
= \frac{J_x(y)}{\pi |e| v_F N(0) k_B T_c},\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_0 = \hbar v_F / 2 \pi k_B T_c$ is the coherence length and $\lambda_0 = (c^2/4\pi e^2N(0) v_F^2)^{1/2}$ is the London penetration depth at $T = 0$. The dimensionless fields are determined from Maxwell’s equations $$\begin{gathered}
\lambda_0 \frac{dq_x(y)}{dy} = -b_z(y),
\label{eq:Meq1}
\\
\lambda_0 \frac{db_z(y)}{dy} = j_x(y),
\label{eq:Meq2}\end{gathered}$$ along with $j_x(y)$ obtained from Eq. . The boundary conditions are $q_x(\infty) = 0$ and $b_z(0) = 0$. In the self-consistent calculation of the fields, we neglect, for simplicity, the surface pairbreaking effect and put $\Delta_0(y) =
\Delta_0(\infty)$. This approximation will not be serious because the low-energy structure of SDOS is insensitive to the self-consistency of the gap function [@NagatoNagaiPRB].
![\[fig:dxy\_fields\_specular\] Spatial distribution of $j_x(y)$, $q_x(y)$, and $b_z(y)$ in the $d_{xy}$ superconductor with $\lambda_0/\xi_0 = 10.0$ at $T/T_c = 0.02$. The surface is assumed to be specular ($R = 1$).](Fig_dxy_fields_specular_multi.eps)
In Fig. \[fig:dxy\_fields\_specular\], we plot the typical spatial distribution of the fields $j_x(y)$, $q_x(y)$, and $b_z(y)$ induced spontaneously in the $d_{xy}$ superconductor. The results are shown for $R = 1$. The current $j_x(y)$ takes a large positive value at the surface ($y = 0$) owing to the formation of midgap ABSs. As the distance $y$ from the surface increases, $j_x(y)$ decreases and becomes negative at $y \sim \xi_0$. The negative (screening) current prevents the spontaneous magnetic field $b_z(y)$ from penetrating into the superconductor. The total current $\int_0^\infty dy\, j_x(y)$ vanishes [@SeijiJPSJ1997; @OhashiMomoi; @KusamaOhashi], as assured by Maxwell’s equation with the boundary condition $b_z(0) = 0$. The fields for $ R \neq 1$ exhibit similar $y$ dependence.
The spontaneous surface current appears at low temperatures after a second-order phase transition from the conventional $\mathcal{T}$-preserving SC state. To demonstrate the surface phase transition in the $d_{xy}$ superconductor, we plot in Fig.\[fig:dxy\_q\_t\] the temperature dependence of $q_x(0)$, which is proportional to the total magnetic field induced by the spontaneous current \[see Eq. \]. The symbols are the results obtained by numerically solving Maxwell’s equations at several temperatures. The solid lines are fits using $$q_x(0) = C_1 \tanh\left(C_2 \sqrt{C_3/t -1} \right),
\label{eq:fit_qx0}$$ where the $C_i$’s are fitting parameters and $t = T/T_c$ is the reduced temperature. The numerical data are well fitted by Eq., in which a second-order phase transition is assumed to take place at $t = C_3$ corresponding to the surface phase transition temperature $T_s$ scaled by $T_c$. As we increase the parameter $\lambda_0 / \xi_0$, the reduced transition temperature $T_s
/ T_c$ decreases \[Fig. \[fig:dxy\_q\_t\] (a)\]. The origin of this property is the different length scales between the surface current carried by ABSs and the conventional screening current. The former is localized within the surface region of width $\sim \xi_0$. The latter flows within a width $\sim \lambda_0$. To satisfy the condition of vanishing total current at a finite $q_x(0)$, larger ABS current and therefore lower temperature is required for larger $\lambda_0/\xi_0$. Figure \[fig:dxy\_q\_t\] (b) demonstrates the effect of diffuse surface scattering on $q_x(0)$. The reduced transition temperature $T_s/T_c$ is suppressed by diffuse scattering and depends rather sensitively on the specularity $R$. The corresponding suppression of $b_z(y)$ at $T/T_c = 0.05$ is shown in Fig.\[fig:dxy\_bz\_rough\_surface\].
![\[fig:dxy\_q\_t\] Temperature dependence of $q_x(0)$ in the $d_{xy}$ superconductor for (a) several $\lambda_0/\xi_0$ at $R=1.0$ and (b) several $R$ at $\lambda_0/\xi_0 = 3.0$. The symbols are the numerical results and the solid lines are fits using Eq. .](Fig_dxy_q_t.eps)
![\[fig:dxy\_bz\_rough\_surface\] Spontaneous magnetic field $b_z(y)$ in the $d_{xy}$ superconductor with $\lambda_0/\xi_0 =
3.0$ at $T / T_c = 0.05$.](Fig_dxy_bz_rough_surface.eps)
To study the rough surface effect on $T_s/T_c$ in more detail, we solved the linearized Maxwell’s equations numerically $$\int_0^\infty dy' K(y,y')\, q_x(y')
= \lambda_0^2 \frac{d^2q_x(y)}{dy^2}.
\label{eq:linear_Meq}$$ The left-hand side corresponds to the linear response of $-j_x(y)$ to $q_x(y)$. The kernel $K(y,y')$ can be obtained by expanding the quasiclassical Green’s function $g$ to linear order in $q_x(y)$ and substituting the linear deviation into Eq. . The resulting explicit formula is so lengthy that it is not shown here. We note only that $K(y,y')$ is real and symmetric under the exchange of $y$ and $y'$.
To solve Eq. , we used the finite difference formulas $$\frac{dq_x}{dy} = \frac{q_{i+1} - q_{i-1}}{2h},\ \
\frac{d^2q_x}{dy^2} = \frac{q_{i+1} - 2q_i + q_{i-1}}{h^2},$$ where $q_i = q_x(ih)$ with $i$ being an integer. Evaluating the $y'$ integral in Eq. using the trapezoidal rule, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{K_{i0} q_0 + K_{iN} q_N}{2} + \sum_{j=1}^{N-1} K_{ij} q_j
= \mu (q_{i+1} - 2q_i + q_{i-1}),
\\
b_z(0) \propto (q_{1} - q_{-1}) / 2h = 0,\ \ q_N = 0,\end{gathered}$$ where $K_{ij} = h K(ih, jh)$ and $\mu = \lambda_0^2 / h^2$. This set of equations can be cast into the form of the generalized eigenvalue equation $\mathbb{A}\vec{q} = \mu \mathbb{B} \vec{q}$ with $\mathbb{A}$ being a real symmetric matrix and $\mathbb{B}$ being a positive-definite real symmetric matrix. Using the GNU Scientific Library, we solved it to obtain the eigenvalue $\mu$ at a given $t =
T/T_c$ (we performed the calculations down to $t = 0.01$). The resulting $\mu$-$t$ relation gives $T_s/T_c$ as a function of $\lambda_0/\xi_0$. From the numerical calculation, we found that the maximum eigenvalue $\mu_{\rm max}$ reproduces $T_s/T_c$ determined from the full (nonlinear) Maxwell’s equation (Fig. \[fig:dxy\_q\_t\]).
![\[fig:dxy\_t\_lmd\] Reduced transition temperature $T_s/T_c$ in the $d_{xy}$ superconductor as a function of $\xi_0/\lambda_0$. The left panel is the linear plot of $T_s/T_c$ vs $\xi_0/\lambda_0$ and the right panel the corresponding log-log plot. The solid lines are, from right to left, the numerical results obtained by changing specularity $R$ from zero to unity in increments of 0.1. The dashed line corresponds to Eq. .](Fig_dxy_t_lmd.eps)
![\[fig:py\_t\_lmd\] Reduced transition temperature $T_s/T_c$ in the $p_{y}$ superconductor as a function of $\xi_0/\lambda_0$. The left panel is the linear plot of $T_s/T_c$ vs $\xi_0/\lambda_0$ and the right panel is its log-log plot. The solid lines are the numerical results for $R = 0.0$ and $1.0$. The dashed line corresponds to Eq. .](Fig_py_t_lmd.eps)
![\[fig:dxy\_sdos\_q\_zero\] SDOS in the $d_{xy}$-wave SC phase without spontaneous surface current. The left panel shows the energy dependence of SDOS for $R = 0.0$, $0.5$, and $1.0$. In calculating these results, we choose $\delta$ in Eq. to be $10^{-3}\Delta_{\rm max}$, where $\Delta_{\rm max} = \sqrt{2}\Delta_0$ is the maximum value of the $\hat{p}$-dependent energy gap in the bulk SC state. In the right panel, SDOS at zero energy, Eq. , is plotted as a function of $R$.](Fig_dxy_sdos.eps)
In Fig. \[fig:dxy\_t\_lmd\], we plot $T_s/T_c$ in the $d_{xy}$-wave state as a function of $\xi_0/\lambda_0$. The same plot for the $p_y$-wave state is shown in Fig. \[fig:py\_t\_lmd\]. The solid lines are the numerical results for various values of $R$. The dashed line represents the approximate formula [@Barash] $$\frac{T_s}{T_c} = \frac{\pi}{3} \frac{\xi_0}{\lambda_0},
\label{eq:Barash}$$ which can be applied to strong type-II $d_{xy}$-wave and $p_{y}$-wave superconductors with $R = 1.0$. When $R = 1.0$, the two superconductors have almost the same $T_s/T_c$. However, the rough surface effect on $T_s/T_c$ is quite different between the two states. Diffuse surface scattering results in a substantial reduction of $T_s/T_c$ in the $d_{xy}$-wave case. On the other hand, $T_s / T_c$ in the $p_y$-wave state is insensitive to surface roughness. This marked difference can be understood qualitatively by observing SDOS in the absence of surface current. In Fig. \[fig:dxy\_sdos\_q\_zero\], we plot the total SDOS, the surface value $n_{\rm surf}(E)$ of $\langle
n(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, E) \rangle_{\hat{p}}$, in the $d_{xy}$ superconductor. In the specular limit, there is a delta-function peak at zero energy originating from midgap ABSs. This peak is broadened by diffuse scattering and the midgap SDOS, $n_{\rm surf}(0)$, decreases steeply as the specularity $R$ decreases from unity. We can show that $n_{\rm surf}(0)$ in the $d_{xy}$ superconductor depends on $R$ as [@Yamada] $$n_{\rm surf}(0) = \frac{1}{2}
\left(
\frac{1+\sqrt{R}}{\sqrt{1 - \sqrt{R}}} +
\frac{\sqrt{1 - \sqrt{R}}}{1+\sqrt{R}}
\right).
\label{eq:n_surf_0_ex}$$ In the diffuse limit, $n_{\rm surf}(0)$ is suppressed to unity (then SDOS in the whole energy region coincides with that of the normal state [@Yamada]). The broadening of the midgap SDOS implies the reduction of the ABS current, resulting in the decrease of $T_s/T_c$ with $R$. In the $p_y$-wave state, SDOS also has a zero-energy peak. In contrast to the $d_{xy}$ case, however, SDOS in the $p_y$-wave state is quite robust against diffuse scattering [@Yamamoto].
The robustness of the midgap SDOS is closely related to the symmetry of odd-frequency Cooper pairing. As has been shown in the studies of boundary effects in superconductors and superfluids, ABSs appear accompanied by odd-frequency pairs (for a review, see Ref.). Moreover, there is a relationship between the midgap density of states and the odd-frequency pair amplitude, which states the equivalence between them [@SeijiPRB2012; @TsutsumiMachida; @SeijiPRB2014; @MizushimaOddFreq]. Fermi statistics requires that the odd-frequency pairs in spin-singlet and spin-triplet states have odd-parity and even-parity symmetries, respectively. The robustness of the midgap SDOS in the $p_y$-wave superconductor is supported by the triplet odd-frequency $s$-wave pairing induced at the surface.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have examined numerically the influence of surface roughness on the instability temperature $T_s$ toward the appearance of a spontaneous surface current in unconventional superconductors. This surface phase transition is driven by midgap Andreev bound states such as formed in the $d$-wave pairing state of high-$T_c$ cuprate superconductors [@SeijiJPSJ1997; @Lofwander; @Barash]. Considering strong type-II superconductors like the cuprates and assuming the surface to be specular, one can analytically estimate $T_s$ and obtain the result $T_s \sim (\xi_0 / \lambda_0) T_c$ [@Lofwander; @Barash]. Our numerical calculation for the specular surface reproduces this result well. In actual systems, the surface inevitably has atomic-scale surface roughness giving rise to diffuse scattering of quasiparticles. In our theory, the rough surface effect is parameterized in terms of the surface specularity (Fig.\[fig:rough\_surface\]). We have calculated the specularity dependence of $T_s/T_c$ in the $d$-wave superconductor and found that the broadening of the midgap Andreev bound states at a rough surface causes substantial reduction of $T_s / T_c$ even for such a large specularity as $0.9$ (Fig. \[fig:dxy\_t\_lmd\]).
We have compared the result of $T_s / T_c$ for the $d$-wave state to that for the $p$-wave polar state in which the gap function has a momentum-direction dependence [@Hu; @HaraNagai; @OhashiTakada] responsible for the generation of the midgap Andreev bound states, similar to those in the $d$-wave superconductor (Fig.\[fig:system\]). For the $p$-wave superconductor, we found that $T_s/T_c$ is insensitive to specularity (Fig.\[fig:py\_t\_lmd\]). This difference from the $d$-wave case can be accounted for by the fact that in the $p$-wave state there exist odd-frequency $s$-wave Cooper pairs behind the midgap states. The presence of the odd-frequency $s$-wave pairs assures that the midgap states are robust against diffuse surface scattering.
In the present work, we have assumed that the spontaneous surface current $\bm{J}(\bm{r})$ depends only on the coordinate perpendicular to the surface. This assumption excludes the possibility of a spontaneously-induced vortex chain structure, which has recently been predicted to appear along the surface of the high-$T_c$ cuprates [@Hakansson; @Holmvall; @HolmvallPHD]. The surface phase transition temperature to the vortex chain state was reported to be higher than that for the surface state considered here. It should be noted, however, that the theoretical analysis is based on the specular surface model. The rough surface effect on the stability of this novel surface state is an important issue that remains to be examined.
We thank M. Ashida for valuable advice on the numerical method for calculating the results in Sec. \[sec:results\]. We also thank Y. Nagato and K. Nagai for helpful discussions about the rough surface effects on the Andreev bound states. This work was supported in part by the JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 15K05172.
Symmetry and Nambu-space matrix structure of the quasiclassical Green’s function {#appendix:A}
================================================================================
The quasiclassical Green’s function $\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p},
\epsilon)$ defined as a $4 \times 4$ Nambu-space matrix has the symmetry [@SereneRainer] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)
&= \hat{\rho}_1 \widetilde{\hat{g}}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) \hat{\rho}_1
\label{eq:symrel-g-1}\\
&= \hat{\rho}_3 \hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon^*)^\dag \hat{\rho}_3,
\label{eq:symrel-g-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\rho}_i$’s are the Pauli matrices in particle-hole space and the tilde transform in Eq. is defined as $$\widetilde{X}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)
= X(\bm{r}, -\hat{p}, -\epsilon^*)^*.$$ It follows from Eq. that $\hat{g}$ has the matrix structure $$\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)
=
\begin{bmatrix}
ig(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) &
f(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) \\
\widetilde{f}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) &
-i\widetilde{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) \\
\end{bmatrix}.$$ From Eq. , the spin-space matrices $g$ and $f$ are found to have the symmetry $$\begin{aligned}
&g(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) = -g(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon^*)^\dag, \\
&f(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)
= -\widetilde{f}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon^*)^\dag
= -f(\bm{r}, -\hat{p}, -\epsilon)^T,\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript $T$ denotes matrix transpose.
Introducing a spin-space matrix $\mathcal{D}(\bm{r}, \hat{p},
\epsilon)$ called the coherence function [@EschrigPRB], one can parameterize $\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)$ in a form that automatically satisfies the normalization condition $\hat{g}^2(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon) = -1$: $$\hat{g} + i
= 2i
\begin{bmatrix}
1 \\ -i{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}}\end{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{1 - {\mathcal{D}}{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}}}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & -i{\mathcal{D}}\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:g+i-D}$$ or, equivalently, $$\hat{g} - i
= -2i
\begin{bmatrix}
i{\mathcal{D}}\\ 1
\end{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{1 - {\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}}{\mathcal{D}}}
\begin{bmatrix}
i{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}}& 1
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:g-i-D}$$ The symmetry relation $\eqref{eq:symrel-g-2}$ implies that the coherence function has the symmetry $${\mathcal{D}}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon^*)^\dag = {\mathcal{D}}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)^{-1}.
\label{eq:symrel-D}$$ Under this parameterization method, the spatial evolution of $\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)$ is described by the Riccati-type differential equation for ${\mathcal{D}}(\bm{r}, \hat{p},
\epsilon)$, instead of the transport-like equation supplemented by the normalization condition.
Random $S$-matrix theory {#appendix:B}
========================
![\[fig:FS\] Fermi momenta of the incoming ($\bm{p}$) and outgoing ($\bm{p}'$) states. The incoming (outgoing) state has a Fermi velocity towards (away from) the surface. The Fermi velocity is directed outward normal to the Fermi surface.](Fig_FS.eps)
In the random $S$-matrix (RSM) theory [@NagatoJLTP], the surface effect is incorporated into the quasiclassical theory by introducing an $S$-matrix $S_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|}$ in the normal state at the Fermi level and parameterizing it as $$S_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|}
= - \left( \frac{1 - i\eta}{1 + i\eta} \right)_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|}.
\label{eq:S-def}$$ Here, $\bm{p}$ and $\bm{p}'$ are the Fermi momenta of incoming and outgoing states, respectively, and the subscript $\|$ denotes the vector component parallel to the surface (Fig. \[fig:FS\]). The momentum-space matrix $\eta$ is required to be an Hermite matrix so that the unitarity of $S$ is assured. When $\eta = 0$, Eq. is reduced to $S_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|} =
-\delta_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|}$. This form of the $S$-matrix corresponds to the specular surface case, where $\bm{p}_\|$ is conserved during surface scattering processes. The diffuse scattering effect is therefore described by $\eta$. In the RSM theory, every element of $\eta$ is treated as a random variable to describe the statistical property of the surface and the statistical average of $\hat{g}$ is evaluated by employing the self-consistent Born approximation. A consequence of this procedure is that the diffuse scattering effect is characterized by the average $\overline{|\eta_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|}|^2} \equiv \eta^{(2)}(\bm{p}_\|
- \bm{p}_\|')$.
Under this model for the $S$-matrix, the boundary condition for the averaged Green’s function is obtained as $$\hat{g}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
= \frac{1 + i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
{1 - i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
\hat{g}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
\frac{1 - i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
{1 + i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)},
\label{eq:bcon-g-RSM}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)
&= \sum_{\bm{p}_\|'} \eta^{(2)}(\bm{p}_\| - \bm{p}_\|')
\hat{G}_{\bm{p}_\|'}(\epsilon),
\label{eq:gamma-Gsurf}
\\
\hat{G}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon) \notag
&= \frac{1}{1 - i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
\left[
\hat{g}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
- \hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)
\right]
\frac{1}{1 + i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
\notag\\
&= \frac{1}{1 + i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
\left[
\hat{g}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
- \hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)
\right]
\frac{1}{1 - i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. , $\hat{g}_{{\rm in} ({\rm out})}
(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)$ stands for the surface value of $\hat{g}(\bm{r}, \hat{p}, \epsilon)$ at the incoming (outgoing) Fermi momentum with a given parallel component $\bm{p}_\|$. Equation with $\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon) = 0$ ($\eta^{(2)} = 0)$ gives the specular surface boundary condition $$\hat{g}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
= \hat{g}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon),$$ which means that the quasiclassical propagator is continuous on the trajectory along a specular reflection process. This property is lost at a rough surface because of a finite $\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)$. The Nambu-space matrix $\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)$ has symmetries similar to Eqs. and for the quasiclassical Green’s function, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)
&= \hat{\rho}_1\widetilde{\hat{\gamma}}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)\hat{\rho}_1
\label{eq:symrel-gamma-1}
\\
&= \hat{\rho}_3\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon^*)^\dag\hat{\rho}_3.
\label{eq:symrel-gamma-2}\end{aligned}$$
Equation can be rewritten in the form $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{g}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
- \hat{g}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
\notag \\
&= 2i\sum_{\bm{p}_\|'} \eta^{(2)}(\bm{p}_\| - \bm{p}_\|')
[\hat{G}_{\bm{p}_\|'}(\epsilon),\ \hat{G}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)].\end{aligned}$$ From this, we readily find $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \sum_{\bm{p}_\|}
\left[
\hat{g}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
- \hat{g}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
\right]
\label{eq:flux-conservation} \\
&\propto
\int_{\rm out}
\frac{d^2p_F}{|\bm{v}_{\hat{p}}|}\,
|v_{\hat{p}}^\perp|\hat{g}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
- \int_{\rm in}
\frac{d^2p_F}{|\bm{v}_{\hat{p}}|}\,
|v_{\hat{p}}^\perp|\hat{g}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon),
\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{\hat{p}}^\perp$ is the Fermi velocity component perpendicular to the surface. Equation guarantees that there is no net current across the surface.
The boundary condition for the coherence function is given as $$\begin{bmatrix} i{\mathcal{D}}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon) \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}
C_{2 \times 2}
=
\frac{1 + i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
{1 - i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
\begin{bmatrix} i{\mathcal{D}}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon) \\ 1 \end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:bcon-cD}$$ where $C_{2 \times 2}$ is an arbitrary spin-space matrix. The equivalence between the boundary conditions and can be confirmed in the following way. Using the symmetry relations , , and , one can convert Eq. into the form $$C_{2 \times 2}'
\begin{bmatrix} i{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon) & 1 \end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix} i{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon) & 1 \end{bmatrix}
\frac{1 + i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)}
{1 - i\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)},$$ where $C_{2 \times 2}'$ is again an arbitrary spin-space matrix. Substituting the above two relations for the coherence function into Eq. , we obtain Eq. .
In the RSM theory, the nature of the boundary condition is specified by $\eta^{(2)}(\bm{p}_\|-\bm{p}_\|')$. We can describe the surface effect from the specular to the diffusive limit (Fig.\[fig:rough\_surface\]) in a unified way by expressing it as $$\eta^{(2)} = \frac{2W}{\sum_{\bm{p}_\|}1}, \ \
W = \frac{1 - \sqrt{R}}{\left(1 + \sqrt{R} \right)^2},
\label{eq:eta2-W}$$ where $R$ is a momentum-independent parameter. Physically, $R$ corresponds to the surface specularity, [@SeijiJPSJ2015; @MurakawaPRL; @MurakawaJPSJ; @Okuda] which is defined as the specular reflection probability in the normal state at the Fermi level. In fact, evaluating the statistical average of $|S_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|}|^2$ with Eq. , we obtain [@Yamamoto] $$\overline{|S_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|}|^2}
= R \delta_{\bm{p}_\|'\bm{p}_\|} + \frac{1 - R}{\sum_{\bm{p}_\|}1}.
\label{eq:S2-R}$$ It is obvious that the specular surface corresponds to $R = 1$. The diffuse limit, where surface scattering occurs in any possible direction with equal probability $1/\sum_{\bm{p}_\|}1$, is achieved for $R = 0$. It follows that the above one-parameter model for $\eta^{(2)}$ provides a simple interpolation formula connecting the specular and diffuse limits.
When the boundary condition is parameterized with Eq., $\hat{\gamma}_{\bm{p}_\|}(\epsilon)$ is independent of $\bm{p}_\|$ and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\gamma}(\epsilon)
&= \frac{2W}{1 + 2W + \hat{\gamma}^2(\epsilon)}\,\hat{g}_0(\epsilon),
\label{eq:gamma-g0}
\\
\hat{g}_0(\epsilon)
&= \langle \hat{g}_{\rm in}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon) \rangle_{\bm{p}_\|}
= \langle \hat{g}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon) \rangle_{\bm{p}_\|},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\langle \cdots \rangle_{\bm{p}_\|}
= \sum_{\bm{p}_\|} (\cdots) / \sum_{\bm{p}_\|}1.$$ Because of the symmetries and , $\hat{g}_0(\epsilon)$ and $\hat{\gamma}(\epsilon)$ have the matrix structures $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{g}_0(\epsilon)
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
ig_0(\epsilon) & f_0(\epsilon) \\
\widetilde{f}_0(\epsilon) & -i\widetilde{g}_0(\epsilon)
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:g0-ex}\\
\hat{\gamma}(\epsilon)
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
ia(\epsilon) & b(\epsilon) \\
\widetilde{b}(\epsilon) & -i\widetilde{a}(\epsilon)
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:gamma-ex}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we note that the RSM theory in the diffuse limit gives the same boundary condition obtained from Ovchinnikov’s rough surface model [@Ovchinnikov; @VorontsovSauls]. To see this, let us first assume that the matrix $\hat{\gamma}(\epsilon)$ in the diffuse limit, which we denote by $\hat{\gamma}_{\rm DL}(\epsilon)$, has the property $$\hat{\gamma}_{\rm DL}^2(\epsilon) = -1
\label{eq:gammaDL2}$$ similar to the normalization condition for the quasiclassical Green’s function. It can be shown that Eq. is in fact satisfied in the normal state; the quasiclassical Green’s function in the normal state is given as $\hat{g}_N(\epsilon) = {\rm sgn}({\rm
Im}[\epsilon])i\hat{\rho}_3$. Then Eq. has the solution $$\hat{\gamma}(\epsilon)
= \frac{1 - \sqrt{R}}{1 + \sqrt{R}}\,\hat{g}_N(\epsilon).$$ When $R = 0$, $\hat{\gamma}(\epsilon) = \hat{g}_N(\epsilon)$ and hence Eq. holds. Assuming that it also holds in SC states, we can write the boundary condition in the form $$\begin{gathered}
[1 - i\hat{\gamma}_{\rm DL}(\epsilon)]
\begin{bmatrix}
i{\mathcal{D}}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon) \\ 1
\end{bmatrix}
= 0,
\label{eq:bcon-cD-DL} \\
\hat{\gamma}_{\rm DL}(\epsilon) = \hat{g}_0(\epsilon).
\label{eq:gamma-g0-DL}\end{gathered}$$ Equation tells us that ${\mathcal{D}}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|,
\epsilon)$ in the diffuse limit is independent of $\bm{p}_\|$. Noting this and using Eqs. and , we readily find that $\hat{g}_0(\epsilon)$ has the property $\hat{g}_0^2(\epsilon) = -1$, which justifies the assumption of Eq.. From Eqs. , , and , we obtain $${\mathcal{D}}_{\rm out}(\bm{p}_\|, \epsilon)
= \frac{1}{g_0(\epsilon) + 1}f_0(\epsilon)
= \frac{1}{\widetilde{f}_0(\epsilon)}[\widetilde{g}_0(\epsilon) - 1].
\label{eq:bcon-cD-DL-ex}$$ The second equality holds because $\hat{g}_0^2(\epsilon) =
-1$. Equation coincides with the boundary condition derived by Vorontsov and Sauls [@VorontsovSauls] using Ovchinnikov’s rough surface model.
[99]{} M. Matsumoto and H. Shiba, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **64**, 3384 (1995); **64**, 4867 (1995). S. Higashitani, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **66**, 2556 (1997). C. R. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 1526 (1994). Y. Tanaka and S. Kashiwaya, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 3451 (1995). S. Kashiwaya and Y. Tanaka, Rep. Prog. Phys. **63**, 1641 (2000). M. Sigrist, Prog. Theor. Phys. **99**, 899 (1998). T. Löfwander, V. S. Shumeiko, and G. Wendin, Phys. Rev. B **62**, R14653 (2000). M. Fogelström, D. Rainer, and J. A. Sauls, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 281 (1997). A. B. Vorontsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 177001 (2009). S. Higashitani and N. Miyawaki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **84**, 033708 (2015). N. Miyawaki and S. Higashitani, Phys. Rev. B **91**, 094511 (2015). N. Miyawaki and S. Higashitani, J. Low Temp. Phys. **187**, 545 (2017). M. H[å]{}kansson, T. Löfwander, and M. Fogelström, Nat. Phys. **11**, 755 (2015). P. Holmvall, T. Löfwander, and M. Fogelström, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. **969**, 012037 (2018). P. Holmvall, Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, 2017. W. Zhang, Phys. Lett. A **130**, 314 (1988). K. Yamada, Y. Nagato, S. Higashitani, and K. Nagai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **65**, 1540 (1996). Y. Nagato, M. Yamamoto, and K. Nagai, J. Low Temp. Phys. **110**, 1135 (1998). A. B. Vorontsov and J. A. Sauls, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 064508 (2003). K. Nagai, Y. Nagato, M. Yamamoto, and S. Higashitani, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **77**, 111003 (2008). S. Murakawa, Y. Tamura, Y. Wada, M. Wasai, M. Saitoh, Y. Aoki, R. Nomura, Y. Okuda, Y. Nagato, M. Yamamoto, S. Higashitani, and K. Nagai, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 155301 (2009). S. Murakawa, Y. Wada, Y. Tamura, M. Wasai, M. Saitoh, Y. Aoki, R. Nomura, Y. Okuda, Y. Nagato, M. Yamamoto, S. Higashitani, and K. Nagai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **80**, 013602 (2011). Y. Okuda and R. Nomura, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **24**, 343201 (2012). Y. S. Barash, M. S. Kalenkov, and J. Kurkijärvi, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 6665 (2000). J. Hara and K. Nagai, Prog. Theor. Phys. **76**, 1237 (1986). Y. Ohashi and S. Takada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **65**, 246 (1996). G. Eilenberger, Z. Phys. **214**, 195 (1968). A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Sov. Phys. JETP **28**, 1200 (1969). Y. Nagato, S. Higashitani, K. Yamada, and K. Nagai, J. Low Temp. Phys. **103**, 1 (1996). M. Eschrig, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 9061 (2000). Y. Nagato and K. Nagai, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 16254 (1995). Y. Ohashi and T. Momoi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **65**, 3254 (1996). Y. Kusama and Y. Ohashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **68**, 987 (1999). Y. Tanaka, M. Sato, and N. Nagaosa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **81**, 011013 (2012). S. Higashitani, S. Matsuo, Y. Nagato, K. Nagai, S. Murakawa, R. Nomura, and Y. Okuda, Phys. Rev. B **85**, 024524 (2012). Y. Tsutsumi and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **81**, 074607 (2012). S. Higashitani, Phys. Rev. B **89**, 184505 (2014). T. Mizushima, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 184506 (2014). J. W. Serene and D. Rainer, Phys. Rep. **101**, 221 (1983). Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Sov. Phys. JETP **29**, 853 (1969).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A model proposed by Sornette, Takayasu, and Zhou for describing hyperinflation regimes based on adaptive expectations expressed in terms of a power law which leads to a finite-time singularity is revisited. It is suggested to express the price index evolution explicitly in terms of the parameters introduced along the theoretical formulation avoiding any combination of them used in the original work. This procedure allows to study unambiguously the uncertainties of such parameters when an error is assigned to the measurement of the price index. In this way, it is possible to determine an uncertainty in the critical time at which the singularity occurs. For this purpose, Monte Carlo simulation techniques are applied. The hyperinflation episodes of Peru (1969-90) and Weimar Germany (1920-3) are reexamined. The first analyses performed within this framework of the very extreme hyper-inflations occurred in Greece (1941-4) and Yugoslavia (1991-4) are reported. The study of the hyperinflation spiral experienced just nowadays in Zimbabwe predicts a singularity, i.e., a complete economic crash within two years.'
author:
- 'Martin A. Szybisz'
- Leszek Szybisz
title: 'Finite-time singularity in the evolution of hyperinflation episodes'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Since about one decade there is significant interest in applications of physical methods in social and economical sciences [@stauffer99; @stanley99; @sornette03b]. For example, it has been found that the logarithmic change of the market price in the case of a hyperinflation episode shows some universal characteristics similar to those observed in physical systems. In such a regime the price index increases more rapidly than a simple exponential law [@mizuno02]. Moreover, it has been shown that such a super-exponential law indeed finishes with a finite-time singularity [@sornette03] like several physical systems.
Let us recall that the rate of inflation $i(t)$ is defined as $$i(t) = \frac{P(t)-P(t-\Delta t)}{P(t-\Delta t)}
= \frac{P(t)}{P(t-\Delta t)} - 1 \:, \label{infla}$$ where $P(t)$ is the price at time $t$ and $\Delta t$ is the period of the measurements. In economics the terminology “hyperinflation” is used in rather rough sense to specify very hight inflation that is “out of control”, a condition in which prices increase rapidly as a currency loses its property as medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account. No precise definition of hyperinflation is universally accepted. One simple definition requires a monthly inflation rate of 20 or $30\%$ or more. In informal usage the term is often applied to much lower rates. In 1956, Cagan published [*The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation*]{} [@cagan56], generally regarded as the first serious study of hyperinflation and its effects. There it is defined that “inflation rates per month exceeding $50\%$” determine a scenario of hyperinflation.
During periods of very hight inflation the frequent change of prices destroys rapidly the real wages and the unknown future of the economic structure diminishes the flow of inversions. Such situations are very costly to society, the workers have to be paid more frequently (even daily) and there are rushes to spend the currency before prices rise further causing enormous “[*shoe-leather costs*]{}” (in economics it means: resources wasted when inflation encourages people to do more trips to banks and stores wearing out their shoes). These effects are accompanied with a strong devaluation of the currency which causes a decline in real public revenues increasing the fiscal deficit. Hyperinflation reduces real value of taxes collected, which are often set in nominal terms and by the time they are paid, real value has fallen. This feature is known as the Olivera-Tanzi effect, after Olivera [@olivera67] and Tanzi [@tanzi77] who were the first to interpret it by means of standard analytical tools [@canavese92]. The occurrence of the Olivera-Tanzi effect may impulse a rapid expansion of nominal money and credit. If people expect a money supply growth, then this would lead to expecting higher inflation. The expectation of higher inflation raises inflation rate even if money growth does not actually increase. Once people start to expect an inflation regime, their expectations may lead to strong positive feedbacks that make inflation run away. This scenario produce an important crisis in the population. The real investment, loans and development diminish, while the unemployment and political unrest grow significantly. Moreover, some of these effects usually continue after the hyperinflation has been stopped. Therefore, models of hyperinflation are considered very useful by macro-economists because detecting hyperinflation in an early stage might contribute to avoid such a tragedy.
There are several remarkable historical examples of hyperinflation. Some of them were originated after World Wars [@cagan56]. The most famous and studied cases are those occurred in Germany and Hungary in the early 1920’s after World War I and in Hungary at the end of World War II. However, there are other extreme examples, for instance, that of Greece during the military occupation ($1941-4$) [@cagan56; @palairet00; @lykogiannis02]. On the other hand, there were other cases which are not related to wars like that in Latin America in the 1980’s [@imf; @sargent06] and more recently that occurred during the transition period from a Centrally Planned economy to a more Free Market oriented economy in countries of East Europe and in the successor states emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union [@imf].
As a matter of fact, the end of Central Planning in Europe - whether it came as a result of slow decay or of rapid collapse - was frequently accompanied by bursts of high inflation. An important example of such a behavior is Yugoslavia, where two periods of very hight inflation in short time were experienced. The first had a long build-up during the 1980’s and peaked in 1989 reaching high, but not very extreme inflation only briefly. The second one developed just at the end of Centrally Planed economy and enhanced by the Civil War is the worst episode of hyperinflation in History. This very severe hyperinflation occurred in the period $1991-4$ .
The inflation rates at the end of extreme hyper-inflations reached very impressive amounts per month. For instance, the ratios of price indexes for the most severe known incidents of inflation quoted by Cagan [@cagan56] are: in Germany in 1923 $P$(November-13th)/$P$(October-16th)=10$^{2.556}$, i.e., inflation rose about $3.6 \times 10^4$ percent per month; in Greece after liberation from the occupation by German troops in 1944 the ratio $P$ (November-10th)/$P$(October-31th)=10$^{5.932}$ means $8.55 \times
10^7$ percent per ten days and in Hungary after the end of World War II in 1946 $P$(end-July)/$P$(end-June)=10$^{14.6226}$ corresponds to $4.2 \times 10^{16}$ percent per month. Despite all the unpleasant experiences with hight inflation, sometimes, it is still considered to be the apple of paradise. Since 2000 Zimbabwe exhibits an increasing high inflation rate [@zrb], which is already the highest in the world. Indeed, the spiral of price growth developed in that country is nowadays considered an important episode of hyperinflation.
Since a long time ago it is known that in the case of moderate inflation the prices exhibit an exponential growth [@cagan56]. A recent analysis of the hyperinflation in Germany, Hungary, Brazil, Israel, Nicaragua, Peru, and Bolivia performed by Mizuno, Takayasu, and Takayasu [@mizuno02] indicated that the price indexes or currency exchange rates of these countries grew according to a double-exponential function $e^{b_1e^{b_2t}}$ of time (with $b_1,
b_2>0$). It was shown that this super-exponential growth can be obtained from a nonlinear positive feedback process in which the past market price growth influences the people’s expected future price, which itself impacts the [*a posteriori*]{} realized market price. This process is fundamentally based on the mechanism of “adaptive inflationary expectation” and it is similar to the positive feedbacks occurring during transmission of information due to imitative and herd behaviors [@sornette03b; @zimmermann00].
The double-exponential model of Mizuno [*et al.*]{} [@mizuno02] gives a useful mathematical description of hyperinflation, however, it does not provide a rigorous determination of the end of the hyperinflation regime. More recently, Sornette, Takayasu, and Zhou [@sornette03] re-examined the theory developed in Ref.[@mizuno02] and showed that the double-exponential law is in fact a discrete-time approximation of a general power law growth endowed with a finite-time singularity at some critical time $t_c$.
Let us notice that singularities occur in different sorts of dynamical systems and are spontaneously reached in finite time. Such a behavior can be found in models of either physical or other kind of systems. In the case of physics we can mention the Euler equations of inviscid fluids [@bhattach95], the surface curvature on the free surface of a conducting fluid in an electric field [@zubarev98], the equations of General Relativity coupled to a mass field leading to the formation of black holes [@choptuik99], the vortex collapse of systems of point vortexes [@leoncini00], or the Euler’s disks as a rotating coin [@mocatt00]. On the other hand, this kind of singularity is also present in models of micro-organisms aggregating to form fruiting bodies [@rascle95] and in the dynamics of the world population, and the economic and financial indexes [@johansen00].
The analysis of the finite-time singularity proposed in Ref.[@sornette03] allows to determine the theoretical end of the hyperinflation regime. However, from the practical point of view it is also important to estimate an uncertainty of $t_c$ in terms of variations of $P(t)$. An analysis of this issue is just developed in the present work.
In Sec. \[sec:theory\] we revise the theoretical formulations published in Refs. [@mizuno02; @sornette03] introducing a careful treatment of the initial time of the series of data $t_0$. The price index evolution is expressed explicitly in terms of the free parameters introduced along the theoretical formulation avoiding any combination of them. In addition, we propose a procedure to determine the uncertainties of the fitting parameters when an error is assigned to the measurement of the price index. Monte Carlo simulation techniques are used for the error analysis. In this way quotes for $t_c$ are set. A study of the hyperinflation in Peru and Germany are presented as testing cases. In Sec. \[sec:results\] we report the first studies of the very extreme hyper-inflations of Greece and Yugoslavia performed within the framework outlined in the present work. Furthermore, on the basis of an analysis of data of the current trend of the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, we predict an economic crash in this country in about two years. Finally, the main conclusions are summarized in Sec. \[sec:summary\].
Theoretical background {#sec:theory}
======================
In the academic financial literature, the simplest and most robust way to account for inflation is to take logarithm. Therefore, the continuous rate of change in prices is usually defined as $$C(t) = \frac{\partial \ln{P(t)}}{\partial t} \:. \label{c_rate0}$$ Usually the derivative of Eq. (\[c\_rate0\]) is expressed in a discrete way as $$C(t) = \frac{\left[ \ln P(t+\Delta t)-\ln P(t) \right]}{\Delta t}
= \frac{1}{\Delta t}\,\ln \left[ \frac{P(t+\Delta t)}{P(t)} \right]
\:. \label{c_rate1}$$ The growth rate of price over one period is defined as $$r(t) \equiv C(t)\,\Delta t = \ln \left[ \frac{P(t+\Delta t)}{P(t)}
\right] = p(t+\Delta t) - p(t) \:. \label{rate1}$$ Here, a notation widely utilized in the academic literature, $p(t) =
\ln P(t)$, is introduced. When $r(t)$ takes big values over a large period of time a hyperinflation regime is to be reached.
In his pioneering work, Cagan [@cagan56] proposed a model of inflation based on the mechanism of “adaptive inflationary expectation” of positive feedback between realized growth of the market price $P(t)$ and the growth of people’s averaged expectation price $P^*(t)$. These two prices are thought to evolve due to a positive feedback mechanism: an upward change of market price $P(t)$ in a unit time $\Delta t$ induces a rise in the people’s expectation price $P^*(t)$, and such an anticipation pulls up the market price.
Cagan’s assumption that the growth rate of $P^*(t)$ is proportional to the past realized growth rate of the market price $P(t)$ is expressed by the following equation $$\frac{P(t+\Delta t)}{P(t)} = \frac{P^*(t)}{P(t)}
= \frac{P^*(t)}{P^*(t-\Delta t)} \:, \label{cag1}$$ $$\frac{P^*(t+\Delta t)}{P^*(t)} = \frac{P(t)}{P(t-\Delta t)} \:.
\label{cag2}$$ Now, one may introduce $$r^*(t) \equiv C^*(t)\,\Delta t = \ln \left[ \frac{P^*(t+\Delta t)}
{P^*(t)} \right] \:. \label{rate2}$$ So, expressions (\[cag1\]) and (\[cag2\]) are equivalent to $$r(t) = r^*(t-\Delta t) \:, \label{rate3}$$ $$r^*(t) = r(t-\Delta t) \:, \label{rate4}$$ whose solution is $r(t+\Delta t)=r(t-\Delta t)$ which indicates a constant finite growth rate equal to its initial value $r(t)=r(t_0)
=r_0$. Since the market price is given by $$P(t) = P(t_0)\,\exp{\left[\frac{1}{\Delta t}\int^t_{t_0} r(t') dt'
\right]} \;, \label{pt}$$ Eqs. (\[rate3\]) and (\[rate4\]) lead to a steady state exponential inflation $$P(t) = P_0\,\exp{\left[\frac{r_0}{\Delta t}\,(t-t_0) \right]}
\;, \label{pt0}$$ where $P(t_0)=P_0$. This form can be reduced to a linear form in $t$ $$\ln P(t) = \ln P_0 + C_0\,(t-t_0) \;,
\label{lpt0}$$ where $$C_0 = \frac{r_0}{\Delta t} \;, \label{C0}$$ is the initial growth in prices.
Double-exponential growth {#sec:double}
-------------------------
Mizuno [*et al.*]{} [@mizuno02] have analyzed the hyperinflation of Germany ($1920-3$), Hungary ($1945-6$), Brazil ($1969-94$), Israel ($1969-85$), Nicaragua ($1969-91$), Peru ($1969-90$) and Bolivia ($1969-85$), and showed that the price indexes or currency exchange rates of these countries grew super-exponentially according to a double-exponential function $e^{b_1e^{b_2t}}$ of time (with $b_1, b_2>0$). These authors generalized Eq. (\[rate2\]) writing $$\frac{P^*(t+\Delta t)}{P^*(t)} = \left(\frac{P(t)}{P(t-\Delta t)}
\right)^b = \left[1 + i(t)\right]^b\:, \label{cag21}$$ which can be expressed as $$r^*(t) = b\,r(t-\Delta t) \:. \label{rate41}$$ Cagan’s original model is recovered for the special case $b=1$. An exponent $b$ larger than $1$ avoids systematic errors of other models capturing the fact that the adjustment of the expected price $P^*(t)$ is weak for small changes of the realized market prices and becomes very strong for large deviations.
The system of Eqs. (\[rate3\]) and (\[rate41\]) gives $$r(t+\Delta t)=b\,r(t-\Delta t) \:. \label{miz0}$$ In the continuous limit it becomes $$\frac{dr}{dt} = b_2\,r(t) \;, \label{miz1}$$ with $b_2=(b-1)/(2\,\Delta t) > 0$. The solution is $$r(t) = r_0 e^{b_2\,(t-t_0)} \;. \label{drate}$$ Upon introducing this result into Eq. (\[pt\]) one gets the double exponential form for the market price $$P(t) = P_0\,\exp{\left\{\frac{C_0}{b_2}
\left[e^{b_2\,(t-t_0)}-1 \right]\right\}} \;. \label{d-exp}$$ A straightforward calculation shows that in the limit $b_2 \to 0$ the simple exponential of Eq. (\[pt0\]) is recovered. For $b_2(t-t_0)
>> 1$ one gets the expression of Ref. [@mizuno02] $$P(t) \propto e^{b_1\,e^{b_2\,(t-t_0)}} \:, \label{d-exp2}$$ with $b_1=C_0/b_2$.
Finite-time singularity {#sec:finite}
-----------------------
A further generalization of the Cagan’s model has been reported by Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03]. These authors proposed a different version of the nonlinear feedback process. They kept expression (\[cag1\]) or equivalently Eq. (\[rate3\]) and replaced Eq. (\[cag21\]) or equivalently expression (\[rate41\]) by $$r^*(t) = r(t-\Delta t) + a\,[r(t-\Delta t)]^\gamma \:,~~~~~~with
~~\gamma > 1 \;. \label{rate42}$$ Note that this formulation (\[rate42\]) retrieves both previous proposals: the Cagan’s formulation (\[rate4\]) is get for $a=0$ and the Mizuno [*et al.*]{}’s form (\[rate41\]) is obtained for $\gamma=1$.
The authors of Ref. [@sornette03] claim that their formulation better captures the intrinsically nonlinear process of the formation of expectations. Indeed, if $r(t-\Delta t)$ is small (explicitly, if is is smaller $1/a^{1/\gamma}$), the second nonlinear term $a\,[r(t-
\Delta t)]^\gamma$ in the right-hand-side of (\[rate42\]) is negligible compared with the first Cagan’s term $r(t-\Delta t)$ and one recovers the exponentially growing inflation regime of normal times. However, when the realized growth rate becomes significant, people’s expectations start to amplify these realized growth rates, leading to a super-exponential growth. Geometrically, the difference between the formulation of Eq. $(\ref{rate42})$ and that of Eq.$(\ref{rate41})$ consists in replacing a straight of slope $b$ larger than $1$ by a upwards convex function with slope at the origin and whose local slope increases monotonically with the argument.
This theory provides the first practical approach for predicting its future path until its end. In practice, the end of an hyperinflation regime is expected to occur somewhat earlier than at the asymptotic critical time $t_c$, because governments and central banks are forced to do something before the infinity is reached in finite time. Such actions are the equivalent of finite-size and boundary condition effects in physical systems undergoing similar finite-time singularities. Hyperinflation regimes are of special interest as they emphasize in an almost pure way the impact of collective behavior of people interacting through their expectations.
### Determination of the critical time {#sec:forms}
Putting Eq. (\[rate3\]) together with expression (\[rate42\]) leads to $$r(t+\Delta t) = r(t-\Delta t) + a\,[r(t-\Delta t)]^\gamma \;.
\label{rate43}$$ Taking the continuous limit, expression (\[rate43\]) becomes $$\frac{dr}{dt} = a_1\,[r(t)]^\gamma \;, \label{rate44}$$ where $a_1$ is a positive coefficient with dimensions of the inverse of time. In this case the growth rate accelerates with time according to $[r(t)]^{\gamma-1}$. As a consequence of this power law acceleration the solution of Eq. (\[rate44\]) exhibits singularities in finite-time [@bender78] $$r(t) = r_0\,\left(\frac{t_c-t_0}{t_c-t}\right)^{1/(\gamma-1)} \;.
\label{rate45}$$ The critical time is determined by the initial condition $r_0$, the exponent $\gamma$, and the coefficient $a_1$ $$t_c = t_0 + \frac{1}{a_1\,(\gamma-1)\,[r_0]^{(\gamma-1)}}
\;. \label{c_time}$$ We must notice that in Ref. [@sornette03] there are misprints: i) the coefficient $a_1$ should be dropped from Eq. (14) and ii) the expression for $t_c$ given just below that equation is incorrect. See, for instance, Eq. (17) in Ref. [@ike02].
A power law singularity is essentially indistinguishable from an exponential of an exponential of time, except when the distance $t_c-t$ from the finite time singularity becomes comparable with the time step $\Delta t$. The main difference between the formulations proposed by Mizuno [*et al.*]{} [@mizuno02] and Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03] is that the latter one contains an information on the end of the growth phase, embodied in the existence of the critical $t_c$.
In this case, Eq. (\[pt\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\ln \left[\frac{P(t)}{P_0}\right]&=&\frac{1}{\Delta t}\,\int^t_{t_0}
r(t') dt' \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{r_0}{\alpha}\,\left(\frac{t_c-t_0}{\Delta t}\right)\,
\left[\left(\frac{t_c-t}{t_c-t_0}\right)^{-\alpha} - 1\,\right]
\nonumber\\
&=& C_0\,\left(\frac{t_c-t_0}{\alpha}\right)\,
\left[\left(\frac{t_c-t}{t_c-t_0}\right)^{-\alpha} - 1 \,\right] \;,
\nonumber\\ \label{lpt}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\alpha = \frac{2-\gamma}{\gamma-1} \;. \label{alfa}$$ For $t-t_0=\Delta t << t_c-t_0$ one obtains $\ln [P(t_0+\Delta t)/P_0]
=C_0\,\Delta t=r_0$ recovering the definition of Eq. (\[rate1\]).
The time dependence of the market price $P(t)$ exhibits the two different regimes depending on the sign of $\alpha$:
\(i) For $1<\gamma<2$ one gets $\alpha > 0$ yielding a finite-time singularity in the market price itself $$\begin{aligned}
\ln \left[\frac{P(t)}{P_0}\right] = \frac{C_0\,(t_c-t_0)}{\alpha}\,
\left[\left(\frac{t_c-t_0}{t_c-t}\right)^{\alpha} - 1 \,\right]
\;. \label{price1}\end{aligned}$$ In this regime the price exhibits a finite-time singularity at the same critical value $t_c$ as the growth rate. Hence, this solution corresponds to a genuine divergence of $\ln{P(t)}$.
\(ii) For $\gamma>2$ one gets $\alpha < 0$ yielding a finite-time singularity in $r(t)$ but the market price evolve as $$\begin{aligned}
\ln \left[\frac{P(t)}{P_0}\right] &=& \frac{C_0\,(t_c-t_0)}{\alpha}\,
\left[\left(\frac{t_c-t}{t_c-t_0}\right)^{-\alpha} - 1\,\right]
\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{C_0\,(t_c-t_0)}{\alpha'}\,\left[\,1 -
\left(\frac{t_c-t}{t_c-t_0}\right)^{\alpha'}\,\right]
\;, \label{price2}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\alpha' = -\alpha = \frac{\gamma-2}{\gamma-1} \;. \label{alfap}$$ Here it holds $0<\alpha'<1$. As time approaches the critical value $t_c$ the price converges to the value $C_0(t_c-t_0)/\alpha'$ leading to equilibrium, this limit is reached more rapidly when $\alpha' \to
1$.
Let us now discuss the structure of Eq. (\[price1\]) written in the form $$p(t) = p_0 + \frac{C_0\,(t_c-t_0)}{\alpha}\,
\left[\left(\frac{t_c-t_0}{t_c-t}\right)^{\alpha} - 1 \,\right]
\;. \label{price11}$$ By fitting the measured price index to this expression one can determine the critical time $t_c$ together with the parameters $\alpha$ and $C_0$. However, since at $t=t_0$ the square bracket vanishes, by using explicitly the assumed (measured) $P_0$, i.e. setting $p_0=\ln P_0$, one would perform a fit with a fixed point at the beginning of the hyperinflation episode which may bias the fitting procedure for $t_c$. Therefore, it is convenient to consider $p_0$ as an additional free parameter. On the oder hand, Eq. (\[price11\]) leads to Eq. (15) of Ref. [@sornette03] $$\begin{aligned}
p(t) &=& p_0 - \frac{C_0\,(t_c-t_0)}{\alpha}
+ \frac{C_0\,(t_c-t_0)^{1+\alpha}}{\alpha\,(t_c-t)^\alpha}
\nonumber\\
&=& A + B(t_c-t)^{-\alpha} \;, \label{price12}\end{aligned}$$ where $$A = p_0 - \frac{C_0\,(t_c-t_0)}{\alpha} \;, \label{Asor}$$ and $$B = \frac{C_0\,(t_c-t_0)^{1+\alpha}}{\alpha} \;. \label{Bsor}$$
Notice that in the formulation proposed in the present work, see Eq.(\[price11\]), all the free parameters have their own physical meaning: $p_0$ is the logarithm of $P_0$; $C_0$ is the initial growth in price; $\alpha$ is fixed by the exponent $\gamma$ of the power law; and $t_c$ is the end-point time of hyperinflation. While in the case of Eq. (15) of Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03] the coefficients $A$ and $B$ are combinations of that parameters. This fact becomes important for an error analysis.
To compare episodes of hyperinflation it is useful to determine the time interval, $\tau_2(t)$, needed for doubling the price index close to the singularity. Starting from Eq. (\[rate45\]) or Eq.(\[price1\]) one can demonstrate that such a quantity is given by $$\tau_2(t) = \frac{\ln 2}{C_0}\,
\left(\frac{t_c-t}{t_c-t_0}\right)^{1+\alpha}
= \frac{\ln 2}{\alpha\,B}\,(t_c-t)^{1+\alpha} \;. \label{tau2}$$
### Estimation of uncertainties {#sec:uncertainty}
Before analyzing hyperinflation episodes, we shall focus attention on an important issue. Indeed, the determination of the fitting parameters cannot be considered as unambiguous. Therefore, besides giving the critical time $t_c$ and other parameters, it is also of interest to provide an estimation of its uncertainties. Hence, in the present work we analyzed the variation of the free parameters when one takes into account an uncertainty in the measured rate of inflation $i(t)$. The tabulated price index at a given time $t_n =
t_0+n\Delta t$ is evaluated according to a formula derived from Eq.(\[infla\]) $$P(t=t_n) = \prod^n_{k=0} [1+i(t_k=k\Delta t)] \;, \label{Pmea}$$ where $P_0=1+i(t_0)$ is usually fixed at unity, i.e., $i(t_0)$ is set zero. By assuming that each measured $i(t_k)$ has an uncertainty $\Delta i(t_k)$ it is possible to assign an uncertainty to $P(t)$. However, instead of evaluating $\Delta P(t)$, we preferred to estimate directly the error of the fitting parameters.
For this purpose, we assumed that each value of the inflation rate can be represented by a gaussian distribution with mean value $\bar{\imath}_k=i(t_k)$ and a standard deviation $\sigma_k =
\Delta i(t_k)$. These distributions were sampled by using Monte Carlo techniques in order to get for each $i(t_k)$ a random series of values $i_j(t_k)$ with $j=1 \to m$. The size $m$ of these series was taken large enough to satisfy to a good approximation $$\bar{\imath}_k = \frac{1}{m} \sum^m_{j=1} i_j(t_k) = i(t_k)
\;, \label{x-mean}$$ and $$\bar{\sigma}_k = \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \sum^m_{j=1}
[i_j(t_k)-\bar{x}_k]^2} = \Delta i(t_k) \;. \label{s-var}$$ In this way $m$ generations of inflation rates were built, each one is labeled by $j$ and composed of the obtained values $i_j(t_k)$ for all $k$. Then each generation $j$ was fitted to Eq. (\[price11\]) providing sets of fitting parameters $t_c(j)$, $\alpha(j)$, $C_0(j)$, and $p_0(j)$. In order to speedup the procedure programs like those included in Ref. [@bevington] may be used. Finally, for each parameter the average value and variance were evaluated by using expressions like that of Eqs. (\[x-mean\]) and (\[s-var\]). These averages $\bar{t}_c$, $\bar\alpha$, $\bar{C}_0$, and $\bar{p}_0$ were compared with the values $t_c$, $\alpha$, $C_0$, and $p_0$ yielded by a direct fit of the tabulated $P(t)$, and the corresponding differences were evaluated. When all the ratios of these differences over the corresponding standard deviations were smaller that $0.1$ the obtained results have been accepted.
To perform this kind of error analysis in the case of a fit to Eq.(15) of Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03] would not be appropriate because both coefficients $A$ and $B$ depend explicitly on the remaining parameters $t_c$ and $\alpha$ and therefore their errors would be strongly correlated.
---------------- ----------- ----------------- ------------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------- ---------------
Country Currency Period $\chi$ Ref.
$t_c$ $\alpha$ $C_0$ $p_0$
Peru[^1] Inti 1969-1990 $1991.29\pm0.37$ $0.29\pm0.13$ $0.18\pm0.02$ $-0.38\pm0.07$ 0.322 PW
1991.29 0.3 0.291 [@sornette03]
Zimbabwe[^2] ZW-Dollar 1980-2007 $2009.50\pm0.76$ $0.79\pm0.21$ $0.08\pm0.01$ $0.10\pm0.06$ 0.234 PW
Germany[^3] Mark 1920:01-1921:05 $-0.008\pm0.004$ $0.64\pm0.11$ 0.076 PW
1921:05-1923:11 1924:01:05$\pm$11 $0.56\pm0.12$ $0.103\pm0.012$ $0.57\pm0.09$ 0.580 PW
1920:01-1923:11 1923:12:18 0.6 0.490 [@sornette03]
Greece$^b$ Drachma 1941:04-1942:10 $0.263\pm0.015$ $0.14\pm0.09$ 0.124 PW
1943:02-1944:10 1944:12:02$\pm$13 $0.17\pm0.14$ $0.210\pm0.022$ $3.91\pm0.09$ 0.230 PW
Yugoslavia[^4] Dinar 1990:12-1994:01 1994:03:10$\pm$4 $0.53\pm0.05$ $0.335\pm0.018$ $-1.52\pm0.14$ 0.930 PW
---------------- ----------- ----------------- ------------------- --------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------- ---------------
------------ ------------ -------- ----------- --------------- ---------------
Country Ref.
$\Delta t$ $A$ $B$ $\gamma$
Peru year -14.16 34. $1.78\pm0.08$ PW
-14.17 34. 1.8 [@sornette03]
Zimbabwe year $1.56\pm0.07$ PW
Germany month -5.22 274.[^5] $1.64\pm0.05$ PW
-5.09 272.$^a$ 1.6 [@sornette03]
Hungary -1.02 2370.$^a$ 1.5 [@sornette03]
Greece month -21.62 78.$^a$ $1.85\pm0.10$ PW
Yugoslavia month -25.69 1030.$^a$ $1.65\pm0.02$ PW
------------ ------------ -------- ----------- --------------- ---------------
: \[tab:table2\] Parameters $A$ and $B$ and exponent $\gamma$ of the power law given by Eq. (\[rate44\]) together with its uncertainty.
![\[fig:Peru\] Semi-logarithmic plot of the yearly price index of Peru from 1969 to 1990 marked with open diamonds \[$P(t_0=1969)=1$\] and its fit to Eq. (\[price11\]). The vertical solid line indicates the predicted critical time $t_c$ and vertical dashed lines are error quotes for it, see text for explanations.](fig_Pe_25e.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
Analysis and numerical results {#sec:results}
==============================
In a first step, before beginning the analysis of the episodes announced in Sec. \[sec:introduction\], we shall describe the application of our procedure to cases already treated by Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03]. In particular, we shall report the studies of the hyperinflation cycles of Peru and Weimar Germany. The first case is a process developed over two decades, while the latter one was build-up over a couple of years only. In this way the selected checking examples cover the evolution characterizing the cases to be analyzed for the first time within the framework outlined above.
Next, we shall analyze the very extreme cases of Greece and Yugoslavia. Furthermore, we shall deal with the hyperinflation exhibited nowadays by the economic system in Zimbabwe. This case is very encouraging because the spiral of increasing prices is not finished yet. Hence, an [*a priori*]{} prediction for the critical time can be made.
At the end of the section we shall compare the most severe hyper-inflations.
Checking cases {#sec:checking}
--------------
Figure \[fig:Peru\] shows the price index of Peru during the period 1969-90. The parameters obtained from a mean-square fit of these data to Eq. (\[price11\]) together with the root-mean-square residue of the fit, $\chi$, are quoted in Table \[tab:table1\]. In order to facilitate a quantitative comparison with the analysis of Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03] their values of $t_c$ and $\alpha$ are included in Table \[tab:table1\], while that of $A$ and $B$ are quoted in Table \[tab:table2\] together with our evaluations by means of Eqs. (\[Asor\]) and (\[Bsor\]). A glance at these tables indicates a perfect agreement between both fits. The quality of the fit can be observed in Fig. \[fig:Peru\], this figure is to be compared with Fig. 2 of Ref. [@sornette03].
![\[fig:distr\] Distribution of the values of $t_c$ determined from solutions of Eq. (\[price11\]) for the set of price index obtained when the error assigned to measured inflation rate $i(t)$ is $25\%$. The solid curve is the gaussian distribution.](fig_Pe_tc_dist25e.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
![\[fig:error\] Standard deviation (s.d.) for free parameters obtained from solutions of Eq. (\[price11\]) as a function of the error assigned to measured inflation rate $i(t)$ expressed in percent. The solid and dashed curves are the s.d. for $t_c-t_0$ and $\gamma$, respectively, also expressed in percent.](fig_Per_erre.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
For the analysis of the uncertainties we assumed that all $i(t)$ have the same relative error $\Delta i(t) [\%]$. The relative errors of the parameters were determined as a function of $\Delta i(t)$ according the procedure outlined in Sec. \[sec:uncertainty\]. The requirements of Eqs. (\[x-mean\]) and (\[s-var\]) are reached satisfactorily well for $m > 2000$. The distribution of results for $t_c$ obtained by solving Eq. (\[price11\]) for each generation of $P(t)$ built up from Monte Carlo samplings at $\Delta i(t)=25\%$ is displayed in Fig. \[fig:distr\] together with the corresponding gaussian distribution. This comparison shows a fair agreement. For bigger $\Delta i(t)$ the distribution becomes asymmetric exhibiting a repulsion towards larger $t_c$ and the standard deviation increases dramatically. This effect is shown in Fig. \[fig:error\], where the results for “the most important parameters”, i.e., the critical time $t_c-t_0$ and exponent $\gamma$ of the power law for the growth rate $r(t)$ $$\gamma = \frac{2+\alpha}{1+\alpha} \label{gama}$$ obtained for $3\% \lesssim \Delta i(t) \lesssim 35\%$ and $m =4000$ are plotted. These data indicate that the uncertainties of the parameters are to a good approximation linear functions up to $\Delta
i(t) \approx 30\%$, then increase dramatically. At $\Delta i(t)
\approx 35\%$ a distribution equivalent to that displayed in Fig.\[fig:distr\] differs from a gaussian. In this work we adopted $25\%$ as a reasonable relative error of the measured $i(t)$. The uncertainties of the fitting parameters quoted in Table \[tab:table1\] correspond to that quote. The uncertainty of $t_c$ is also displayed in Fig. \[fig:Peru\].
Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03] have analyzed the evolution of the exchange rate between the German Mark and the US dollar during the period 1920:01-1923:11 (from now on when dealing with monthly data the notation Year:Month:Day will be used). The fit of all that data to Eq. (\[price12\]) yielded the values quoted in the present Tables \[tab:table1\] and \[tab:table2\]. In order to compare these results with that provided by an alternative information, we analyzed the evolution of the price index taking the data from Table B3 of Ref. [@cagan56]. Figure \[fig:Germany\] shows the price index of Germany during the period 1920:01-1923:11, the open diamonds are values normalized to $P(t_0=1919:12:15)=1$. A comparison of this figure with Fig. 4 of Ref. [@sornette03] indicates that the cumulated price index over the considered period is similar to the total variation of the exchange rate. It is important to point out that data of the exchange rate were taken at the beginning of each month, while the values of the price index correspond to the middle of the month.
![\[fig:Germany\] Semi-logarithmic plot of the monthly price index of Germany from 1920:01 to 1923:11 marked with open diamonds. The straight line is a fit to Eq. (\[lpt1\]) for the period 1920:01 to 1921:05, while the solid curve is the fit to Eq.(\[price11\]) for the period 1921:05 to 1923:11. The vertical solid line indicates the predicted critical time $t_c$ and vertical dashed lines are its error quotes, see text for explanations.](fig_Ge_25e.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
A careful analysis of price index indicates that during the period 1920:01 to 1921:05 the cumulated inflation is approximately zero. This regime can be well described by the original theory of Cagan condensed in Eq. (\[lpt0\]), which can be cast into the form $$p(t) = p_0 + C_0\,(t-t_0) \;. \label{lpt1}$$ A fit to this equation yielded the values of $p_0$ and $C_0$ given in Table \[tab:table1\], where the uncertainties corresponding to an error of $25\%$ in the measured $i(t)$ are also quoted. The quality of the fit may be observed in Fig. \[fig:Germany\]. The slightly negative slope $C_0$ is due to the fact that in this period several months exhibit deflation. Consequently, in order to study the hyperinflation episode we fitted to Eq. (\[price11\]) data of the period 1921:05 to 1923:11 only. This procedure yielded the values of the free parameters and the $\chi$ listed in Table \[tab:table1\]. The quality of the fit may be observed in Fig. \[fig:Germany\] and it is similar to that obtained in Ref. [@sornette03] as indicated by the values of $\chi$. The evaluated results of $A$ and $B$ are included in Table \[tab:table2\] (for the evaluation of these quantities the time is taken in days). The agreement between the values for $\alpha$, $A$, and $B$ obtained in the present work and that of Ref. [@sornette03] is quite good. In the case of the critical time there is a delay of about 15 days mainly caused by the shift of the date attributed to measurements.
An error analysis similar to that described in the case of Peru indicates that the uncertainties of the fitting parameters are linear functions beyond $\Delta i(t)=35\%$. This is due to the fact that the price index at the end of the period of measurement rose a bigger value in the case of Germany ($P(t_{max}) \approx 5 \times 10^{10}$) than of Peru ($P(t_{max}) \approx 3 \times 10^{7}$) and, therefore, the finite-time singularity is better defined in the former case. The photos of banknotes of hyperinflation episodes may be found in the paper money gallery at the web site [@chao].
For the hyperinflation regimes analyzed in the remaining part of this section the error of the free parameters are determined assuming $\Delta i(t)=25\%$. This uncertainty is large enough to provide a “reasonable” error quotes.
The Greek catastrophic episode {#sec:Greece}
------------------------------
Let us begin the description of the Greek hyperinflation by citing a fragment of the talk addressed by Nicholas C. Garganas, Governor of the Bank of Greece [@Garganas]. He said: “In April 1941, the Axis Powers occupied Greece. For several years, London became the seat of both the exiled Greek government and the Bank of Greece, with the Bank’s gold secretly transferred to South Africa. Within occupied Greece , the economic situation became increasingly grim and hundreds of thousands of Greeks died of hunger. The Axis powers forced the country to pay not only for the upkeep of the occupying troops, but also for their military operations in Southeastern Europe. The puppet regime established by the occupiers forced the Bank of Greece to resort to the printing press. As a result, the country was beset with hyperinflation; between April 1941 and October 1944, the cost of living rose $2.3 \times 10^9$ times. In these difficult circumstances, the country’s economic system collapsed. To give another example of the magnitude of inflation during the occupation, let me mention that in November 1944, immediately after liberation, a so-called “new” drachma was introduced; it was set equal to $50 \times 10^9$ “old” drachmas!”
Figure \[fig:Greece\] shows in a semi-logarithmic plot the price index of Greece taken from Table B6 of Ref. [@cagan56]. The open diamonds are monthly data taken at the end of each month. The open circle is the value for 1944:11:10, i.e., it corresponds to the first 10 days of November. These data are normalized to $P(t_0=1941:04:30)
= 1$. In this drawing one can observe the value $2.3 \times 10^9$ mentioned in the previous paragraph. A simple inspection indicates two well differentiated regimes of inflation. This behavior can be understood in terms of different phases of the foreign occupation.
![\[fig:Greece\] Semi-logarithmic plot of the monthly price index of Greece from 1941:04 to 1944:10 marked with open diamonds. The open circle is the value of 1944:11. The straight line is a fit to Eq. (\[lpt1\]) for the period 1941:04 to 1942:10, while the solid curve is a fit to Eq. (\[price11\]) for the period 1943:02 to 1944:10. The vertical solid line is the predicted critical time $t_c$, while the vertical dashed lines indicate its error bars.](fig_Gr_25e.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
At the beginning conquered Greece was divided into three zones of control by the occupying powers, Germany, Italy and Bulgaria. The Germans limited themselves during the first period of the occupation to the strategically important areas as Athens, Central Macedonia, Western Crete, and the islands of the Northern Aegean, and their forces were limited. Bulgaria annexed Thrace and Eastern Macedonia, while Italy occupied the greater part of the country. Between the occupation zones no movements of goods and people was allowed. The naval blockade coupled with transfers of agricultural produce to Germany led to the gradual but firm establishment of a black market.
Over the period 1941:04 to 1942:10, a dynamics of high inflation can be observed. The cumulated inflation has been about $130\%$, hence, the level of a hyperinflation was still not reached. This regime can be well described by the original theory of Cagan given by Eq.(\[lpt1\]). A fit of the price index to that expression yielded the values of the parameters $p_0$ and $C_0$ quoted in Table \[tab:table1\]. The quality of the fit is quite good.
Until the summer of 1942 the resistance movement was in its infancy, however, at the end of that year became strong. The spectacular destruction of the Gorgopotamos bridge by a force of Greek guerrillas and British saboteurs on 25 November caused a reaction of the Italian authorities, in spite of it, the guerrillas were largely successful in this region, creating “liberated” areas in the mountainous interior including some towns.
This initial success of the guerrilla diminished the tension in the population causing a period of small deflation over four months. This fact can be clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:Greece\].
However, the pressure of foreign troops increased and in 1943 German elite troops were brought into the whole Greece. A heavy resistance led to German contra-attacks and reprisals. In September 1943 the Italians surrendered following the Allied invasion of Italy. Throughout late 1943 and the first half of 1944, the Germans, in cooperation with the Bulgarians and aided by Greek collaborators launched clearing operations against the Greek resistance.
During this period, the German forced the Greek treasury to pay huge amounts of “occupation expenses”. Since the government of Greece could not meet such an obligation from fiscal taxation (Olivera-Tanzi effect) new money was printed (seigniorage). The attempt to control prices failed and the fall off of production in devastated Greece’s economy led to the collapse of the normal markets and to an increase of the black market.
Due to the general scenario of the war, the Germans were forced to evacuate mainland Greece in October 1944. Their withdrew was finished on November 2 and the exiled government returned to Athens. However, already with the prospect of the liberation of Greece two resistance groups (left and right orientated organizations) began to fight for power. These tensions led almost immediately to a disastrous civil war.
The very difficult situation of the later years of the occupation caused the catastrophic hyperinflation [@cagan56; @freris86] displayed in Fig. \[fig:Greece\]. The inflation reached a peak in November 1944 after liberation. As mentioned in Sec.\[sec:introduction\], in the first ten days of November the inflation rose the incredible value $8.55 \times 10^7\,\%$ (see Cagan [@cagan56]). The monthly data from 1942:02 to 1944:10 were fitted to Eq. (\[price11\]). The results of the free parameters are listed in Table \[tab:table1\], the quoted uncertainties correspond to an error of $25\%$ in the measurements of inflation rates. The uncertainty in $t_c$ is also displayed in Fig. \[fig:Greece\].
By looking at Fig. \[fig:Greece\] one realizes that the solid curve calculated with Eq. (\[price11\]) reproduces very well the measured data. Moreover, according to the solid curve the measured value on November 10 would be reached on November 25. This anticipated “explosion” of the market price has been caused by the interplay of different strongly increasing “variables”, such as lack of goods and political uncertainty mentioned above. The obtained critical time predicts the definitive crash would be on 1944:12:02. The uncertainty estimated by assuming that the inflation is measured with an error of $25\%$ amounts about 13 days.
The stratification of wealth caused by hyperinflation and black markets during the occupation seriously hindered postwar economic development. The Greek government undertook several stabilization efforts spread over a couple of years before price level stability was achieved. These facts are described in the books written by Palairet [@palairet00] and Lykogiannis [@lykogiannis02]. The efforts to confront the hyperinflation consisted of a currency conversion (convertibility of the new drachma into British Military Authority Pounds), the creation of an independent supra-central bank limiting the government’s overdraft at the Bank of Greece, and a few fiscal reforms to increase taxes or reduce expenditures [@makinen84].
Yugoslavia - The worst episode in History {#sec:Yugoslavia}
-----------------------------------------
The residual Yugoslavia has experienced the highest recorded hyperinflation in History. This episode occurred during a period of two difficult circumstances like the transformation from a Centrally Planned to a rather Free Market economy and the disastrous civil war 1991-4.
Let us now present a summary of the main events of the Yugoslav civil war. A last effort to avoid Yugoslavia’s disintegration was made 3 June 1991 through a joint proposal by Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, offering to form a “community of Yugoslav Republics” with a centrally administered common market, foreign policy, and national defense. However, Serbia opposed the proposal and the former federal republic of Yugoslavia began the process of dissolution. On 25 of June 1991 Slovenia and Croatia both declared their independence from Yugoslavia. The national army of Yugoslavia, then made up of Serbs controlled by the government of Belgrade, stormed into Slovenia but failed to subdue the separatists there and withdrew after only ten days of fighting losing interest in a country with almost no Serbs. Instead, the attention was turned to Croatia, a Catholic country where Orthodox Serbs made up 12 percent of the population. The civil war started. In order to “protect” the Serbian minority the central forces aided by Serbian guerrillas invaded Croatia in July 1991. By the end of 1991, a U.S.-sponsored cease-fire agreement was brokered between the Serbs and Croats fighting in Croatia. Macedonia opted for independence on 20 November 1991. On 29 February 1992, the multi-ethnic republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina passed a referendum for independence, but not all Bosnian Serbs agreed. Under the guise of protecting the Serb minority in Bosnia, the government of Belgrade channeled arms and military support to them.
So, while the secession of Slovenia and Macedonia came relatively peacefully, in the case of Croatia and Bosnia there were devastating wars. In April 1992, the U.S. and European Community chose to recognize the independence of Bosnia, a mostly Muslim country where the Serb minority made up 32 percent of the population. On April 27, Serbia joined the republic of Montenegro in a smaller New Yugoslav Republic and responded to Bosnia’s declaration of independence by attacking their capital Sarajevo. Foreign governments responded with sanctions, an embargo was introduced by the United Nations embargo on 30 May 1992.
The disintegration of the former Yugoslavia led to decreased output and fiscal revenue, while transfers to the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as military expenditure added to the fiscal problems. Simultaneously, the economy was changing from Central Planning to Free Market. In order to finance the increasing deficit, caused among others by the Olivera-Tanzi effect, the government printed money. High inflation started to build up in 1991. The sources for the data of the complete cycle are documented in Petrović and Mladenović [@petrovic00]. Figure \[fig:Yugoslavia\] shows the time series of monthly price index in the period 1990:12 to 1994:01. The monthly inflation had already risen the category of hyperinflation at the beginning of 1992 and accelerated further despite the price freeze attempted in the end of 1993:08. The overall impact of hyperinflation on the price index reached about $10^{50}$ as it is also shown in Fig. 1 of [@nielsen04].
![\[fig:Yugoslavia\] Semi-logarithmic plot of the monthly price index of Yugoslavia from 1990:12 to 1994:01 marked with open diamonds. Data are normalized to $P(t_0$=1990:12)=1. The solid curve is the fit to Eq. (\[price11\]). The vertical lines indicate predicted critical time $t_c$ and its error bars.](fig_Yu_25e.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
As a consequence of the hyperinflation Yugoslavia went through several currency reforms simply removing zeros from the paper money. In spite of these reforms, along this period the highest denomination reached very large values. The largest nominal value ever officially printed in Yugoslavia, a banknote of 500,000,000,000 (500 billion) dinars was released at the end of 1993 (see photo in Ref.[@chao]). The overall impact of hyperinflation on currency at the final reform for stabilization performed at the end of 1994:01 was: 1 Novi Dinar $= 1.2 \times 10^{27}$ pre 1990 Dinar, equivalent to the cumulated price index until 1993:11 (see Fig. \[fig:Yugoslavia\]). Many Yugoslavian businesses refused to take the Yugoslavian currency at all and the German Deutsche Mark effectively became the currency of Yugoslavia. But government organizations, government employees and pensioners still got paid in Yugoslavian dinars so there was still an active exchange in dinars. However, farmers selling in the free markets refused to sell food for Yugoslavian dinars. So, many monetary transactions were actually taking place in German Marks rather than local currency. Therefore, the hyperinflation can be also measured in terms of the black market exchange rate for German Marks and Yugoslavian Dinars. As can be observed in Fig. 1 of Ref.[@nielsen04] the strengths of hyperinflation given by the price index and the exchange rate are quite similar (as in the case of Weimar Germany treated above).
The Yugoslav hyperinflation has been studied in a number of papers by using methods developed in the framework of economics. For instance, we can mention the papers of Petrović and Mladenović [@petrovic00] and Nielsen [@nielsen04]. These authors consider the price indexes for 1993:12 and 1994:01 to be unreliable and choose end their analyses end at the latest 1993:11. This is in line with standard studies of hyperinflation that mostly ignore the last few observations. Such a procedure is mainly due to the fact that these models do not contain structural information over the divergence at the end of a hyperinflation and big values of price index do not match into the systematics. However, in that studies the trend of the first logarithmic differences is analyzed. For instance, Nielsen [@nielsen04] on the basis of his Fig. 1 states that such differences exhibit an exponential growth indicating an accelerating inflation, but the last three differences are not included in that figure either.
In standard economic theory, at equilibrium, money determines price level and implies equilibrium in markets for other variables of the system. Usually inflation is associated with money supply growth. However, for instance, there are studies suggesting that the Yugoslavian hyperinflation (1991$-$4) was not generated by excess expansion of money stock but, instead, money was accommodating in this period [@joselius02].
![\[fig:Yug\_growth\] Growth rate of the monthly price index during the hyperinflation of Yugoslavia marked with open circles. The solid curve was evaluated by using Eq. (\[rate46\]) with the parameters listed in Table \[tab:table1\]. The vertical line indicates the critical time $t_c$.](fig_Yu_growe.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
In our study we included all the values of price index displayed in Fig. \[fig:Yugoslavia\]. A fit of these data to Eq.(\[price11\]) yielded the free parameters quoted in Table \[tab:table1\]. The value of $\chi$ indicates that the quality of the fit is good. The uncertainties in the parameters determined for $\Delta i(t)=25\%$ are smaller than that obtained previously for Germany and Greece. This is due to the fact that the measured price index reached very large values determining the position of the singularity much better than in the former cases.
In Fig. \[fig:Yug\_growth\] we plotted the growth rate $r(t)$ evaluated according to Eq. (\[rate1\]), i.e., by calculating the first differences of the natural logarithm of the price index. These data are reproduced very well by Eq. (\[rate45\]) cast into the form $$r(t)=C_0\,\Delta t\,\left(\frac{t_c-t_0}{t_c-t}\right)^{1 + \alpha}
\;, \label{rate46}$$ and computed with the parameters listed in Table \[tab:table1\]. A similar plot was also given by Nielsen [@nielsen04], however, he did not include the last three data.
We must emphasize that the present model is able to reproduce the whole series of measured data. The last observations match very well into the general trend towards the “explosion”. The obtained $t_c$ predicts a crash at the beginning of 1994:03. The hyperinflation was stopped with a successful complete currency reform at the end of 1994:01.
![\[fig:Zimbabwe\] Semi-logarithmic plot of the yearly price index of Zimbabwe from 1979 to 2007 marked with open diamonds. Data are normalized to $P(t_0=1979)=1$. The solid curve is the fit to Eq. (\[price11\]). The star is the predicted value for 2008. The vertical lines indicate the obtained critical time $t_c$ and its error quotes.](fig_Zim_25e.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
The current tragic case of Zimbabwe {#sec:Zimbabwe}
-----------------------------------
In 1963 Southern Rhodesia (also known as Rhodesia) chose to remain a colony when its two partners (Zambia and Malawi) voted for independence. The country achieved independence on 17 April 1980, under the name Zimbabwe. At that time the Zimbabwe dollar (ZW-Dollar, the official symbol is ZWD) was worth about $1.50$ US dollar. Since the beginning there was a persistent but moderate structural inflation. Figure \[fig:Zimbabwe\] shows the yearly price index taken from files of the Central Statistical Office (CSO) and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ).
By looking at Fig. \[fig:Zimbabwe\] one may realize that an important acceleration of the price index started with the beginning of the new century. This behavior appeared after the Zimbabwean government proceeded to finance: i) the expenditure to pay the war veterans gratitudes in 1997; ii) the intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s war in 1998; and iii) the expenses of a program of land reforms based on the redistribution of properties in 2000. The latter undertaking, in practice, led to a weakling of the agricultural industry and this in turn produced a fall of export revenues. The resulting deficit was covered by seigniorage. In this way Zimbabwe started to experience hyperinflation [@makochekanwa07].
Annual inflation reached about $600\%$ in 2003:12, then fell back to low triple digits in 2004 before rising again to $600\%$ at end of 2005. In 2006:02, the RBZ announced that the government had printed $2.1 \times 10^{13}$ ZW-Dollar in order to buy foreign currency to pay off IMF arrears. In 2006:04 the year-to-year inflation reached above 1,000[%]{}. In 2006:08, the Zimbabwean government issued new currency slashing three zeros, 1 new Dollar was exchanged for 1,000 old Dollars. The highest denomination was then 1000 new Dollars. The new money did not provide relief from record inflation. Surging to a new high above 2,000[%]{} in 2007:03 and in 2007:06 rose 7,251[%]{}. Price rises have sharply accelerated in recent months. The CSO stopped providing data on inflation in October saying that key goods are not available in stores. In other words, this is a recognition that the black market already dominates the domestic economy. The denomination of the largest currency notes is increasing steadily, in 2007:12 the RBZ unveiled new currency notes with denomination as high as 750,000 ZW-Dollars. In a memo sent at the end of December to financial institutions to help them close their 2007 books, the RBZ communicated that the estimated inflation over the past 12 months has totaled 24,059$\%$.
The Consumer Council of Zimbabwe and other observers questioned whether the figures provided officially reflected the true cost of living. They stated that real figure is almost certainly much larger. Recent estimates of Zimbabwean inflation by independent economists have tended to put it substantially higher ranging from 50,000$\%$ to 100,000$\%$. In any case, the Zimbabwe’s inflation is already the highest in the world and has reached that of Latin America’s in the 1980’s. For instance, compare with the data of Peru plotted in Fig.\[fig:Peru\].
The high inflation makes transacting in ZW-Dollars pointless. Indeed the RBZ has already confirmed that certain farmers will receive US-Dollar prices for their crops. The severely devalued currency is also causing many organizations to favor using the US-Dollar instead of ZW-Dollar. In actual fact, Zimbabwe is closely tracking Germany’s Weimar Republic in the early 1920’s. Indeed, there is a close parallel between the evolution of exchange rate of the ZW-Dollar in the period 2005-2007 and that of German Marks in 1921-1923. Nowadays, the official exchange rate is 30,739 new ZW-Dollars to a single US-Dollar. A total devaluation since 1980 amounts about $5 \times 10^7$ a value similar to the cumulated price index plotted in Fig.\[fig:Zimbabwe\]. Therefore, it is expected that some form of “US-dollarization” will establish itself in Zimbabwe in the near future. This behavior would be in line with previous experiences. It should be remained that during the hyperinflation many monetary transactions in Yugoslavia were actually taking place in German Marks rather than local currency.
A fit of the yearly price index to Eq. (\[price11\]) yielded the values of the free parameters and $\chi$ quoted in Table \[tab:table1\]. The good quality of the adjustment is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Zimbabwe\]. The predicted critical time $t_c=2009.5$ indicates that the finite-time singularity, in other words the economic explosion, will occur at mid-2009. By using the obtained parameters we calculated the price index for the end of 2008, the result $8.26 \times 10^{12}$ is marked by a star in Fig.\[fig:Zimbabwe\]. This value yields $5 \times 10^6\,$[%]{} for the year-to-year inflation. The uncertainties were estimated by assuming a quote of $25\%$ for the error of measured inflation. The obtained error bars for $t_c$ are also displayed in Fig. \[fig:Zimbabwe\].
Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation is spiraling to unknown places and could cause the country’s economy to completely collapse within two years. Due to continued runaway inflation, the RBZ released into circulation in 2008:01 three very high denomination bearer checks: 1 million ZWD, 5 million ZWD and 10 million ZWD (look at Ref. [@chao]), these banknotes will hold tender until July 2008. The latter is worth about $330$ USD at official exchange rate, but only $3$ USD in the black market. The Olivera-Tanzi effect is already present. Economic prospects are bleak, reports of extreme shortages of basic foodstuffs, fuel, and medical supplies abound. Moreover, such prospects also indicate that gross domestic product will continue to contract in 2008. Unemployment is around 80 percent and political unrest is growing (the next presidential elections are scheduled for 2008). In summary, this is the worst economic crisis since independence from Britain in 1980.
Therefore, in order to avoid a crash in the near future the government of Zimbabwe should introduce as soon as possible fundamental reforms in the economy.
![\[fig:tau2\] Time interval needed for doubling the price index in the most severe episodes of hyperinflation as a function of the time before the crash. The solid curve stands for Yugoslavia, the dashed curve for Hungary, the dot-dashed curve for Germany, and the dotted curve for Greece.](fig_tau2e.eps){width="8cm" height="7cm"}
Comparison of severe episodes of hyperinflation {#sec:Comparison}
-----------------------------------------------
In order to compare the most severe cases we evaluated the time $\tau_2(t)$ required to double the price index by using Eq.(\[tau2\]). In this category we included the episodes of Germany, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Hungary. In the latter case the values of $\alpha$ and $B$ determined by Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03] were used, these data are also quoted in Table \[tab:table2\]. The results for the last 180 days previous to the singularity are plotted in Fig. \[fig:tau2\]. This comparison indicates that at the end of the cycles Yugoslavia and Hungary suffered the worst effects.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
A study of a few important episodes of hyperinflation is reported. The applied formulation is basically that of Sornette [*et al.*]{} [@sornette03]. One difference is that in the present work the expression for cumulated price index is written in terms of free parameters of the model instead of introducing combinations of them like quantities $A$ and $B$ defined in Eqs. (\[Asor\]) and (\[Bsor\]). In this way the parameters preserve their own physical meaning. Moreover, the initial time $t_0$ is explicitly retained in the formulas to avoid any misunderstanding. Another difference is the implementation of a procedure for estimating uncertainties of the utilized free parameters. Since the coefficients $A$ and $B$ of Ref.[@sornette03] are combinations of basic parameters their uncertainties are correlated, the error analysis in such a case would be much more complicated.
In the present model the growth rate is accelerating such that the market price is growing as a power law towards a spontaneous singularity. This behavior is determined by “adaptive expectations” of the people. The effect of other quantities of standard economic theories does not contribute explicitly. It is worthwhile to notice that whole cycles are described by fixed values of the exponent $\gamma$, which preserve the model from possible underestimation of expectations.
On the other hand, it is well-known that nature does not have pure singularities in the mathematical sense of the term. Such critical points are always rounded off or smoothed out by the existence of friction and dissipation and by the finiteness of the system. This is a well-known feature of critical points [@cardy]. Finite-time singularities are similarly rounded-off by frictional effects given in the case of a hyperinflation by currency and economic reforms.
The data of Peru were analyzed to check our procedures. Therefore, the error analysis is reported in detail. The study of the hyperinflation of Germany indicates that when there are reliable data then the analyses of series of price index and exchange rate lead to very similar results. This behavior confirms that foreign exchange rate of hyperinflation is positively correlated with the country’s hyperinflation trend. However, once the episode is finished it is important to reestablish exchange flexibility to allow reactions to local conditions.
We showed that the very extreme cases of Greece and Yugoslavia can be well described by the present formalism. It should be emphasized that both these examples belong to the worst episodes in the hyperinflation category, where the people expectations were directly influenced by catastrophic situations described above. For completeness, we also report a comparison of the most severe cases by determining the time required to double the price index.
The last example is, hitherto, rather similar to the Latin America’s cases of the 80’s. However, according to our quantitative results the government of Zimbabwe should perform very deep changes in the economic system within one year in order to prevent very dreadful consequences for the society.
Let us finish emphasizing that these lessons should not be lost, but instead should be kept in mind to avoid the repetition of that unpleasing experiences. Moreover, one should always remain the statement of Keynes [@keynes30], namely that: “even the weakest government can enforce inflation when it can enforce nothing else”.
This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Culture and Education of Argentina through Grants CONICET PIP No. 5138/05, ANPCyT BID 1728/OC - PICT No. 31980, and UBACYT No. X298.
[99]{}
S. Moss de Oliveira, P.M.C. de Oliveira, and D. Stauffer, Evolution, Money, War and Computers, Teubner, Stuttgart-Leipzig, 1999. R.N. Mantegna and E. Stanley, An Introduction to Econophysics: Correlations and Complexity in Finance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1999. D. Sornette, Why Stock Markets Crash (Critical Events in Complex Financial Systems), Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2003. T. Mizuno, M. Takayasu, and H. Takayasu, The mechanism of double-exponential growth in hyperinflation, Physica A [**308**]{} (2002) 411-419. D. Sornette, H. Takayasu, and W.-X. Zhou, Finite-time singularity signature of hyperinflation, Physica A [**325**]{} (2003) 492-506. P. Cagan, The monetary dynamics of hyperinflation, in: M. Friedman(Ed.), Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956. J.H.G. Olivera, Money, Prices and Fiscal Lags: A Note on the Dynamics of Inflation, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review [**20**]{} (1967) 258-267. V. Tanzi, Inflation, Lags in Collection, and the Real Value of Tax Revenue, IMF Staff Papers, [**24**]{} (1977) 154-167; and Inflation, Real Tax Revenue, and the Case for Inflationary Finance: Theory with an Application to Argentina, IMF Staff Papers, [**25**]{} (1978) 417-451. A.J. Canavese and D. Heymann, Fiscal Lags and the High Inflation Trap, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, [**32**]{} (1992) 100-109. M. Palairet, The Four Ends of the Greek Hyperinflation of 1941-1946, Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2002. A. Lykogiannis, Britain and the Greek Economic Crisis, 1944-1947: From Liberation to the Truman Doctrine, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, 2002. Table of the International Monetary Fund, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2002/01/data/index.htm. T. Sargent, N. Williams, and T. Zha, The conquest of South American inflation, December 2006. P. Petrović and Z. Mladenović, Money demand and exchange rate determination under hyperinflation: Conceptual issues and evidence from Yugoslavia, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking [**32**]{} (2000) 785-806. B. Nielsen, Money demand in the Yugoslavian hyperinflation 1991-1994, working paper as e-print at the web site: http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/economics/papers/2004/w31/NielsenYugo.pdf . Central Statistical Office and Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. V.M. Eguíluz and M.G. Zimmermann, Transmission of Information and Herd Behavior: An Application to Financial Markets, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 5659-5662. A. Bhattacharjee, C.S. Ng, X. Wang, Finite-time vortex singularity and Kolmogorov spectrum in a symmetric three-dimensional model, Phys. Rev. E [**52**]{} (1995) 5110-5123. N.M. Zubarev, Formation of root singularities on the free surface of a conducting fluid in an electric field, Phys.Lett. A [**243**]{} (1998) 128-131. M.W. Choptuik, Universality and scaling in gravitational collapse of a massless scalar, Phys. Rev. Lett. (1999) 9-12; M.W. Choptuik, Critical behavior in gravitational collapse, Progr. Theoret. Phys. [**136**]{} (Suppl.) 353-365. X. Leoncini, L. Kuznetsov, G.M. Zaslavsky, Motion of three vortexes near collapse, Phys. Fluids [**12**]{} (2000) 1911-1927. H.K. MoCatt, Euler’s disk and its finite-time singularity, Nature [**404**]{} (2000) 833-834. M. Rascle C. Ziti, Finite-time blow-up in some models of chemotaxis, J. Math. Biol. [**33**]{} (1995) 388-414. A. Johansen and D. Sornette, Finite-time singularity in the dynamics of the world population, economic and financial indexes, Physica A [**294**]{} (2001) 465-502. C. Bender and S.A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Models for Scientists and Engineers, McGraw Hill, New York, 1978. K. Ike and D. Sornette, Oscillatory finite-time singularities in finance, population and rupture, Physica A [**325**]{} (2002) 63-106. P.R. Bevington, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw Hill, New York, 1969. T. Chao, Paper Money Gallery, at the web site: http://tomchao.com/hb.html. N.C. Garganas, Why is the role of the central bank important?, dissertation at the celebrations marking the 75th anniversary of the Bank of Greece (Athens, 3 November 2003) at the web site: http://www.bis.org/review/r031113d.pdf. A.F. Freris, The Greek Economy in the Twentieth Century, St. Martin’s Press, Croom Helm - London , 1986. G.E. Makinen, The Greek Stabilization of 1944-46. American Economic Review [**74**]{} (1984) 1067-74. K. Juselius and Z. Mladenović, High inflation, hyperinflation and explosive roots. The case of Yugoslavia. October 2, 2002. A. Makochekanwa, A Dynamic Enquiry into the Causes of Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, e-print at the web site: http://web.up.ac.za/UserFiles/WP\_2007\_10.pdf. J.L. Cardy (Ed.), Finite-size Scaling, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1988. J.M. Keynes, A Treatise on Money, vols. I-II, Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1930; and The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan and Co., London, 1936; both reprinted by D.E. Moggridge (ed.), in: [*The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes*]{}, Macmillan, London, 1973.
[^1]: Inflation data are taken from a Table published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [@imf].
[^2]: Inflation data are taken from Ref.[@zrb].
[^3]: Inflation data are taken from Ref. [@cagan56].
[^4]: Inflation data are taken from Ref.[@petrovic00].
[^5]: For the evaluation of this quantity time is taken in days.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this talk I will discuss non-leptonic $B$ decays, in particular how soft-collinear effective field theory (SCET) can be used to constrain the non-perturbative hadronic parameters required to describe the various observables.'
author:
- 'Christian W. Bauer'
title: Hadronic $B$ decays from SCET
---
Introduction
============
The standard model (SM) of particle physics has proven to hold up against any experimental tests it has been subjected to so far. The SM has several striking features for which no underlying principle has been experimentally confirmed to this date. First, the SM requires the scale of electro-weak symmetry breaking to be of order a few hundred GeV, which is many orders of magnitude below the only fundamental scale of nature we know of, the Planck scale. Second, to explain the masses and flavor violating transitions of fermions requires the fundamental Yukawa matrices to satisfy a very particular scaling, for which no satisfactory symmetry or other underlying principle has been found so far. While the scale of electro-weak symmetry breaking is known from the measured properties of gauge interactions, the scale of flavor violation could be completely unrelated to that scale. However, many models of new physics which address the electro-weak scale also give additional contributions to flavor physics. Thus, precise measurements of flavor and CP violating observables can severely constrain possible models of electro-weak symmetry breaking.
Since the standard model predicts the short distance couplings of quarks to one another, while experimental measurements are done with hadrons, one needs to understand long distance QCD effects on the measured quantities to extract the underlying physics. It is the purpose of this talk to discuss how this separation between long and short distance physics can be achieved using effective theories. The effective theory that is applicable to the non-leptonic $B$ decays to two light mesons, as we are concerned with here, is the soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) [@SCET].
Factorization in $B \to M_1 M_2$
================================
There has been tremendous progress over the last few years in understanding charmless two-body, non-leptonic $B$ decays in the heavy quark limit of QCD [@QCDF; @PQCD; @pipiChay; @bprs; @Bauer:2001cu; @pQCDKpi; @BW]. In this limit one can prove factorization theorems of the matrix elements describing the strong dynamics of the decay into simpler structures such as light cone distribution amplitudes of the mesons and matrix elements describing a heavy to light transition [@QCDF]. It is very important that these results are obtained from a systematic expansion in powers of $\lqcd/m_b$. The development of soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) [@SCET] allowed these decays to be treated in the framework of effective theories, clarifying the separation of scales in the problem, and allowing factorization to be generalized to all orders in $\alpha_s$.
Factorization for $B\to M_1 M_2$ decays involves three distinct distance scales $m_b^2 \gg E_M\Lambda \gg \Lambda^2$. For $B\to M_1 M_2$ decays, a factorization theorem was proposed by Beneke, Buchalla, Neubert and Sachrajda [@QCDF], often referred to as the QCDF result in the literature. Another proposal is a factorization formula which depends on transverse momenta, which is referred to as PQCD [@PQCD]. The factorization theorem derived using SCET [@bprs; @pipiChay] agrees with the structure of the QCDF proposal if perturbation theory is applied at the scales $m_b^2$ and $m_b\Lambda$. One of the differences is that QCDF treats $c\bar c$ penguins perturbatively, while in the SCET analysis they are left as a perturbative contribution plus an unfactorized large ${\cal O}(v)$ term. The SCET result improved the factorization formula by generalizing it to allow each of the scales $m_b^2$, $E_M\Lambda$, and $\Lambda^2_{\rm QCD}$ to be discussed independently.
The derivation of the SCET factorization theorem occurs in several steps, corresponding to integrating out the various scales in the problem. As already mentioned, the relevant scales are $\mu \sim m_b$, $\mu \sim \sqrt{m_b \lqcd}$ and $\mu \sim \lqcd$. One starts from the effective weak Hamiltonian, which describes the effects of the weak physics in terms of local 4-quark operators. Integrating out $\sim m_b$ fluctuations, the effective Hamiltonian at leading order in [@bps4] can be written schematically as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{match}
H_W \!\!&= &\!\! \frac{2G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_i \left[
c_i\otimes Q_{i}^{(0)}
+ b_i\otimes
Q_{i}^{(1)}
+ {\cal Q}_{c\bar c} \right] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_i$ and $b_i$ are Wilson coefficients, and the symbol $\otimes$ denotes convolutions over various momentum fractions.
![Example of long distance charming penguins. The $mv$ gluons are nonperturbative and LO soft gluons are exchanged by the $b$, $c$, $\bar
c$ and spectator quark which is not shown. []{data-label="fig:cpenguin"}](Cpenguin.eps){width="70mm"}
The term ${\cal Q}_{c\bar c}$ denotes operators appearing in long distance charm effects as in Fig. \[fig:cpenguin\]. There is broad agreement that charm loop contributions from hard ($\sim\! m_b$) momenta can be computed in perturbation theory and they are included in the $c_i$ and $b_i$ coefficients in Eq. (\[match\]). However, there are non-perturbative contributions from penguin charm quark loops (so-called charming penguins [@cpens]), which are contained in ${\cal Q}_{c\bar c}$. While no proof of factorization for the matrix element of this operator exists, it is still possible to determine its parametric dependence on $m_c/m_b$, $v$, and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b$ using operators in effective field theories. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Acc}
\frac{A_{c\bar c}^{\pi\pi}}{A^{\pi\pi}_{LO}} \sim
\alpha_s(2m_c) \: f\Big(\frac{2m_c}{m_b}\Big)\: v
\,,\end{aligned}$$ Thus, this contribution gives rise to a source of strong phases in the amplitudes, while all strong phases vanish for the other terms. For this reason, we will keep this term and treat its matrix element as an unknown complex parameter in the theory.
The collinear fields in the operators $O_i^{(0,1)}$ can be decoupled from the ultrasoft fields by making a simple field redefinition [@SCET]. The operators $O_i^{(0,1)}$ then factor into $(n,v)$ and ${{\bar n}}$ parts, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{split}
Q_{i}^{(0,1)} = \tilde Q_{i}^{(0,1)} Q_{i}^{{\bar n}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The first term contains both a soft $b$ quark field and a collinear field in the ${{\bar n}}$ direction, while the second term contains two collinear fields in the $n$ direction. The matrix element of the operators $O_i^{(0,1)}$ thus factor into a $B \to M$ transition matrix element, and a vacuum to light meson matrix element.
Putting all these results together, we obtain the SCET factorization formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A0newfact}
A \!\!&=&\!\!
\frac{G_F m_B^2}{\sqrt2}\! \bigg[ \bigg\{
f_{M_1}\! \int_0^1\!\!\!\!du\, dz\,
T_{1\!J}(u,z) \zeta^{BM_2}_{J}(z) \phi^{M_1}(u)
{\nonumber}\\
&&\hspace{0.0cm}
+ f_{M_1} \zeta^{BM_2}\!\! \int_0^1\!\!\!\! du\, T_{1\zeta}(u) \phi^{M_1}(u)
\bigg\} \!+\! \Big\{ 1\leftrightarrow 2\Big\} {\nonumber}\\
&& \hspace{0.0cm} + \lambda_c^{(f)} A_{c\bar c}^{M_1M_2} \bigg] , \end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta^{BM}$ and $\zeta^{BM}_J$ are non-perturbative parameters describing $B \to M$ transition matrix elements, and $A_{\rm c\bar c}^{M_1 M_2}$ parameterizes complex amplitudes from charm quark contractions for which factorization has not been proven. Power counting implies $\zeta^{BM}\sim
\zeta^{BM}_J\sim (\Lambda/Q)^{3/2}$. $T_{1\!J}(u,z)$ and $T_{1\zeta}(u)$ are perturbatively calculable in an expansion in $\alpha_s(m_b)$ and depend upon the process of interest.
At leading order in $\alpha_s(m_b)$ the short distance coefficients $T_{1\!J}(u,z)$ is independent of the parameter $z$, which implies that the functional form of the non-perturbative function $\zeta_J^{BM}(z)$ does not matter, since we can define a new hadronic parameter $\zeta_J^{BM} \equiv \int \!dz\, \zeta_J^{BM}(z)$.
Phenomenology
=============
Counting of hadronic parameters
-------------------------------
Without any theoretical input, there are 4 real hadronic parameters for each decay mode (one complex amplitude for each CKM structure) minus one overall strong phase. In addition, there are the weak CP violating phases that we want to determine. For $B \to \pi \pi$ decays there are a total of 11 hadronic parameters, while in $B \to K \pi$ decays there are 15 hadronic parameters.
Using isospin, the number of parameters is reduced. Isospin gives one amplitude relation for both the $\pi \pi$ and the $K \pi$ system, thus eliminating 4 hadronic parameters in each system (two complex amplitudes for each CKM structure). This leaves 7 hadronic parameters for $B \to \pi \pi$ and 11 for $B
\to K \pi$.
The SU(3) flavor symmetry relates not only the decays $B \to \pi \pi$ and $B \to
K \pi$, $B \to K K$, but also $B \to \pi \eta_8$, $B \to \eta_8 K$ and $B_s$ decays to two light mesons. The decomposition of the amplitudes in terms of SU(3) reduced matrix elements can be obtained from [@Zeppenfeld; @SavageWise; @GrinsteinLebed]. and 20 hadronic parameters are required to describe all these decays minus 1 overall phase (plus additional parameters for singlets and mixing to properly describe $\eta$ and $\eta'$). Of these hadronic parameters, only 15 are required to describe $B \to \pi \pi$ and $B \to K \pi$ decays (16 minus an overall phase). If we add $B \to K K $ decays then 4 more paramaters are needed (which are solely due to electroweak penguins).
------------------ ------- ------------------ ------------------ -------- --------------
no SCET SCET
\[-2pt\] expn. \[0pt\][SU(2)]{} \[0pt\][SU(3)]{} +SU(2) +SU(3)
$B \to \pi \pi$ 11 7/5 4
$B \to K \pi$ 15 11 \[0pt\][15/13]{} +5(6) \[0pt\][4]{}
$B \to K \bar K$ 11 11 +4/0 +3(4) +0
------------------ ------- ------------------ ------------------ -------- --------------
: Number of real hadronic parameters from different expansions in QCD. The first column shows the number of theory inputs with no approximations, while the next columns show the number of parameters using only SU(2), using only SU(3), using SU(2) and SCET, and using SU(3) with SCET. For the cases with two numbers, $\#/\#$, the second follows from the first after neglecting the small penguin coefficients, ie setting $C_{7,8}=0$. In SU(2) + SCET $B\to K\pi$ has 6 parameters, but 1 appears already in $B\to \pi\pi$, hence the $+5(6)$. The notation is analogous for the $+3(4)$ for $B\to K\bar K$. \[table\_parameters\]
The number of parameters that occur at leading order in different expansions of QCD are summarized in Table \[table\_parameters\], including the SCET expansion. The parameters with isospin+SCET are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{params}
\pi\pi: & & \{\zeta^{B\pi}\!+\! \zeta_J^{B\pi},\beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\pi},
P_{\pi\pi} \} \,, \\
K\pi: && \{\zeta^{B\pi}\!+\! \zeta_J^{B\pi},\beta_{\bar K} \zeta_J^{B\pi},
\zeta^{B\bar K}+\zeta_J^{B\bar K}, \beta_\pi \zeta_J^{B\bar K},
P_{K\pi} \} \,, {\nonumber}\\
K\bar K: && \{\zeta^{B\bar K}+ \zeta_J^{B\bar K},\beta_K \zeta_J^{B\bar K},
P_{K\bar K} \} \,. {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Here $P_{M_1 M_2}$ are complex penguin amplitudes and the remaining parameters are real.
Taking SCET + SU(3) we have the additional relations $\zeta^{B\pi} = \zeta^{B K}
= \zeta^{B\bar K}$, $\zeta_J^{B\pi} = \zeta_J^{B K} = \zeta_J^{B\bar K}$, $\beta_\pi=\beta_K=\beta_{\bar K}$, and $A_{cc}^{\pi\pi}= A_{cc}^{K\pi} =
A_{cc}^{K\bar K}$ which reduces the number of parameters considerably.
Implications of small phases
----------------------------
In SCET, the only source of strong phases are from the charm penguin amplitude parameter $A_{cc}$. Since by SU(2) flavor symmetry there is only a single such amplitude parameter for the decays $B \to K \pi$, all relative strong phases between $A_{cc}$ and any other term are the same, while relative strong phases between any other two amplitude parameters are identically zero. This result can be used to make several predictions in SCET, which are relatively independent of the actual size of the value of the amplitude parameters. An example are certain sum rules in the decays $B \to K \pi$, which are constructed out of the ratios of brancing ratios $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 &=& \frac{2 {\rm Br}(B^-\to \pi^0K^-)}
{{\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0)} -1
\,,\\
R_2 &=& \frac{ {\rm Br}(\bar B^0\to \pi^-K^+)\tau_{B^-}}
{{\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0)\tau_{B^0}} -1
\,,{\nonumber}\\
R_3 &=& \frac{2 {\rm Br}(\bar B^0\to \pi^0\bar K^0)\tau_{B^-}}
{{\rm Br}(B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0)\tau_{B^0}} -1
\,,{\nonumber}$$ and rescaled asymmetries $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_1 &=& (1+R_1) A_{\rm CP}(\pi^0 K^-)
\,,\\
\Delta_2 &=& (1+R_2)A_{\rm CP}(\pi^- K^+)
\,,{\nonumber}\\
\Delta_3 &=& (1+ R_3) A_{\rm CP}(\pi^0 \bar K^0)
\,,{\nonumber}\\
\Delta_4 &=& A_{\rm CP}(\pi^- \bar K^0) \,. {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ They can be combined into linear combinations, which satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
R_1-R_2+R_3 \sim {\cal O}(\epsilon^2)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_1 - \Delta_2 + \Delta_3 - \Delta_4 \sim \epsilon^2 \sin\gamma \sin(\Delta\phi)\end{aligned}$$ Here $\epsilon$ denotes a small parameter that is either proportional to $\lambda_u/\lambda_c$ or $C_{9,10}/C_4$. Thus, these combinations of parameters are expected to give contributions which are much smaller than each of the individual terms. Furthermore, the fact that the sum rule for the CP asymmetries is proportional to the differences of strong phases, reduces the predicted result in SCET even more.
Mode Exp. Theory I Theory II
----------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
$B^-\to \pi^-\eta$ $4.3\pm0.5 \;(S=1.3)$ $4.9\pm 1.7\pm 1.0\pm 0.5$ $5.0\pm 1.7\pm 1.2\pm 0.4$
$-0.11\pm0.08$ $0.05\pm 0.19\pm 0.21\pm 0.05$ $0.37\pm 0.19\pm 0.21\pm 0.05$
$B^-\to \pi^-\eta'$ $2.53\pm0.79 \;(S=1.5)$ $2.4\pm 1.2\pm 0.2\pm 0.4$ $2.8\pm 1.2\pm 0.3\pm 0.3$
$0.14\pm0.15$ $0.21\pm 0.12\pm 0.10\pm 0.14$ $0.02\pm 0.10\pm 0.04\pm 0.15$
$\bar B^0\to \pi^0\eta$ $<2.5$ $0.88\pm 0.54\pm 0.06\pm 0.42$ $0.68\pm 0.46\pm 0.03\pm 0.41$
$-$ $0.03\pm 0.10\pm 0.12\pm 0.05$ $-0.07\pm 0.16\pm 0.04\pm 0.90$
$\bar B^0\to \pi^0\eta'$ $<3.7$ $2.3\pm 0.8\pm 0.3\pm 2.7$ $1.3\pm 0.5\pm 0.1\pm 0.3$
$-$ $-0.24\pm 0.10\pm 0.19\pm 0.24$ $-$
$\bar B^0\to \eta\eta$ $<2.0$ $0.69\pm 0.38\pm 0.13\pm 0.58$ $1.0\pm 0.4\pm 0.3\pm 1.4$
$-$ $-0.09\pm 0.24\pm 0.21\pm 0.04$ $0.48\pm 0.22\pm 0.20\pm 0.13$
$\bar B^0\to \eta\eta'$ $<4.6$ $1.0\pm 0.5\pm 0.1\pm 1.5$ $2.2\pm 0.7\pm 0.6\pm 5.4$
$-$ $-$ $0.70\pm 0.13\pm 0.20\pm 0.04$
$\bar B^0\to \eta'\eta'$ $<10$ $0.57\pm 0.23\pm 0.03\pm 0.69$ $1.2\pm 0.4\pm 0.3\pm 3.7$
$-$ $-$ $0.60\pm 0.11\pm 0.22\pm 0.29$
$\bar B^0\to \bar K^0\eta'$ $63.2\pm4.9 \;(S=1.5)$ $63.2\pm 24.7\pm 4.2\pm 8.1$ $62.2\pm 23.7\pm 5.5\pm 7.2$
$0.07\pm0.10 \;(S=1.5)$ $0.011\pm 0.006\pm 0.012\pm 0.002$ $-0.027\pm 0.007\pm 0.008\pm 0.005$
$\bar B^0\to \bar K^0\eta$ $<1.9$ $2.4\pm 4.4\pm 0.2\pm 0.3$ $2.3\pm 4.4\pm 0.2\pm 0.5$
$-$ $0.21\pm 0.20\pm 0.04\pm 0.03$ $-0.18\pm 0.22\pm 0.06\pm 0.04$
$B^-\to K^-\eta'$ $69.4\pm2.7$ $69.5\pm 27.0\pm 4.3\pm 7.7$ $69.3\pm 26.0\pm 7.1\pm 6.3$
$0.031\pm0.021$ $-0.010\pm0.006\pm0.007\pm0.005$ $0.007\pm0.005\pm0.002\pm0.009$
$B^-\to K^-\eta$ $2.5\pm0.3$ $2.7\pm 4.8\pm 0.4\pm 0.3$ $2.3\pm 4.5\pm 0.4\pm 0.3$
$-0.33\pm0.17\;(S=1.4)$ $0.33\pm 0.30\pm 0.07\pm 0.03$ $-0.33\pm 0.39\pm 0.10\pm 0.04$
\[example\_table\_2col\]
![Comparison of theory and experiment for all available data in $B \to
\pi \pi$ and $B \to K \pi$ decays, with $\gamma=83^\circ$. The 8 pieces of data in red (below the dashed line) have been used to determine the SCET hadronic parameters $\zeta^{B\pi}$, $\zeta_J^{B\pi}$, $P_{\pi\pi}$ as described in the text. The data above the line are predictions. The CP asymmetry in $B^- \to K^0 \pi^-$ is expected to be small, but its numerical value is not predicted reliably. \[fig2\]](figresults83.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Experimentally, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
R_1-R_2+R_3 = (0.19 \pm 0.15)^{\rm expt}{\nonumber}\\
\Delta_1 - \Delta_2 + \Delta_3 - \Delta_4 = ( 0.14 \pm 0.15)^{\rm expt}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and these results are consistent with zero. The SCET predictions are considerably more precise than the current measurements, and using conservative ranges $\zeta^{B\pi}+\zeta^{B\pi}_J= 0.2\pm0.1$, $\beta_{\bar K}\zeta_J^{B\pi} = 0.10
\pm 0.05$, $\zeta^{B\bar K}+\zeta^{B\bar K}_J= 0.2\pm0.1$, $\beta_\pi
\zeta_J^{B\bar K} = 0.10 \pm 0.05$, $\gamma=70^\circ
\pm 15^\circ$,and all phase differences $\Delta \phi =
0^\circ \pm 30^\circ$ one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumerrors1}
R_1 - R_2 + R_3 = 0.028 \pm 0.021 \,,\end{aligned}$$ and for the CP-sum rule $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumerrors2}
\Delta_1 -\Delta_2 + \Delta_3 -\Delta_4 = 0 \pm 0.013 \,.\end{aligned}$$ Experimental deviations that are larger than these would be a signal for new physics.
General analysis for $B \to \pi \pi$, $B \to K \pi$ decays
----------------------------------------------------------
From Table \[table\_parameters\] and Eq. (\[params\]) we can see that a total of 12 hadronic parameters are required to describe the decays $B \to \pi \pi$, $B \to K \pi$ and $B \to K K $ at leading order in SCET. On top of that, there is one weak phase $\gamma$ which we will take as an unknown parameter. However, in both the decays $B \to K \pi$ and $B \to KK$, the coefficients multiplying the $B \to K$ transition matrix elements $\zeta^{BK}$ and $\zeta_J^{BK}$ are very small, which implies that the observables are insensitive to the numerical value of these hadronic matrix elements. This eliminates three of the hadronic parameters, namely $\zeta^{BK}+\zeta_J^{BK}$, $\beta_\pi \zeta_J^{BK}$ and $\beta_K \zeta_J^{BK}$. Finally, if we take the inverse moments of pion and kaon wave functions as experimental input, we obtain one additional relation between hadronic parameters. This leaves us with a total of 7 hadronic parameters as well as one weak phase. The 8 measurements used to fix these parameters are the branching ratios for $B$ decays to $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $\pi^+ \pi^0$, $\pi^0 \pi^0$, $K^0 K^0$, $K^0 \pi^-$, as well as the CP asymmetries $S(\pi^+ \pi^-)$, $C(\pi^+ \pi^-)$ and $A_{\rm CP}(K^- \pi^+)$.
Using the hadronic parameters extracted from the $B \to \pi \pi$ decays ($\zeta^{B\pi}$, $\zeta_J^{B\pi}$ and $P_{\pi\pi}$), the value for $P_{K \pi}$ determined from the decays $B^- \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ and $\bar B^0 \to \pi^- K^+$ decays and independently varying $\zeta^{BK}+\zeta^{BK}_J = 0.2\pm 0.1$ and $\beta_\pi \zeta^{BK}_J = 0.10\pm
0.05$, we can calculate all the remaining currently measured $K\pi$ observables. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. The data used in the fit are shown in red below the dashed dividing line while those above the line are predictions. Note that there is one more piece of data below the line than there are hadronic parameters. This additional experimental information was used to determine the value $\gamma = 83^\circ$.
We see that $\gamma=83^\circ$ gives a good match to the $B\to
\pi\pi$ data except for the asymmetry $C(\pi^0\pi^0)$. When taking into account the theoretical error the most striking disagreements are the ${\rm
Br}(K^-\pi^+)$ at $2.3\sigma$ and the CP-asymmetry $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^0)$ at $2.6\sigma$. All other predictions agree within the uncertainties. Note that one could demand that $A_{\rm CP}(K^-\pi^0)$ be reproduced, which would imply a negative value of $\zeta_J^{BK}$ (a naive fit for $\gamma = 83^\circ$ gives $\zeta_J^{BK}\sim -0.15$). Note however, that this would imply that both perturbation theory at the intermediate scale $\mu = \sqrt{E \Lambda}$ and SU(3) are badly broken.
Including isosinglet mesons
---------------------------
The above analysis has recently been repeated to include decays to iso-singlet final states [@ZW]. This requires adding additional contributions which arise from purely gluonic configurations. It turns out that the additional operators do not change the form of the factorization theorem given in Eq. (\[A0newfact\]), but the hadronic parameters $\zeta$, $\zeta_J$ and $A_{cc}$ receive order one contributions from these additional operators. To add isosinglet mesons to the phenomenological analysis thus requires a second set of parameters $\zeta_g$, $\zeta_{J,g}$ and $A_{cc,g}$, which have to be determined from data separately. Since experimentally there are not enough decays available, SU(3) flavor symmetry is required to retain predictive power. At the present time, there are two solutions possible for the gluonic hadronic parameters, and the degeneracy can only be lifted with further data. The results of the global fit, as taken from [@ZW], are shown in Table \[tab1\].
Conclusions
===========
In this talk I have discussed how one can separate the long distance non-perturbative physics from the underlying short distance physics using the soft-colinear effective theory. One finds that the number of hadronic parameters is significantly reduced, such that they can be extracted directly from a subset of the data, and then used to make predictions for the remaining data. I have given a brief discussion of the factorization theorem as it emerges from SCET, and then discussed three phenomenological applications. First, I gave a detailed counting of the hadronic parameters using various theoretical approaches, then I discussed a few impacts of the fact that there is only one source of strong phases in the decay amplitudes, and finally, I showed results for global analyses of $B$ decays to two pseudoscalar mesons, with and without including isosinglet mesons.
[99]{} C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 014006 (2001); C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 114020 (2001); C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B [**516**]{}, 134 (2001); Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 054022 (2002); C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 014017 (2002). M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1914 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905312\]; Nucl. Phys. B [**591**]{}, 313 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0006124\]; M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B [**606**]{}, 245 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0104110\]; M. Beneke and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**675**]{}, 333 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0308039\]. Y.Y. Keum et al, Phys. Lett. B [**504**]{}, 6 (2001); Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 054008 (2001); C. D. Lu et al., Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 074009 (2001). C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 054015 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0401188\]. J. g. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 071502 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0301055\]; Nucl. Phys. B [**680**]{}, 302 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0301262\]. C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 201806 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0107002\]. H. n. Li, S. Mishima and A. I. Sanda, arXiv:hep-ph/0508041. C. N. Burrell and A. R. Williamson, arXiv:hep-ph/0504024.
C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 071502 (2003).
M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Silvestrini,Nucl. Phys. B [**501**]{}, 271 (1997); M. Ciuchini et al., Phys. Lett. B [**515**]{}, 33 (2001). M. Ciuchini et al., arXiv:hep-ph/0208048. P. Colangelo, G. Nardulli, N. Paver and Riazuddin, Z. Phys. C [**45**]{}, 575 (1990). D. Zeppenfeld, Z. Phys. C [**8**]{}, 77 (1981). M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**39**]{}, 3346 (1989) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**40**]{}, 3127 (1989)\]. B. Grinstein and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 6344 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9602218\]. A. R. Williamson and J. Zupan, arXiv:hep-ph/0601214.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Babette Döbrich
- Joerg Jaeckel
- and Tommaso Spadaro
title: |
Light in the beam dump\
–\
[Axion-Like Particle production from decay photons in proton beam-dumps]{}
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
At present, the search for new particles is driven by a number of pertinent observations that cannot be explained within the Standard Model (SM). Perhaps most prominent amongst them is Dark Matter (DM), but baryogenesis as well as the strong CP problem also ask for a solution. At the same time, we are challenged by the (so-far) non-detection of new particles. This could be explained by the new particles being extremely weakly coupled. If this is the case they can escape constraints from searches with colliders. But their small coupling also makes such particles long-lived.
In particular, very weakly coupled particles with masses in the MeV–GeV range provide exciting phenomenology and interesting connections to Dark Matter (cf., e.g., [@Boehm:2003hm; @ArkaniHamed:2008qn; @Freytsis:2010ne; @Dienes:2013xya; @Berlin:2015wwa; @Alekhin:2015byh; @Dolan:2017osp; @Hochberg:2018rjs]) but also to baryogenesis [@Akhmedov:1998qx; @Asaka:2005pn; @Shaposhnikov:2008pf] and perhaps even to the strong CP problem [@Alves:2017avw; @Berezhiani:2000gh; @Agrawal:2017cmd]. Consequently, Heavy Neutral Leptons, Dark Photons and pseudo-scalars of such masses have received increasing attention over the past years (cf., e.g., [@Beacham:2019nyx] for a recent overview). The latter – pseudo-scalars – also known as ‘Axion-like particles’ (ALPs) – are the subject of the present document.
ALPs have recently received a considerable amount of interest in the context of Dark Matter model-building. They may act as a mediator for the interactions between DM and SM particles and thereby allow reproducing the correct Dark Matter relic abundance via thermal freeze-out. At the same time this helps evading the strong constraints from direct and indirect detection experiments [@Freytsis:2010ne; @Dienes:2013xya; @Berlin:2015wwa; @Dolan:2017osp]. ALPs detectable with masses in the MeV-GeV range have also recently been discussed in the context of inflation [@Takahashi:2019qmh]. Other motivations for ALPs with masses above ${\mathcal{O}}(1)\,{\rm MeV}$ include their potential connection to explaining the observed value of the magnetic moment of the muon [@Marciano:2016yhf]. Also, via the so-called ‘relaxion’ mechanism, ALPs may play a crucial role in electroweak symmetry breaking [@Graham:2015cka] and in the solution of the hierarchy problem. A concrete implementation [@Flacke:2016szy] of such a relaxion may yield signatures that are observable with the methods described in this paper. Moreover, it is worth reiterating that recently models have been proposed that allow the QCD axion to live at the MeV-GeV scale [@Alves:2017avw; @Berezhiani:2000gh; @Agrawal:2017cmd]. Beyond these phenomenological considerations, ALPs are also motivated by top-down extensions of the SM such as string theory [@Svrcek:2006yi; @Arvanitaki:2009fg; @Acharya:2010zx; @Cicoli:2012sz]. The crucial feature is that a weakly broken or anomalous shift symmetry allows their mass to be much smaller than the fundamental scale, making them accessible to experimental tests. The same shift symmetry then also ensures that the interaction is suppressed by the fundamental scale and therefore very weak. In summary, new searches for ALPs are a well-motivated and timely task.
The main aim of the present paper is to study the production of ALPs in proton beam dumps from decay photons of secondary mesons. We therefore focus on pseudoscalar ALPs whose dominant interaction is with photons. We use the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}= \frac{1}{2} \partial^\mu a \, \partial_\mu a - \frac{1}{2}m^{2}_{{a}} \, {a}^2-\frac{1}{4} \, {g_{a\gamma}}\, {a}\, F^{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu} \; ,$$ where ${g_{a\gamma}}$ is the photon-ALP coupling and $F^{\mu\nu}$ is the electromagnetic field strength.
To discover ALPs with masses on the order of MeV-GeV, proton-fixed target facilities (or rather proton beam-dump experiments) are well suited[^1]. The strength of such an experimental setup is that it can provide sufficient energy to produce MeV-GeV scale particles, while ensuring that all of the protons in the beam ultimately interact. Moreover, decay volumes spanning tens of meters allow ALPs of various lifetimes to be detected. Overall this combination provides high sensitivity but also excellent complementarity to experiments at low-energy colliders, such as Belle-II [@Dolan:2017osp], which can explore the region below a ${\rm few}\,{\rm GeV}$ but relatively strong coupling, as well as to experiments at the LHC, which are sensitive mostly to masses above a ${\rm few}\,{\rm GeV}$ [@Jaeckel:2012yz; @Mimasu:2014nea; @Jaeckel:2015jla; @Mariotti:2017vtv][^2].
For ALPs coupled predominantly to photons, there are (at least) two important production mechanisms to be considered. In both cases, one of the photons is provided by a nucleus at rest, constituting the target/dump material. The second photon can be provided
1. by the charged proton itself. This is sometimes referred to as ‘photon-from-proton’ (PFP) mode, where the photon distribution around the proton is often computed in the Weizsaecker-Williams approximation[^3]
2. through a decay, notably from $\pi^0 \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$, but also from other neutral mesons.
As already noted, the second process is the main focus of our paper.
Although the importance of the inclusion of axion production from secondary pions, was, for example, already pointed out in [@Tsai:1986tx], it is still somewhat under-appreciated. Indeed all the proton beam dump constraints shown in the overview Fig. \[fig:ALPs\_status\] are calculated using only the PFP production mode [@Dobrich:2015jyk; @Dolan:2017osp]. To our knowledge, only[^4] a study put forward in [@Berlin:2018pwi] which determined prospects for SeaQuest (after its proposed ECAL upgrade) takes into account an estimate of the ALP yield stemming from the Primakoff-conversion of photons from $\pi^0$ decays in the dump[^5]. However, some simplifying assumptions are made and no full Monte Carlo is set-up.
![\[fig:ALPs\_status\] Status of exclusions for ALPs coupled to photons in the MeV-GeV range. The limits are taken from [@Dolan:2017osp] updated with the PrimEx recast [@Aloni:2019ruo]. ](finalpics/newALPsPlot.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
With our work, we want to close this gap in the literature and give improved estimates for the ALP production from meson-decay photons. The sensitivity improvement with respect to the case when only the PFP production is included will be discussed.
Our study is particularly timely since some of the experiments that can impact the parameter space have started taking data, notably NA62 [@NA62:2017rwk], or are close to data-taking.
In practice calculating the photon flux inside the beam dump is far from trivial due to the non-perturbative nature of meson production. We therefore first carefully compare the yields for $\pi^0$ and other meson and their related angular distributions from PYTHIA [@Sjostrand:2014zea] simulations to data from past experiments and then use it to determine the photon flux inside the dump.
While here we are interested mostly in ALP production, the $\pi^0$ and other meson spectra in the dump are not only of relevance to the production of ALPs but can also be the source of Dark Photons and other exotic particles. Thus our work in comparing the yield from PYTHIA simulations to data is of more general interest.
Our paper is structured as follows. A first direct comparison of the PYTHIA simulation output with the experimental data is performed in Section \[sec:yield\]: proton-proton and proton-beryllium interactions are separately analyzed. In Section \[sec:theory\] we review and discuss the computation of the ALP yield through production from the meson-decay photons. Finally, in Section \[sec:sensi\] we re-evaluate existing experimental constraints and make estimates for future sensitivities taking the additional production mechanism into account. We discuss the conclusions in Section \[conclusions\].
Neutral meson yields in proton beam dumps {#sec:yield}
=========================================
The simulation of the production rates of secondary mesons is a challenging task, since the formation of mesons is complicated due to non-perturbative physics. In this section we therefore validate our PYTHIA simulations with experimental data. While no measurements of inclusive neutral meson production are available at exactly the desired energies and target materials employed in the experiments considered in Section \[sec:sensi\], we nevertheless have data covering the energy range from 60 GeV to 450 GeV and different target materials, in particular hydrogen and beryllium. Furthermore we can compare to the production of different types of mesons. Putting this together allows us to have at least some confidence in the employed meson spectra. The total cross section for inclusive $\pi^0$ production agrees with the data within an uncertainty of 20% in the entire beam momentum range of interest. We also indicate kinematic regions where the results are more uncertain. Including and neglecting the contributions from these regions we provide an estimate of the uncertainty of the limits and sensitivities in Section \[sec:sensi\].
400 GeV proton beam on a hydrogen target
----------------------------------------
Measurements of secondary meson production from a $400\,{\rm GeV}$ proton beam dumped onto a hydrogen target have been performed at the beginning of the 1990’s by the NA27 experiment operating at the LExan Liquid hydrogen Bubble Chamber (LEBC) with the European Hybrid Spectrometer (EHS). Results for $\pi^0$ and $\eta$ production from the LEBC-EHS [@AguilarBenitez:1991yy] allow a direct comparison of the proton-proton interaction expectation from the PYTHIA simulation program [@Sjostrand:2014zea] with the experimental results. The simulation includes elastic, inelastic non diffractive, and single-, double-diffractive processes. Parton densities for protons are defined using the CTEQ 5L set [@Lai:1999wy], a widely-used leading-order QCD parametrization with $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.127$.
The measurements from LEBC-EHS report that $\pi^0$ ($\eta$) are produced with an average multiplicity of $3.87\pm0.12$ ($0.30\pm0.02$) per incident proton. A total of $51.2\pm3.1~\%$ of the produced $\pi^0$s stem from the decay of secondary particles (mostly mesons). These figures can be compared with the output of the PYTHIA simulation. From it, the total $\pi^0$ ($\eta$) production multiplicity is $4.248\pm0.007$ ($0.489\pm0.002$). A total of $48.1\pm0.7~\%$ of the produced $\pi^0$s stem from the decay of $\rho^\pm$, $\rho^0$, $\omega$, or $\eta$, in good agreement with the experimental data. For the total cross section, the SoftQCD set of PYTHIA version 8.2 yields 39.9 mb summing up single- and double-diffractive, non-diffractive, and elastic processes, in good agreement with the experimental data which slightly exceeds 40 mb [@ppPDG].
In Figs. \[fig:LEBC\_vs\_PYTHIA\] and \[fig:LEBC\_vs\_PYTHIA\_xf\], the distributions measured at LEBC-EHS for the squared transverse momentum ($P_T^2$), rapidity ($Y$), and Feynman $X_F$ variable have been compared to the PYTHIA output, after applying to the Monte Carlo the experimental selection criteria: for $\pi^0$ ($\eta$), the condition is $X_F > 0.006\mbox{ }(0.021)$, where the Feynman variable is computed as $X_F = P_Z/P_Z(\mathrm{max})\sim 2P^\ast_Z/\sqrt{s}$, $Z$ represents the beam axis direction, and $P^\ast$ is evaluated in the center of mass frame. To obtain the differential cross sections, the MC output is scaled according to the total proton-proton cross section, 39.14 mb for a $400\,{\rm GeV}$ proton beam. Four regions of $X_F$ are defined: a central region, for $X_F < 0.025$, where the MC overestimates the data by a factor less than two; an intermediate region, for $0.025 < X_F < 0.1$, where data and MC agree; a fragmentation region, for $0.1 < X_F < 0.3$ where MC underestimates the data by a factor less than three, and a forward contribution, for $X_F>0.3$, associated to the inelastic diffraction mechanism, where the MC largely underestimates the data. Inserting in the simulation the double-pomeron exchange with the Minimum-Bias Rockefeller model [@Ciesielski:2012mc] is seen to slightly improve the data-MC comparison for the central region, while not affecting the other regions. Including the double-pomeron exchange increases the total proton-proton cross section by 0.47 mb for a proton beam energy of 400 GeV.
In the following, the $X_F$ domain has been divided into the eight bins defined in Tab. \[tab:xfBins\]. In general, the probability that photons from $\pi^0$ decays produce ALPs in the experimental acceptance increases with $X_F$. As discussed in Section \[sec:theory\], we use our knowledge of the quality of our simulated meson spectra by making the following estimate for the uncertainty. As a baseline we take into account the full simulation results including all $X_F$ bins (0-7). This can then be compared to a conservative estimate that only includes bin 5, where the agreement between simulation and data is very good, and bin 6 where the simulation underestimates the data by a moderate factor of up to 3.
$X_F$ bin 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
----------- ------ ------ -------- -------- ------- ------- ----- -----
$X_F$ min -0.6 -0.3 -0.1 -0.025 0 0.025 0.1 0.3
$X_F$ max -0.3 -0.1 -0.025 0 0.025 0.1 0.3 0.6
: \[tab:xfBins\] Definition of bins in the Feynman $X_F$ variable. For details, see text.
![Measurements from scattering of 400 GeV protons onto a hydrogen target for $\pi^0$ (red) or $\eta$ mesons (blue), compared with the expectation from PYTHIA 8.2: differential cross sections as a function of the squared transverse momentum (left panel) and rapidity (right panel). Symbols refer to results from the NA27 experiment at the LEBC-EHC. The histograms are the output of a PYTHIA MC simulation. \[fig:LEBC\_vs\_PYTHIA\] ](finalpics/dsigmadpt2_Ebeam400GeV.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurements from scattering of 400 GeV protons onto a hydrogen target for $\pi^0$ (red) or $\eta$ mesons (blue), compared with the expectation from PYTHIA 8.2: differential cross sections as a function of the squared transverse momentum (left panel) and rapidity (right panel). Symbols refer to results from the NA27 experiment at the LEBC-EHC. The histograms are the output of a PYTHIA MC simulation. \[fig:LEBC\_vs\_PYTHIA\] ](finalpics/dsigmadY_Ebeam400GeV.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Measurements from scattering of 400 GeV protons onto a Hydrogen target for $\pi^0$ (red) or $\eta$ mesons (blue), compared with the expectation from PYTHIA 8.2: differential cross section as a function of the Feynman $X_F$ variable. Symbols refer to results from the NA27 experiment at the LEBC-EHC. The histograms are the output of a PYTHIA MC simulation. \[fig:LEBC\_vs\_PYTHIA\_xf\] ](finalpics/dsigmadxf_Ebeam400GeV.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
400 GeV proton beam on a beryllium target
-----------------------------------------
We can now take the next step and allow for different target materials. First we note our expectation that 400 GeV protons interacting with a fixed proton target do not differ significantly from those of a neutron target, as far as the $\pi^0$ or $\eta$ production is concerned. This is confirmed by the PYTHIA Monte Carlo both for the scattering distributions and cross sections. Following from this we obtain the cross sections for larger target nuclei by an appropriate scaling with the geometric cross section $\sim A^{2/3}$, which in this subsection we compare to the data.
Measurements of meson yields from a 400 GeV proton beam on beryllium targets have been performed in [@Atherton:1980vj], and data was taken for four values of the secondary particle momenta (60, 120 and 300 GeV) and two values of transverse-momentum (0 and 500 MeV) at different target lengths. To complement these measurements at a lower momentum range of secondary particles and in view of evaluation of neutrino fluxes for NOMAD and CHORUS, the NA56/SPY experiment [@Ambrosini:1999id] published yields in the range of secondary momentum from 7 to 135 GeV with a proton beam of 450 GeV. In order to make these experimental data useful for further applications, a very useful parametrization was developed in [@Bonesini:2001iz], and sometimes is referred to as ‘BMPT’[^6]. As this parametrization was developed by the extrapolation of 400 GeV and 450 GeV data, it is suited to be employed for the use-case of NA62 and SHiP [@Alekhin:2015byh; @Anelli:2015pba], while care has to be taken, when extrapolating to the NuCal [@Blumlein:1990ay], and SeaQuest beam energies of 70 GeV and 120 GeV, respectively.
If the contribution of heavier meson and resonance decays is removed, the $\pi^0$ inclusive cross section is expected to be approximately equal to the average of the $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ inclusive cross sections. To validate our estimates for $\pi^0$ based on PYTHIA, we directly compare the MC output to the inclusive invariant cross section $E \ {\rm d}^3 \sigma/ {\rm d}p^3$ obtained in [@Ambrosini:1999id] for $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$. For completeness, we also consider the emission of $K^+$ and $K^-$, protons and anti-protons.
![ Left-hand-side plot: Inclusive invariant cross-sections measured by NA56 compared to the output of the PYTHIA simulation (code version 8.2) with the same acceptance cuts applied by the experiment. Symbols represent NA56 data [@Ambrosini:1999id] (black dots for $\pi^+$, red squares for $\pi^-$), black and red histograms represent the PYTHIA output for a 450 GeV proton beam. The dashed blue histogram indicates the expected inclusive invariant cross section for $\pi^0$ emission. The lower black and red histograms from PYTHIA refer to $K^+$ (black) and $K^-$ (red) and can be compared to the NA56 results for $K^+$ (black up-pointing triangles) and $K^-$ (red down-pointing triangles). Right-hand-side plot: Inclusive invariant cross sections for protons (antiprotons) from NA56 represented by black circles (red squares), to be compared to black (red) histograms from PYTHIA. \[fig:NA56\_comparison\] ](finalpics/Edsigmadp3_pions_kaons_450GeV_Be.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ Left-hand-side plot: Inclusive invariant cross-sections measured by NA56 compared to the output of the PYTHIA simulation (code version 8.2) with the same acceptance cuts applied by the experiment. Symbols represent NA56 data [@Ambrosini:1999id] (black dots for $\pi^+$, red squares for $\pi^-$), black and red histograms represent the PYTHIA output for a 450 GeV proton beam. The dashed blue histogram indicates the expected inclusive invariant cross section for $\pi^0$ emission. The lower black and red histograms from PYTHIA refer to $K^+$ (black) and $K^-$ (red) and can be compared to the NA56 results for $K^+$ (black up-pointing triangles) and $K^-$ (red down-pointing triangles). Right-hand-side plot: Inclusive invariant cross sections for protons (antiprotons) from NA56 represented by black circles (red squares), to be compared to black (red) histograms from PYTHIA. \[fig:NA56\_comparison\] ](finalpics/Edsigmadp3_protons_antiprotons_450GeV_Be.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:NA56\_comparison\] shows the results of our comparison, which is quite good. To arrive at this comparison we have
1. accounted for the angular acceptance of NA56, corresponding to emission angles below approximately 0.7 mrad;
2. accounted for the NA56 target-efficiency factor: $\big( 1-\exp ( L/\lambda_{\rm Be} ) \big) $ (where $L$ is the target length and $\lambda_{\rm BE}$ is the appropriate proton interaction length)
3. scaled the MC results for the proton-beryllium total cross section, a factor of $A^{2/3}$ higher than that for proton-proton scattering.
Above, we have assumed a target length $L=100$ mm and a proton interaction length $\lambda_{\rm Be}=423$ mm. In Figure \[fig:NA56\_comparison\], left-hand side, we observe a very satisfying agreement for all available data from NA56 except a slight underestimation of the yield of $\pi^+$ at large momenta. As NA56 data might include tertiary production up to a certain extent, an underestimation with respect to the simulation output might be expected. On the right-hand-side of Figure \[fig:NA56\_comparison\], for completeness we also show the proton and anti-proton inclusive invariant cross sections measured at NA56 compared to the expected output from PYTHIA.[^7]
Proton beam energies below 400 GeV {#Sec:lowE}
----------------------------------
To compare the inclusive production of light mesons with available literature, PYTHIA simulations of proton-proton interaction have been produced for proton beam energies of 70, 120, and 250 GeV: the first two values correspond to the beam energy of the NuCal and SeaQuest experiments, while the third value corresponds to the NA22 experiment [@Adamus:1986ta], providing the most complete experimental data available below 400 GeV. The total cross section of $\pi^0$ production and the average number of emitted $\pi^0$ mesons are shown in Fig. \[fig:xsmult\] as a function of the beam energy: a general agreement (within 20% relative uncertainty) is observed between data [@sigmatotLiterature] and MC.
![Left-hand-side plot: the total cross-section measured for inclusive $\pi^0$ production (filled dots) is compared to the output of the PYTHIA simulation, code version 8.2 (open dots). Right-hand-side plot: $\pi^0$-meson average yield from data (filled dots) [@sigmatotLiterature] are compared to the expectation from PYTHIA (open dots). \[fig:xsmult\] ](finalpics/sigmatot_vs_pbeam.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Left-hand-side plot: the total cross-section measured for inclusive $\pi^0$ production (filled dots) is compared to the output of the PYTHIA simulation, code version 8.2 (open dots). Right-hand-side plot: $\pi^0$-meson average yield from data (filled dots) [@sigmatotLiterature] are compared to the expectation from PYTHIA (open dots). \[fig:xsmult\] ](finalpics/Npi0_vs_pbeam.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Data and MC differential cross sections have been compared at 250 GeV, as a function of the squared transverse momentum $P_{T}^{2}$ and of the Feynman $X_F$ variable (Fig. \[fig:NA22\_vs\_PYTHIA\_dsigma\]). Data and MC transverse momentum differential cross sections are seen to agree (even if the data range is limited), while MC underestimates the data for $X_F>0.05$. Again, this will lead to conservative estimates of the expected ALP yields in the following. The correlation between average transverse momentum and $X_F$ observed in data is quite well reproduced by the MC, as shown in Fig. \[fig:NA22\_vs\_PYTHIA\_corr\].
![Measurements from scattering of 250 GeV protons onto a hydrogen target for $\pi^0$ mesons, compared with the expectation from PYTHIA 8.2: Differential cross section as a function of the squared transverse momentum (left panel) and Feynman $X_F$ variable (right panel). Filled symbols refer to results from the NA22 experiment at the European Hybrid Spectrometer; open symbols are the output of a PYTHIA MC simulation. \[fig:NA22\_vs\_PYTHIA\_dsigma\] ](finalpics/dsigmadpt2_Ebeam250GeV.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurements from scattering of 250 GeV protons onto a hydrogen target for $\pi^0$ mesons, compared with the expectation from PYTHIA 8.2: Differential cross section as a function of the squared transverse momentum (left panel) and Feynman $X_F$ variable (right panel). Filled symbols refer to results from the NA22 experiment at the European Hybrid Spectrometer; open symbols are the output of a PYTHIA MC simulation. \[fig:NA22\_vs\_PYTHIA\_dsigma\] ](finalpics/dsigmadxf_Ebeam250GeV.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Measurements from scattering of 250 GeV protons onto a hydrogen target for $\pi^0$ mesons, compared with the expectation from PYTHIA 8.2: Correlation between the average transverse momentum and $X_F$ (right panel). Filled symbols refer to results from the NA22 experiment at the European Hybrid Spectrometer; open symbols are the output of a PYTHIA MC simulation. \[fig:NA22\_vs\_PYTHIA\_corr\] ](finalpics/ptav_vs_xf_Ebeam250GeV.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
Production of ALPs from meson decay photons\[sec:theory\]
==========================================================
Having validated our PYTHIA spectra for neutral secondaries produced in proton interactions against data in the previous section \[sec:yield\], we are now ready to compute their impact on ALP production. We will also compare it with the contribution of ALPs from the photon-from-proton-mode, which has been evaluated in Ref. [@Dobrich:2015jyk]. As both processes have different initial and final states there is no interference and both contributions can be added together. In the following we will therefore concentrate on the new contribution from the mesons.
Taking the meson distributions as an input we set up a Monte-Carlo simulation that proceeds along the following steps:
1. Simulate the decay of the neutral mesons produced in the dump into photons.
2. Compute the cross-section of ALP production from these photons in the target nucleus.
3. Mimic appropriate experimental acceptances and cuts.
4. Evaluate a sensitivity prospect at fixed number of incident protons for the situation of zero background.
The decay length of the neutral pion is given by $$\ell^{\rm decay}_{\pi^{0}}=0.02\,{\rm mm}\left(\frac{E_{\pi^{0}}}{100\,{\rm GeV}}\right).$$ The decay length of the other neutral mesons is even smaller. Therefore, effectively the meson decay into photons is instantaneous, i.e. all mesons decay inside the target.
The meson decay therefore yields a distribution of real photons depending on the energy $E_{\gamma}$ and the angle $\theta_{\gamma}$ with respect to the beam axis. Due to symmetry there is no dependence of this photon distribution with respect to rotations around the beam axis. The distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:photondistribution\] for proton beam energies of $400\,{\rm GeV}$ and $70\,{\rm GeV}$.
![Distribution $\theta$ vs $\log_{10}(p_\gamma)$ of photons from $\pi^0$ decay for all $X_F$ bins normalized to the number of simulated proton events $N_{\it sim}=10^5$. Left: incident proton beam at $400\,{\rm GeV}$. Right: incident proton beam at $70\,{\rm GeV}$. The integrated number of photons per incoming proton is $\sim 9$ for $400\,{\rm GeV}$ and $\sim 5$ for $70\,{\rm GeV}$. \[fig:photondistribution\] ](finalpics/thetaGam400.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Distribution $\theta$ vs $\log_{10}(p_\gamma)$ of photons from $\pi^0$ decay for all $X_F$ bins normalized to the number of simulated proton events $N_{\it sim}=10^5$. Left: incident proton beam at $400\,{\rm GeV}$. Right: incident proton beam at $70\,{\rm GeV}$. The integrated number of photons per incoming proton is $\sim 9$ for $400\,{\rm GeV}$ and $\sim 5$ for $70\,{\rm GeV}$. \[fig:photondistribution\] ](finalpics/thetaGam70.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
In the second step the photons produce ALPs via the Primakoff conversion on the nucleus. We use laboratory-frame coordinates, where the nucleus is at rest. By a suitable rotation we can choose the photon to be moving in the $z$-direction. We then have, $$p_{\gamma}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\omega\\
0\\
0\\
\omega
\end{array}
\right)
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
p_{a}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
E_{a}\\
0\\
k_{a}\sin({\vartheta})\\
k_{a}\cos({\vartheta})
\end{array}\right).$$ Note, however, that in this coordinate system the $z$-direction is slightly rotated compared to the beam axis, with the angle arising from the angle of the meson production and subsequent decay into the desired photon. In the Monte-Carlo we then rotate back to the system with the $z$-axis along the beam axis[^8].
We use the approximate form of the cross section as in [@Dobrich:2015jyk][^9]. In this simple coordinate system the cross section, approximated for small $\vartheta$, reads, $$\frac{\rm{d}\sigma_{\rm P}}{\rm{d}{\vartheta}}= \frac{4\pi \, \alpha Z^2 g^{2}_{a\gamma} \ \omega^8 \ {\vartheta}^3 \ |F_{em}(q)|^2}{(m^4_{a} + 4 \ \omega^4 \ {\vartheta}^2)^2} \ .
\label{eq:primakoff}$$ As in [@Dobrich:2015jyk] the electromagnetic form-factor $F_{em}$, is taken to be of the Helm form[^10] (cf. [@Woods:1954zz]), $$\label{eq:formfactor}
F_{em}(q^2) = \frac{3 \, j_1(\sqrt{q^2}\,R_1)}{\sqrt{q^2}\,R_1} \exp\left[-\frac{(\sqrt{q^2}\,s)^2}{2}\right] \; ,$$ with $j_1$ the first spherical Bessel function of the first kind. For the nuclear radius we use [@Lewin:1995rx] $$\label{radius}
R_1 = \sqrt{(1.23 \, A^{1/3}-0.6)^2+2.18}\,\, {\rm fm}\,\, .$$ To simplify the evaluation we set the form factor to zero for values $q \, R_1 \geq 4.49$, i.e. above the first zero of the Helm form factor (as in [@Dobrich:2015jyk]).
Let us also emphasize again that in the present case we are dealing with a distribution of real, on-shell photons. This is in contrast to the photon from proton (PFP) mode where we have an effective parton distribution of virtual photons. Therefore, in this production mode we do not expect to be affected by the corrections to the equivalent photon approximation discussed in [@Harland-Lang:2019zur].
The cross section is then determined by folding the (probability) distribution of the photons from the mesons with the cross section for an individual photon[^11].
As an example we show in Fig. \[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\] the resulting cross sections for several energies and target materials relevant for the analysis in the next section (solid lines). This is then compared to the cross section for the PFP mode shown as dashed lines. For all considered energies $70\,{\rm GeV}$, $120\,{\rm GeV}$ and $400\,{\rm GeV}$, the PFP mode is sub-dominant. Also, for all energies, production from mesons is particularly favored since the spectrum is also considerably harder. The harder spectrum is useful for detecting ALPs with relatively large couplings since the higher $\gamma$-factor allows ALPs to decay outside dump and shielding regions.
For a better understanding of the behavior shown in Fig. \[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\] we note that the Primakoff cross section, Eq. , is peaked at small angles. More precisely, it is peaked at angles $\vartheta\sim m_{a}^2/\omega^2$. For sufficiently small masses and high energies this angle is very small. The ALP then has the same angle with respect to the beam axis as the incoming decay photon. Therefore, to a large degree the energy and angular dependence is dominated by that of the initial photon distribution shown in Fig. \[fig:photondistribution\]. However, this is only an approximate statement since the cross section also has a significant tail towards larger angles where it is ultimately cut off by the form factor.
To get a better quantitative feeling for the involved scattering angles let us note that the radii, according to Eq. , are in the range $R_{1}\sim (2-5)\,{\rm fm}$ for the elements we are considering. With $|q|\sim E_{a}\vartheta$ for small masses, and the form factor setting in at $|q|R_{1}\sim 1$ we find that the tail is typically starting to be cut off at angles $\vartheta\sim (0.002-0.004)\,(20\,{\rm GeV}/E_{a})$. For energies $\gtrsim 20\,{\rm GeV}$, initial photon angles within a few milliradians of the desired ALP angle contribute. Stated differently, for energies $E_{a}\gtrsim 20\,{\rm GeV}$ and angles $\gtrsim10\,$milliradians, the ALP angle is dominated by the angle of the decay photon given in Fig. \[fig:photondistribution\].
Fig. \[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\] also demonstrates our procedure to estimate the uncertainty in our production rate. For $400\,{\rm GeV}$ we show two lines for the meson production. One (purple) in which we include all mesons in the full kinematic region and a more conservative estimate (black) where we include only the part of the meson spectrum that is most trustworthy. To be more precise we define two regions in $X_F$. One covering all the bins, 0-7, in Tab. \[tab:xfBins\], whereas the other, more conservative one includes only the bins 5-6 where we find better agreement between Monte Carlo and data in our validation procedure. While this is very conservative, it does not fully appreciate the degree to which we underestimate the cross section. Indeed bin 6 gives a significant contribution to the cross section. From Fig. \[fig:LEBC\_vs\_PYTHIA\_xf\] we can see that in this region the simulated cross section underestimates the cross section by a factor which can easily be $\sim 2$. Our conservative estimate therefore underestimates the cross section by perhaps ${\rm few}\times 10\%$. Validated spectra improving in this region could therefore allow for a significantly increased sensitivity.
![\[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\] Differential ALP production cross-sections as a function of angle (left) for fixed ALP energy $E_a=30\,{\rm GeV}$ and as a function of ALP energy for fixed angle $\theta=0.01$ (right). Top and bottom correspond to an ALP mass of $m_a=50\,{\rm MeV}$ and $m_a=500\,{\rm MeV}$, respectively. The dotted lines denote the PFP contributions to the ALP production for a $400\,{\rm GeV}$ (green), $120\,{\rm GeV}$ (olive) and $70\,{\rm GeV}$ (gold) proton beam. Solid lines denote the contribution of ALP production through decayed $\pi^{0}$s. For $400\,{\rm GeV}$, we include examples of the combined contribution of all $X_F$ bins 0-7 or the central part of $X_F$ bins 5-6 only, as defined in Table \[tab:xfBins\]. These curves are shown at a primary proton energy of $400\,{\rm GeV}$ in purple ($X_F$ bins 0-7) and black ($X_F$ bins 5-6), $120\,{\rm GeV}$ (red, $X_F$ bins 5-6) and $70\,{\rm GeV}$ (brown, $X_F$ bins 5-6). The chosen target materials are copper at $400\,{\rm GeV}$, and iron at $120\,{\rm GeV}$ and $70\,{\rm GeV}$. The slight kinks in the lines arise from the logarithmic binning used for the presented curves. For the sensitivity calculation, a finer binning has been used. ](finalpics/xf50MeVEnergy30GeVv5.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\] Differential ALP production cross-sections as a function of angle (left) for fixed ALP energy $E_a=30\,{\rm GeV}$ and as a function of ALP energy for fixed angle $\theta=0.01$ (right). Top and bottom correspond to an ALP mass of $m_a=50\,{\rm MeV}$ and $m_a=500\,{\rm MeV}$, respectively. The dotted lines denote the PFP contributions to the ALP production for a $400\,{\rm GeV}$ (green), $120\,{\rm GeV}$ (olive) and $70\,{\rm GeV}$ (gold) proton beam. Solid lines denote the contribution of ALP production through decayed $\pi^{0}$s. For $400\,{\rm GeV}$, we include examples of the combined contribution of all $X_F$ bins 0-7 or the central part of $X_F$ bins 5-6 only, as defined in Table \[tab:xfBins\]. These curves are shown at a primary proton energy of $400\,{\rm GeV}$ in purple ($X_F$ bins 0-7) and black ($X_F$ bins 5-6), $120\,{\rm GeV}$ (red, $X_F$ bins 5-6) and $70\,{\rm GeV}$ (brown, $X_F$ bins 5-6). The chosen target materials are copper at $400\,{\rm GeV}$, and iron at $120\,{\rm GeV}$ and $70\,{\rm GeV}$. The slight kinks in the lines arise from the logarithmic binning used for the presented curves. For the sensitivity calculation, a finer binning has been used. ](finalpics/xf50MeVtheta0p01v5.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\] Differential ALP production cross-sections as a function of angle (left) for fixed ALP energy $E_a=30\,{\rm GeV}$ and as a function of ALP energy for fixed angle $\theta=0.01$ (right). Top and bottom correspond to an ALP mass of $m_a=50\,{\rm MeV}$ and $m_a=500\,{\rm MeV}$, respectively. The dotted lines denote the PFP contributions to the ALP production for a $400\,{\rm GeV}$ (green), $120\,{\rm GeV}$ (olive) and $70\,{\rm GeV}$ (gold) proton beam. Solid lines denote the contribution of ALP production through decayed $\pi^{0}$s. For $400\,{\rm GeV}$, we include examples of the combined contribution of all $X_F$ bins 0-7 or the central part of $X_F$ bins 5-6 only, as defined in Table \[tab:xfBins\]. These curves are shown at a primary proton energy of $400\,{\rm GeV}$ in purple ($X_F$ bins 0-7) and black ($X_F$ bins 5-6), $120\,{\rm GeV}$ (red, $X_F$ bins 5-6) and $70\,{\rm GeV}$ (brown, $X_F$ bins 5-6). The chosen target materials are copper at $400\,{\rm GeV}$, and iron at $120\,{\rm GeV}$ and $70\,{\rm GeV}$. The slight kinks in the lines arise from the logarithmic binning used for the presented curves. For the sensitivity calculation, a finer binning has been used. ](finalpics/xf500MeVEnergy30GeVv5.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\] Differential ALP production cross-sections as a function of angle (left) for fixed ALP energy $E_a=30\,{\rm GeV}$ and as a function of ALP energy for fixed angle $\theta=0.01$ (right). Top and bottom correspond to an ALP mass of $m_a=50\,{\rm MeV}$ and $m_a=500\,{\rm MeV}$, respectively. The dotted lines denote the PFP contributions to the ALP production for a $400\,{\rm GeV}$ (green), $120\,{\rm GeV}$ (olive) and $70\,{\rm GeV}$ (gold) proton beam. Solid lines denote the contribution of ALP production through decayed $\pi^{0}$s. For $400\,{\rm GeV}$, we include examples of the combined contribution of all $X_F$ bins 0-7 or the central part of $X_F$ bins 5-6 only, as defined in Table \[tab:xfBins\]. These curves are shown at a primary proton energy of $400\,{\rm GeV}$ in purple ($X_F$ bins 0-7) and black ($X_F$ bins 5-6), $120\,{\rm GeV}$ (red, $X_F$ bins 5-6) and $70\,{\rm GeV}$ (brown, $X_F$ bins 5-6). The chosen target materials are copper at $400\,{\rm GeV}$, and iron at $120\,{\rm GeV}$ and $70\,{\rm GeV}$. The slight kinks in the lines arise from the logarithmic binning used for the presented curves. For the sensitivity calculation, a finer binning has been used. ](finalpics/xf500MeVtheta0p01v5.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
In the third step we then take into account all the relevant experimental cuts,
- The ALP decay has to happen outside the target and in the decay volume.\
Crucially this gives the exponential dependence on the decay length, where $\ell_{\rm ALP}$ is the decay length, $d$ the distance from the target to the decay volume and $l$ the length of the decay volume.
- The decay photons of the ALP have to reach the detector with a suitable minimum energy and other criteria are required for the photons to be detected.
We will describe the relevant details and approximations when we discuss the individual experiments. After all those cuts we obtain the fiducial cross section, $$\sigma_{f}={\rm fiducial\,\,cross\,\,section\,\,after\,\,all\,\,cuts}.$$
Before we take the final step, let us also note that we have employed the simplification that both the meson production and the photon conversion into ALPs happen at the beginning of the target. This neglects the finite distance traveled before the proton interacts inside the target as well as the additional distance traveled by the photon before it is converted into an ALP. The typical distances are of the order of the proton and photon radiation length, respectively. As both are of the order of cm in the relevant energy range, this should be a minor effect compared to the target sized of the order of m for the experiments we will consider in Section \[sec:sensi\]. For experiments with targets in the cm range this would have to be taken into account.
In the final step we now need to compare the fiducial cross section for the detectable ALP production from a photon with the cross section for the photon to be absorbed in the target material. We then get for the total number of events, $$N=N_{\gamma}\frac{\sigma_{f}}{\sigma_{\gamma, {\rm target}}},$$ where $N_{\gamma}$ is the total number of photons produced in the meson decays. The total cross section $\sigma_{\gamma, {\rm target}}$ for photons to be absorbed in the target material can be determined from the radiation length $\ell^{\rm rad}_{\rm target}$, $$\sigma_{\gamma, {\rm target}}=\frac{m_{N}}{\rho_{\rm target}\ell^{\rm rad}_{\rm target}},$$ where $m_{N}$ is the mass of the nucleus.
We stress that this is different from the PFP mode, where the relevant cross section would be the cross section for proton-nucleus interactions.
For the photon cross section we use values for the radiation length from [@gammaxs], whereas for the proton cross section we employ $\sigma_{pN} \simeq 53\:\text{mb} \times A^{0.77}$ from [@Carvalho:2003pza], where $A$ is the mass number of the nucleus. For example in the case of copper the photon cross section for energies $\gtrsim 2\,{\rm GeV}$ is about $6\,{\rm barn}$ for copper, $5.1\,{\rm barn}$ for iron and $12.7\,{\rm barn}$ for molybdenum. This is in contrast to the proton cross section which is only $1.3\,{\rm barn}$, $1.2\,{\rm barn}$ and $1.8\,{\rm barn}$, respectively.
While the photon absorption cross section is significantly larger we find that in many cases this is more than compensated by a number of other factors. In particular we produce on average more than 1 meson per proton and each meson gives two photons. Importantly, as we have seen in Fig. \[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\], the spectrum of ALPs from these photons is also harder than the one from the PFP mode, which is advantageous for the detection in particular at larger ALP masses.
Updated sensitivities for fixed-target experiments \[sec:sensi\]
================================================================
In the following, we will first update the exclusion contours for the past fixed target experiments CHARM [@Bergsma:1985qz] and NuCal with ALPs produced from the decay of $\pi^0$. We then project sensitivities for the existing NA62 [@NA62:2017rwk] and SeaQuest [@Berlin:2018pwi] set-ups. Finally, we give projections for the proposed SHiP [@Alekhin:2015byh; @Anelli:2015pba] facility.
Past experiments: NuCal and CHARM update
----------------------------------------
For CHARM [@Bergsma:1985qz], we make use of the following parameters: The detector was located at a distance $d=480\,\mathrm{m}$ away from the proton dump, and the protons were dumped into a copper target. The detector (for CHARM this is identical to the decay volume) was $l=35\,\mathrm{m}$ in length and $3\times3\,\mathrm{m}$ in transverse dimensions. The detector is off-set transversally by $5\,\mathrm{m}$ from the beam axis and this is accounted for in the MC. According to Ref. [@Bergsma:1985qz], CHARM was sensitive to events with a single electromagnetic shower in acceptance. CHARM quotes a signal acceptance of 51%, which we include in our estimate. The number of protons on target (POT) is $2.4 \times 10^{18}$.
NuCal [@Blumlein:1990ay], made use of the U70 proton beam facility with a beam energy of ‘only’ $70\:\text{GeV}$. However, NuCal profits from a comparably small distance between target and detector of only $d= 64\:\text{m}$ and a detector length of $23\:\text{m}$. We adapt the analysis strategy of [@Blumlein:2013cua], and require a minimum ALP energy of $E_a > 10\:\text{GeV}$ and at least one photon detected. In this way, the acceptance is approximately constant and equal to $70\%$. The detector has a radius of $1.3\:\text{m}$. In a dataset of $N_\text{pot} = 1.7 \cdot 10^{18}$ protons on an iron target, NuCal observed 1 event compared to a background expectation of 0.3 events. At 90% confidence level, we can therefore exclude any point in the parameter space predicting more than 3.6 events.
The changes in the limits from CHARM and Nucal when including ALPs produced from decayed $\pi^0$s, can be understood from Figure \[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\].
For NuCal, where the beam energy is 70 GeV, the plot in the right-hand side of the figure illustrates that, including the $\pi^0$ yield appreciably changes the existing limits. This can be seen in Figure \[fig:new\_lims\] (l.h.s.), where the brown dashed line shows the NuCal limits in PFP mode only, while the yellow region is the reach considering the added yield for NuCal from PFP and a conservative (bins 5–6) $X_F$ range from decayed mesons. However, the position of the upper part of the exclusion contour (at large couplings) is mostly determined by the experiment’s geometry. Thus, even the revised NuCal limit does not drastically alter the untested parameter space that should be probed by new experiments, discussed in the next section.
Also for CHARM, including the ALP production channel via $\pi^0$s improves the sensitivity with respect to the CHARM reach from PFP considerably[^12]. Figure \[fig:new\_lims\] (l.h.s.) shows a zoomed version of the existing limits with updated CHARM contour (solid red) compared to the previous curve (dashed magenta). However, the CHARM limits lie still within the limits of E137 and the new NuCal limit. Thus we summarize that the experimental future landscape, does not change significantly even after the CHARM and NuCal updates. However, as we will see is the next subsection, the inclusion of the meson contribution, drastically changes the [*prospect*]{} sensitivity for forthcoming searches.
Current and future set-ups
--------------------------
The NA62 experiment [@NA62:2017rwk] has been built to achieve a precise measurement of the ultra-rare decay $K^+\rightarrow \pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$. Besides its main goal, NA62 has a rich program to search for exotic particles, including long-lived particles that can be produced in the up-stream copper beam collimator, into which the primary SPS proton-beam is fully (in dump-mode) or partially (in standard, parasitic data-taking) dumped (see, e.g. [@Dobrich:2018ezn] for more details).
To be sensitive to a fully neutral final state, NA62 has to be run in beam-dump-mode. In our MC, we model NA62 using the following parameters: The distance between the beam-defining collimator (used to dump the beam) and the start of the fiducial volume is $d = 82\,\mathrm{m}$ and the vacuum decay region before the Liquid Krypton Calorimeter (LKr) is $l=135\,\mathrm{m}$ long. In addition, we require the following acceptance conditions: Both photons produced in the ALP decay need to be detected at a minimum mutual distance of $10\,{\rm cm}$ in the LKr. Moreover, these photons need to be $15\,{\rm cm}$ away from the LKr central hole and their combined energy needs to be above $3\,{\rm GeV}$. The target material for NA62 is copper and we show NA62 prospects for two different choices of POT.
![\[fig:new\_lims\] Both plots: filled areas: 90%-CL excluded regions from past experiments (cf. [@Dolan:2017osp; @Aloni:2019ruo]); contours: projected 90%-CL exclusion capability at present or future experiments. Left: Excerpt of the limit plot as in Fig \[fig:ALPs\_status\] but with updated CHARM region (brown): including PFP and $\pi^0$ contributions from $X_F$ bins 5–6, magenta dashed contour: PFP alone). In addition we show three projections for NA62 at $1.3 \times 10^{16}$ POT (1 day): Black dashed: PFP alone, red solid and blue dotted: Yield from $\pi^0$ in using $X_F$ bins 5–6 and 0–7, respectively. Right: projections for NA62 at $1 \times 10^{18}$ POT, as well as SHiP and SeaQuest (Phase I) at $1 \times 10^{20}$ POT and $1.44 \times 10^{18}$ POT, respectively. We have checked that the MC statistical uncertainty is negligible compared to the uncertainties of the PYTHIA/data agreement (see Section \[sec:yield\]). ](finalpics/newALPsPlotnewExistingv2.pdf "fig:"){width="46.00000%"} ![\[fig:new\_lims\] Both plots: filled areas: 90%-CL excluded regions from past experiments (cf. [@Dolan:2017osp; @Aloni:2019ruo]); contours: projected 90%-CL exclusion capability at present or future experiments. Left: Excerpt of the limit plot as in Fig \[fig:ALPs\_status\] but with updated CHARM region (brown): including PFP and $\pi^0$ contributions from $X_F$ bins 5–6, magenta dashed contour: PFP alone). In addition we show three projections for NA62 at $1.3 \times 10^{16}$ POT (1 day): Black dashed: PFP alone, red solid and blue dotted: Yield from $\pi^0$ in using $X_F$ bins 5–6 and 0–7, respectively. Right: projections for NA62 at $1 \times 10^{18}$ POT, as well as SHiP and SeaQuest (Phase I) at $1 \times 10^{20}$ POT and $1.44 \times 10^{18}$ POT, respectively. We have checked that the MC statistical uncertainty is negligible compared to the uncertainties of the PYTHIA/data agreement (see Section \[sec:yield\]). ](finalpics/allLimits.pdf "fig:"){width="46.00000%"}
In Figure \[fig:new\_lims\] (l.h.s.) we show the sensitivity for NA62 at $1.3 \times 10^{16}$ POT (corresponding to a one-day run), using (purple dashed) PFP only, using the full $X_F$ range (bins 0–7, blue dotted) and the central $X_F$ bins 5–6 (red), respectively. We also show the sensitivity for $1.3 \times 10^{16}$ POT PFP to facilitate comparison with previous results [@Dobrich:2015jyk]. As shown, the contribution from the decay of $\pi^0$’s dominates the sensitivity prospect for a $400\,{\rm GeV}$ proton beam and constitutes one of the most relevant results of our study. Regarding the question, whether all or only a conservative number of $X_F$ bins should be chosen, we observe that the difference between the reach in both situations is small but visible at ALP masses of few tens of MeV and small couplings. This can be understood by looking at Figure \[fig:reach\_photon\_distris\]. The central $\pi^0$ production corresponding to $X_F$ bin 4 contributes to low photon momenta and correspondingly low ALP momenta. As we can see in Fig. \[fig:new\_lims\] this is more relevant for the sensitivity at low masses and couplings. The forward contribution to $\pi^0$ production corresponding to bin 7, is not relevant in increasing the cross section at high photon energies. Not including $X_F$ bins other than 5 and 6 has a minor impact on our projections and thus for all following computations we adopt this conservative condition.
In Figure \[fig:new\_lims\] (r.h.s) we show again the prospect for NA62, this time however at $10^{18}$ POT (corresponding to a few months of data taking) while summing up contribution from $\pi^0$ production and PFP. Comparing this to the prospects shown, e.g. in [@Beacham:2019nyx; @Dobrich:2018ezn] underlines the importance of including the yield of ALPs produced by $\pi^0$s in these estimates.
The sensitivity reach for SeaQuest to ALPs produced as a result of secondary $\pi^0$ decays was estimated previously in [@Berlin:2018pwi]. As outlined in [@Berlin:2018pwi], the sensitivity to a di-$\gamma$ final state requires the installation of an ECAL, potentially adapted from the PHENIX detector at BNL. Our analysis improves the study put forward in [@Berlin:2018pwi] in several key regards. Firstly, as outlined in Sect. \[sec:yield\], we have validated the $\pi^0$ differential cross sections obtained in PYTHIA against experimental literature in a wide energy range. Secondly, as for all considered set-ups, we have implemented a full Monte Carlo of ALP production and decay according to the geometry laid out in [@Berlin:2018pwi]. Lastly, we consider also the sub-dominant PFP contribution for ALP production in our estimate.
We use the geometric setup described in [@Berlin:2018pwi]. Also, as in [@Berlin:2018pwi], we assume the need for 10 signal events to detect a signal beyond the background fluctuations. The calorimeter is placed between tracking stations 3 and 4 (at $\sim 18.5\,{\rm m}$ downstream of the target) We use a fiducial volume that has a length of $1\,{\rm m}$, in between meters 7 and 8 of the experiment, and a geometric acceptance of $2\times 2\,{\rm m}$ in transverse directions. The target material of SeaQuest is iron and we assume the phase-I statistics of $1.44 \times 10^{18}$ POT. Similarly to other set-ups, we require both photons to be detected at a minimum energy of $1\,{\rm GeV}$ each, a total energy of at least $3\,{\rm GeV}$ and a minimum mutual distance of 10 cm to avoid shower overlap given the photon shower Moliere radius.
The resulting prospects for SeaQuest are shown as the brown curve on the r.h.s. of Figure \[fig:new\_lims\]. Compared to the estimates of [@Berlin:2018pwi], the expected sensitivity covers a somewhat larger area of parameter space.
Finally, we model the prospects for detection of ALPs in the SHiP [@Alekhin:2015byh; @Anelli:2015pba] calorimeter as follows[^13]: The fiducial region is taken to be $45\,\mathrm{m}$ downstream of the production point. The calorimeter is positioned at $50\,\mathrm{m}$ after the beginning of the decay volume. We ask both photons to be in an acceptance area of 5 $\times $10 m$^2$. Both photons should have a minimum energy of 1 GeV and a combined energy of 3 GeV and be at least $10\,{\rm cm}$ apart. The result can be seen in Fig \[fig:new\_lims\] r.h.s as green curve. Target material is molybdenum and the POT are $10^{20}$. Note that the envisaged SHiP calorimeter [@Bonivento:2018eqn] has the potential of reconstructing the photon direction, thereby allowing ALP mass reconstruction. Compared to the results shown in [@Beacham:2019nyx] the mass reach increases considerably, from $\sim1\,{\rm GeV}$ to $\sim 1.5\,{\rm GeV}$.
Conclusions
===========
Proton beam dump experiments are a popular and versatile tool to explore the dark sector in the MeV to GeV range that may be connected to a number of open problems in particle physics, notably Dark Matter. Important examples of current and near future experiments are NA62 (in beam dump mode), SeaQuest, and SHiP.
New particles can be produced in primary interactions of the proton with the target material but also in the decay of secondary mesons. However, further important contributions to the production can arise from the interaction of secondary or even tertiary particles with the target material. While these production mechanisms have been noted and even occasionally used [@Berlin:2018pwi; @Feng:2018pew] they are still somewhat under-appreciated and many sensitivity calculations do not take them into account.
In this paper we have performed a detailed investigation of axion-like particle (ALP) production. More precisely we discussed the production of ALPs from the following process: Protons interact with the target nucleus and produce neutral mesons. The mesons (mostly $\pi^{0}$) decay into two $\gamma$ which subsequently can interact with another target nucleus to produce an ALP via the Primakoff process. We show that this gives a significant contribution to the production of ALPs which is also kinematically well suited for detection in typical experimental setups. Indeed, for experiments with high beam energies such as NA62 or SHiP, this is the dominant contribution in the region of interest and significantly extends the mass reach, e.g. by a factor of $\sim 1.5$ in the case of the SHiP experiment.
A crucial input for the calculation of the production with secondary or even higher order particles are the spectra of these particles inside the target. In particular for mesons theoretical predictions are challenging due to the non-perturbative nature of the meson production processes. We have therefore validated our simulation results from PYTHIA 8.2 against a variety of measurements, thereby giving an estimate of the reliability of the simulation results and the impact this has on the sensitivity calculation for the experiments. We find that the impact of the uncertainty is moderate despite a relatively large uncertainty of our generated meson spectra in some regions of phase space. Further, very desirable improvement could come from two directions. First of all, our simulations only include mesons produced from the primary proton beam but, also for meson production, secondary interactions may play a sizable role. Including these secondaries will be an important next step. Second, the discrepancy of data and MC should be clarified by an extended study of existing data or, if needed, new measurements.
All in all, interactions of secondary particles in the beam dump are a powerful additional production mode for new very weakly coupled particles. Further studies that go beyond the example presented in this work are needed and in preparation.
We would like to thank M. Pospelov for giving the nudge that started this work as well as P. DeNiverville and F. Kahlhoefer for very useful discussions on the presented physics. We thank R. Wanke for clarifications on the SHiP prospectus setup. TS would like to thank P. Di Nezza for useful discussions on the validation of the MC simulation. BD acknowledges support through the European Research Council (ERC) under grant ERC-2018-StG-802836 (AxScale).
[99]{}
C. Boehm and P. Fayet, “Scalar dark matter candidates,” Nucl. Phys. B [**683**]{} (2004) 219 \[hep-ph/0305261\].
N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer and N. Weiner, “A Theory of Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{} (2009) 015014 \[arXiv:0810.0713 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Freytsis and Z. Ligeti, “On dark matter models with uniquely spin-dependent detection possibilities,” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{} (2011) 115009 \[arXiv:1012.5317 \[hep-ph\]\].
K. R. Dienes, J. Kumar, B. Thomas and D. Yaylali, “Overcoming Velocity Suppression in Dark-Matter Direct-Detection Experiments,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{} (2014) no.1, 015012 \[arXiv:1312.7772 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Berlin, S. Gori, T. Lin and L. T. Wang, “Pseudoscalar Portal Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{} (2015) 015005 \[arXiv:1502.06000 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Alekhin [*et al.*]{}, “A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case,” Rept. Prog. Phys. [**79**]{} (2016) no.12, 124201 \[arXiv:1504.04855 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. J. Dolan, T. Ferber, C. Hearty, F. Kahlhoefer and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, “Revised constraints and Belle II sensitivity for visible and invisible axion-like particles,” JHEP [**1712**]{} (2017) 094 \[arXiv:1709.00009 \[hep-ph\]\].
Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, R. Mcgehee, H. Murayama and K. Schutz, “Strongly interacting massive particles through the axion portal,” Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{} (2018) no.11, 115031 \[arXiv:1806.10139 \[hep-ph\]\].
E. K. Akhmedov, V. A. Rubakov and A. Y. Smirnov, “Baryogenesis via neutrino oscillations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 1359 \[hep-ph/9803255\].
T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov, “The nuMSM, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the universe,” Phys. Lett. B [**620**]{} (2005) 17 \[hep-ph/0505013\].
M. Shaposhnikov, “The nuMSM, leptonic asymmetries, and properties of singlet fermions,” JHEP [**0808**]{} (2008) 008 \[arXiv:0804.4542 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. S. M. Alves and N. Weiner, “A viable QCD axion in the MeV mass range,” JHEP [**1807**]{} (2018) 092 \[arXiv:1710.03764 \[hep-ph\]\].
Z. Berezhiani, L. Gianfagna and M. Giannotti, “Strong CP problem and mirror world: The Weinberg-Wilczek axion revisited,” Phys. Lett. B [**500**]{} (2001) 286 \[hep-ph/0009290\].
P. Agrawal, J. Fan, M. Reece and L. T. Wang, “Experimental Targets for Photon Couplings of the QCD Axion,” JHEP [**1802**]{} (2018) 006 \[arXiv:1709.06085 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Beacham [*et al.*]{}, “Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report,” arXiv:1901.09966 \[hep-ex\]. F. Takahashi and W. Yin, “ALP inflation and Big Bang on Earth,” arXiv:1903.00462 \[hep-ph\].
W. J. Marciano, A. Masiero, P. Paradisi and M. Passera, “Contributions of axionlike particles to lepton dipole moments,” Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{} (2016) no.11, 115033 \[arXiv:1607.01022 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, “Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{} (2015) no.22, 221801 \[arXiv:1504.07551 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. Flacke, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, R. S. Gupta and G. Perez, “Phenomenology of relaxion-Higgs mixing,” JHEP [**1706**]{} (2017) 050 \[arXiv:1610.02025 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Svrcek and E. Witten, “Axions In String Theory,” JHEP [**0606**]{} (2006) 051 \[hep-th/0605206\].
A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, “String Axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 123530 \[arXiv:0905.4720 \[hep-th\]\].
B. S. Acharya, K. Bobkov and P. Kumar, “An M Theory Solution to the Strong CP Problem and Constraints on the Axiverse,” JHEP [**1011**]{} (2010) 105 \[arXiv:1004.5138 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell and A. Ringwald, “The type IIB string axiverse and its low-energy phenomenology,” JHEP [**1210**]{} (2012) 146 \[arXiv:1206.0819 \[hep-th\]\].
V. Shiltsev, S. Henderson, P. Hurh, I. Kourbanis and V. Lebedev, “Issues and R$\&$D Required for the Intensity Frontier Accelerators,” arXiv:1305.6917 \[physics.acc-ph\].
V. Shiltsev, S. Henderson, P. Hurh, I. Kourbanis and V. Lebedev, “Issues and R$\&$D Required for the Intensity Frontier Accelerators,” arXiv:1409.5426 \[physics.acc-ph\].
V. Shiltsev, “Fermilab Proton Accelerator Complex Status and Improvement Plans,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**32**]{} (2017) no.16, 1730012 \[arXiv:1705.03075 \[physics.acc-ph\]\].
R. Alemany [*et al.*]{}, “Summary Report of Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN,” arXiv:1902.00260 \[hep-ex\].
L. Harland-Lang, J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky, “A fresh look at ALP searches in fixed target experiments,” arXiv:1902.04878 \[hep-ph\].
J. Jaeckel, M. Jankowiak and M. Spannowsky, “LHC probes the hidden sector,” Phys. Dark Univ. [**2**]{} (2013) 111 \[arXiv:1212.3620 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. Mimasu and V. Sanz, “ALPs at Colliders,” JHEP [**1506**]{} (2015) 173 \[arXiv:1409.4792 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky, “Probing MeV to 90 GeV axion-like particles with LEP and LHC,” Phys. Lett. B [**753**]{} (2016) 482 \[arXiv:1509.00476 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Mariotti, D. Redigolo, F. Sala and K. Tobioka, “New LHC bound on low-mass diphoton resonances,” Phys. Lett. B [**783**]{} (2018) 13 \[arXiv:1710.01743 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Ebadi, S. Khatibi and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi, “New Probes for Axion-like Particles at Hadron Colliders,” arXiv:1901.03061 \[hep-ph\]. V. M. Budnev, I. F. Ginzburg, G. V. Meledin and V. G. Serbo, “The Two photon particle production mechanism. Physical problems. Applications. Equivalent photon approximation,” Phys. Rept. [**15**]{} (1975) 181.
B. Döbrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ringwald and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, “ALPtraum: ALP production in proton beam dump experiments,” JHEP [**1602**]{} (2016) 018 \[JHEP [**1602**]{} (2016) 018\] \[arXiv:1512.03069 \[hep-ph\]\].
Y. S. Tsai, “Axion Bremsstrahlung By An Electron Beam,” Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{} (1986) 1326.
J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling and S. Trojanowski, “Axionlike particles at FASER: The LHC as a photon beam dump,” Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{} (2018) no.5, 055021 \[arXiv:1806.02348 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Aloni, C. Fanelli, Y. Soreq and M. Williams, “Photoproduction of axion-like particles,” arXiv:1903.03586 \[hep-ph\].
A. Berlin, S. Gori, P. Schuster and N. Toro, “Dark Sectors at the Fermilab SeaQuest Experiment,” Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{} (2018) no.3, 035011 \[arXiv:1804.00661 \[hep-ph\]\].
E. Cortina Gil [*et al.*]{} \[NA62 Collaboration\], “The Beam and detector of the NA62 experiment at CERN,” JINST [**12**]{} (2017) no.05, P05025 \[arXiv:1703.08501 \[physics.ins-det\]\].
T. Sjöstrand [*et al.*]{}, “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Comput. Phys. Commun. [**191**]{} (2015) 159 \[arXiv:1410.3012 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. L. Lai [*et al.*]{} \[CTEQ Collaboration\], “Global QCD analysis of parton structure of the nucleon: CTEQ5 parton distributions,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**12**]{} (2000) 375 \[hep-ph/9903282\].
M. Aguilar-Benitez [*et al.*]{}, “Inclusive particle production in 400-GeV/c p p interactions,” Z. Phys. C [**50**]{} (1991) 405. C. Patrignani [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], “Review of Particle Physics,” Chin. Phys. C [**40**]{} (2016) no.10, 100001. R. Ciesielski and K. Goulianos, “MBR Monte Carlo Simulation in PYTHIA8,” PoS ICHEP [**2012**]{} (2013) 301 \[arXiv:1205.1446 \[hep-ph\]\].
H. W. Atherton [*et al.*]{}, “Precise Measurements of Particle Production by 400-[GeV]{}/$c$ Protons on Beryllium Targets,” CERN-80-07, CERN-YELLOW-80-07.
G. Ambrosini [*et al.*]{} \[NA56/SPY Collaboration\], “Measurement of charged particle production from 450-GeV/c protons on beryllium,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**10**]{} (1999) 605.
M. Bonesini, A. Marchionni, F. Pietropaolo and T. Tabarelli de Fatis, “On Particle production for high-energy neutrino beams,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**20**]{} (2001) 13 \[hep-ph/0101163\].
P. deNiverville, C. Y. Chen, M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, “Light dark matter in neutrino beams: production modelling and scattering signatures at MiniBooNE, T2K and SHiP,” Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{} (2017) no.3, 035006 \[arXiv:1609.01770 \[hep-ph\]\]. I. V. Aiinenko [*et al.*]{} \[NA22 Collaboration\], “Inclusive $\pi^0$ Production in $\pi^+ p$, $K^+ p$ and $p p$ Interactions at 250-[GeV]{}/$c$,” Z. Phys. C [**35**]{} (1987) 7 \[Yad. Fiz. [**47**]{} (1988) 429\] \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**47**]{} (1988) 271\]. K. Jaeger [*et al.*]{}, “Inclusive $\Gamma, \pi^0, K^0$ and $\Lambda$ Production in 12.4-GeV/c p p Interactions,” Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{} (1975) 1756 and references 11–17 therein.
D. Cadamuro, S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt and J. Redondo, “Cosmological bounds on sub-MeV mass axions,” JCAP [**1102**]{} (2011) 003 \[arXiv:1011.3694 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. D. Woods and D. S. Saxon, “Diffuse Surface Optical Model for Nucleon-Nuclei Scattering,” Phys. Rev. [**95**]{} (1954) 577.
J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, “Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter experiments based on elastic nuclear recoil,” Astropart. Phys. [**6**]{} (1996) 87.
<https://www.nist.gov/pml/xcom-photon-cross-sections-database>
J. Carvalho, “Compilation of cross sections for proton nucleus interactions at the HERA energy,” Nucl. Phys. A [**725**]{} (2003) 269.
F. Bergsma [*et al.*]{} \[CHARM Collaboration\], “Search for Axion Like Particle Production in 400-[GeV]{} Proton - Copper Interactions,” Phys. Lett. [**157B**]{} (1985) 458.
M. Anelli [*et al.*]{} \[SHiP Collaboration\], “A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS,” arXiv:1504.04956 \[physics.ins-det\].
J. Blumlein [*et al.*]{}, “Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment,” Z. Phys. C [**51**]{} (1991) 341.
J. Blümlein and J. Brunner, “New Exclusion Limits on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung in Beam-Dump Data,” Phys. Lett. B [**731**]{} (2014) 320 \[arXiv:1311.3870 \[hep-ph\]\].
B. Döbrich, F. Ertas, F. Kahlhoefer and T. Spadaro, “Model-independent bounds on light pseudoscalars from rare B-meson decays,” Phys. Lett. B [**790**]{} (2019) 537 \[arXiv:1810.11336 \[hep-ph\]\].
B. Döbrich \[NA62 Collaboration\], “Dark Sectors at fixed targets: The example of NA62,” \[arXiv:1807.10170 \[hep-ex\]\] or <https://indico.cern.ch/event/523655/contributions/2246416/>
<https://cds.cern.ch/record/2654870?ln=en>
W. M. Bonivento \[SHiP Collaboration\], “Studies for the electro-magnetic calorimeter SplitCal for the SHiP experiment at CERN with shower direction reconstruction capability,” JINST [**13**]{} (2018) no.02, C02041.
[^1]: Indeed there is a sizable number of such beams around the world, cf. e.g. [@Shiltsev:2013zma; @Shiltsev:2014jpa; @Shiltsev:2017mle; @Alemany:2019vsk] whose suitability for ALP searches has recently been discussed in [@Harland-Lang:2019zur].
[^2]: Missing energy signatures could give access to ALPs with lower mass also at LHC. For a recent study see, e.g. [@Ebadi:2019gij].
[^3]: More precisely usually variants of the equivalent photon approximation [@Budnev:1974de] are used [@Dobrich:2015jyk; @Dolan:2017osp]. In particular in the region of low ALP masses this approximation is problematic and receives sizable corrections that lower the cross section [@Harland-Lang:2019zur]. This further increases the relative importance of the production mechanism that we will discuss in the present paper.
[^4]: A recent study performed for the FASER experiment [@Feng:2018pew] at LHC includes the estimate of ALP production directly from $\pi^0$ decays (which they find subdominant) as well as Primakoff-produced ALPs from $\pi^0$ decays, albeit in a different kinematic regime.
[^5]: While also considering Primakoff production from real photons the PrimEx and GlueEx experiments considered in [@Aloni:2019ruo] are effectively a photon fixed-target experiment where the photons are produced via Bremsstrahlung off an electron beam and then shot onto the target.
[^6]: In the context of the production of exotic particles, BMPT was, e.g., also employed in [@deNiverville:2016rqh] to predict yields of sub-GeV Dark Matter production in beam dump experiments.
[^7]: The agreement observed on the secondary production would allow a reliable estimate of the $\pi^0$ tertiary production in a dump, which can be expected to be not negligible with respect to the primary production. This evaluation depends on the detailed structure of the dump and is beyond the scope of the present paper.
[^8]: In practice we do this by using a coordinate system as in [@Dobrich:2015jyk] that allows for an angle with respect to the beam axis right from the beginning.
[^9]: We have checked by comparing to more complete expressions in [@Cadamuro:2010cz; @Aloni:2019ruo] that the approximation to the cross section is excellent in the regime giving relevant contributions within the experimental acceptance.
[^10]: At very low momentum transfer $q\lesssim 10\,{\rm keV}$ (depending on the target material) the electron shell also shields the charge, reducing the form factor. However, as discussed in [@Dobrich:2015jyk] this region only gives a very small contribution to the signal which we neglect here.
[^11]: Let us note at this point that formally the PFP production and the production from decay photons is at different order in $\alpha$. Meson production is a strong process and therefore essentially independent of $\alpha$ whereas “radiating” a photon from the proton requires an extra electromagnetic interaction. This is accounted for by a factor of $\alpha$ in the relevant photon distribution functions for the proton (cf. also [@Berlin:2018pwi]).
[^12]: A recent study [@Dobrich:2018jyi] on ALPs coupled to fermions is another example of the importance of carefully recasting results from past experiments, particularly CHARM, using PYTHIA and MC simulations to appreciate their full impact.
[^13]: The prospect geometry for SHiP has changed since the publication of [@Dobrich:2015jyk] and we follow the layout of [@shipCDS] for our estimate
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
We give a very short proof that determinantal point processes have a trivial tail $\sigma$-field. This conjecture of Lyons [@Lyons:ICM] has been proved by Osada and Osada [@Osada][^1] as well as by Bufetov, Qiu, and Shamov [@BQS]. Osada and Osada relied on the earlier result of Lyons [@L:det] that the conjecture held in the discrete case, as does the present short proof. In the discrete case and under the restrictive assumption that the spectrum of $K$ is contained in the open interval $(0, 1)$, Shirai and Takahashi [@ShiTak:I] also proved that the tail $\sigma$-field is trivial. In the continuous setting, tail triviality is important in proving pathwise uniqueness of solutions of certain infinite-dimensional stochastic differential equations related to determinantal point processes [@OsadaTan:ISDE-tail].
Our proof here relies on an extension of Goldman’s transference principle, as elucidated in [@Lyons:ICM].
Goldman’s Transference Principle {#s.goldman}
================================
We review some definitions. See [@Lyons:ICM] for more details.
Let $E$ be a locally compact Polish space (equivalently, a locally compact second countable Hausdorff space). Let $\mu$ be a Radon measure on $E$, i.e., a Borel measure that is finite on compact sets. Let ${{\mathcal N}}(E)$ be the set of Radon measures on $E$ with values in ${{\mathbb N}}\cup
\{\infty\}$. We give ${{\mathcal N}}(E)$ the vague topology generated by the maps $\xi \mapsto
\int f \,d\xi$ for continuous $f$ with compact support; then ${{\mathcal N}}(E)$ is Polish. The corresponding Borel $\sigma$-field of ${{\mathcal N}}(E)$ is generated by the maps $\xi \mapsto
\xi(A)$ for Borel $A \subseteq E$.
Let ${{\mathfrak X}}$ be a simple point process on $E$, i.e., a random variable with values in ${{\mathcal N}}(E)$ such that ${{\mathfrak X}}(\{x\}) \in \{0, 1\}$ for all $x \in E$. We call ${{\mathfrak X}}$ [***determinantal***]{} if for some measurable $K
\colon E^2 \to {{\mathbb C}}$ and all $k \ge 1$, the function $(x_1, \dots, x_k) \mapsto \det[K(x_i, x_j)]_{i, j \le k}$ is a $k$-point intensity function of ${{\mathfrak X}}$. In this case, we denote the law of ${{\mathfrak X}}$ by $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^K$.
We consider only $K$ that are locally square integrable (i.e., $|K|^2
\mu^2$ is Radon), are Hermitian (i.e., $K(y, x) = \overline{K(x, y)}$ for all $x, y \in E$), and are positive semidefinite. In this case, $K$ defines a positive semidefinite integral operator $
(Kf)(x) := \int K(x, y) f(y) \,d\mu(y)
$ on functions $f \in L^2(\mu)$ with compact support. We consider $K$ as defined only up to changes on a $\mu^2$-null set. For every Borel $A \subseteq E$, we denote by $\mu_A$ the measure $\mu$ restricted to Borel subsets of $A$ and by $K_A$ the compression of $K$ to $A$, i.e., $K_A f := (K f)
{\!\upharpoonright\!}A$ for $f \in L^2(A, \mu_A)$. If ${{\mathfrak X}}$ has law $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^K$, then the restriction of ${{\mathfrak X}}$ to $A$ has law $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^{K_A}$. The operator $K$ is locally trace-class, i.e., for every compact $A \subseteq E$, the compression $K_A$ is trace class, having a spectral decomposition $
K_A = \sum_k \lambda^A_k\, \phi^A_k \otimes \overline{\phi^A_k}
$, where ${\langle \phi^A_k {\,;\;}k \ge 1 \rangle}$ are orthonormal eigenfunctions of $K_A$ with positive summable eigenvalues ${\langle \lambda^A_k {\,;\;}k \ge 1 \rangle}$.
The following extends Goldman’s transfer principle from trace-class operators, as given in [@Lyons:ICM Section 3.6], to locally trace-class operators:
\[t.transfer\] Let $\mu$ be a Radon measure on a locally compact Polish space, $E$. Let $K$ be a locally trace-class positive contraction on $L^2(E, \mu)$. Let ${\langle A_i {\,;\;}i \ge 1 \rangle}$ be a partition of $E$ into precompact Borel subsets of $E$. Then there exists a denumerable set $F$ with a partition ${\langle B_i {\,;\;}i \ge 1 \rangle}$ and a positive contraction $Q$ on $\ell^2(F)$ such that the joint distribution of the random variables ${\langle {{\mathfrak X}}(A_i) {\,;\;}i \ge 1 \rangle}$ for ${{\mathfrak X}}\sim \operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^K$ equals the joint $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^Q$-distribution of the random variables ${\langle {{\mathfrak X}}(B_i) {\,;\;}i \ge 1 \rangle}$ for ${{\mathfrak X}}\sim \operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^Q$. Moreover, we can choose $Q$ to be unitarily equivalent to $K$.
For each $i$, fix an orthonormal basis ${\langle w_{i, j} {\,;\;}j < n_i \rangle}$ for the subspace of $L^2(E, \mu)$ of functions that vanish outside $A_i$. Here, $n_i \in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty\}$. Define $B_i := \{(i, j) {\,;\;}j < n_i\}$ and $F := \bigcup_i B_i$. Let $T$ be the isometric isomorphism (i.e., unitary map) from $L^2(E, \mu)$ to $\ell^2(F)$ that sends $w_{i, j}$ to ${\mathbb{1}_{\{ (i, j) \}}}$. Define $Q := T K T^{-1}$, so $Q$ is unitarily equivalent to $K$. Note that for all $\phi \in L^2(E)$ and all $i \ge 1$, we have $T {\mathbb{1}_{ A_i }}
\phi = {\mathbb{1}_{ B_i }} T\phi$.
For $m \ge 1$, write $E_n := \bigcup_{i=1}^m A_i$ and $F_m :=
\bigcup_{i=1}^m B_i$. Then $K_{E_m}$ and $Q_{F_m}$ are unitarily equivalent trace-class operators. If ${\langle \phi_{k, m} {\,;\;}k \ge 1 \rangle}$ are orthonormal eigenvectors of $K_{E_m}$, so that $K_{E_m} = \sum_k \lambda^{E_m}_k \phi_{k, m} \otimes
\overline{\phi_{k, m}}$, then $Q_{F_m} = \sum_k \lambda^{E_m}_k T\phi_{k, m} \otimes
\overline{T\phi_{k, m}}$. Furthermore, for all $\phi, \psi \in L^2(E,
\mu)$ and all $i \ge 1$, we have $({\mathbb{1}_{ A_i }} \phi, \psi)_{L^2(E, \mu)} =
(T{\mathbb{1}_{ A_i }} \phi, T\psi)_{\ell^2(F)} =
({\mathbb{1}_{ B_i }} T\phi, T\psi)_{\ell^2(F)}$. Thus, [@Lyons:ICM Theorem 3.4] shows that the $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^{K_{E_m}}$-distribution of ${\langle {{\mathfrak X}}(A_i) {\,;\;}i \le m \rangle}$ equals the $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^{Q_{F_m}}$-distribution of ${\langle {{\mathfrak X}}(B_i) {\,;\;}i \le
m \rangle}$. But these are precisely the $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^K$-distribution of ${\langle {{\mathfrak X}}(A_i) {\,;\;}i \le m \rangle}$ and the $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^Q$-distribution of ${\langle {{\mathfrak X}}(B_i) {\,;\;}i \le m \rangle}$, respectively. Because these are equal for all $m \ge 1$, the desired result follows.
Tail Triviality: Deduction from the Discrete Case
=================================================
For a Borel set $A
\subseteq E$, let ${{\mathscr F}}(A)$ denote the $\sigma$-field on ${{\mathcal N}}(E)$ generated by the functions $\xi \mapsto \xi(B)$ for Borel $B
\subseteq A$. The [***tail $\sigma$-field***]{} is the intersection of ${{\mathscr F}}(E \setminus A)$ over all compact $A \subseteq E$; it is said to be trivial when each of its events has probability 0 or 1. For a collection ${{\mathscr A}}$ of Borel subsets of $E$, write ${{\mathscr G}}({{\mathscr A}})$ for the $\sigma$-field generated by the functions $\xi \mapsto \xi(B)$ for $B
\in {{\mathscr A}}$.
\[t.ctail\] If $K$ is a locally trace-class positive contraction, then $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^K$ has a trivial tail $\sigma$-field.
Consider a sequence of increasingly finer partitions ${{\mathscr A}}_m = \{A_{m, i}
{\,;\;}i \ge 1\}$ of $E$ by precompact Borel sets $A_{m, i}$ such that the sequence ${\langle {{\mathscr A}}_m {\,;\;}m \ge 1 \rangle}$ separates points of $E$. (This can be obtained, for example, by writing $E$ as a countable union of compact sets [@Kechris Theorem 5.3] and partitioning each compact set by the fact that it is a continuous image of the Cantor set [@Kechris Theorem 4.18].) Then the corresponding count $\sigma$-fields ${{\mathscr G}}({{\mathscr A}}_m)$ increase to the Borel $\sigma$-field ${{\mathscr F}}(E)$, so Lévy’s 0-1 law tells us that for every event ${\mathcal {A}} \in {{\mathscr F}}(E)$, we have $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}\bigl({\mathcal {A}} \mid {{\mathscr G}}({{\mathscr A}}_m)\bigr)$ converges in $L^1$ to ${\mathbb{1}_{ {\mathcal {A}} }}$. Similarly, if $D^{(n)} := \bigcup_{i=1}^n A_{1, i}$ and ${{\mathscr G}}_m^{(n)} :=
{{\mathscr G}}\bigl(\{A_{m, i} {\,;\;}A_{m, i} \cap
D^{(n)} = \varnothing,\, i \ge 1\}\bigr)$, then for each $n$ and all ${\mathcal {A}} \in {{\mathscr F}}(E \setminus D^{(n)})$, we have $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}({\mathcal {A}} \mid {{\mathscr G}}_m^{(n)})$ converges in $L^1$ to ${\mathbb{1}_{ {\mathcal {A}} }}$ as $m \to\infty$. In particular, if ${\mathcal {A}}$ is a tail event, then there is a sequence $m_n
\to\infty$ such that $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}({\mathcal {A}} \mid {{\mathscr G}}_{m_n}^{(n)})$ converges in $L^1$ to ${\mathbb{1}_{ {\mathcal {A}} }}$ as $n \to\infty$. It follows that ${\mathcal {A}}$ belongs to the completion of the $\sigma$-field $\bigvee_{n \ge k}
{{\mathscr G}}_{m_n}^{(n)}$ for each $k \ge 1$.
Now let ${\mathcal {A}}$ be a tail event and ${\langle m_n {\,;\;}n \ge 1 \rangle}$ be such a sequence. Let ${{\mathscr C}}:= {\langle C_k {\,;\;}k \ge 1 \rangle}$ be the parts of the partition of $E$ generated by $\{A_{m_n, i} {\,;\;}A_{m_n, i} \cap D^{(n)} =
\varnothing,\, n \ge 1,\, i \ge 1\}$. Write ${{\mathscr H}}_n := {{\mathscr G}}\bigl(\{C_k {\,;\;}k \ge n\}\bigr)$. Then ${\mathcal {A}}$ belongs to the completion of the $\sigma$-field ${{\mathscr H}}_n$ for each $n \ge 1$, whence $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}({\mathcal {A}} \mid \bigcap_{n \ge 1} {{\mathscr H}}_n)
= \lim_{n \to\infty} \operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}({\mathcal {A}} \mid {{\mathscr H}}_n)
= {\mathbb{1}_{ {\mathcal {A}} }}$ a.s. by Lévy’s downwards theorem. By Theorem \[t.transfer\], there is a partition ${\langle B_k {\,;\;}k \ge 1 \rangle}$ of a denumerable set $F$ and a positive contraction $Q$ on $\ell^2(F)$ such that the $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^{Q}$-distribution of ${\langle {{\mathfrak X}}(B_k) {\,;\;}k \ge 1 \rangle}$ equals the $\operatorname{\mathbf{P}\mathopen{}}^K$-distribution of ${\langle {{\mathfrak X}}(C_k) {\,;\;}k \ge 1 \rangle}$. Let ${{\mathscr H}}'_n := {{\mathscr G}}\bigl(\{B_k {\,;\;}k \ge n\}\bigr)$. Then $\bigcap_{n \ge 1}
{{\mathscr H}}'_n$ is contained in the tail $\sigma$-field $\bigcap_{B \text{ finite}}
{{\mathscr F}}(F \setminus B)$. Since the latter is trivial by [@L:det Theorem 7.15], so is the former. Therefore, so is $\bigcap_{n \ge 1} {{\mathscr H}}_n$, whence ${\mathcal {A}}$ has probability 0 or 1.
[1]{}
Alexander I. Bufetov, Yanqi Qiu, and Alexander Shamov, *Kernels of conditional determinantal measures and the [L]{}yons–[P]{}eres conjecture*, (2016), Preprint, .
Alexander S. Kechris, *Classical descriptive set theory*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 156, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995. [MR ]{}[1321597]{}
Russell Lyons, *Determinantal probability measures*, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. **98** (2003), no. 1, 167–212. [MR ]{}[2031202 (2005b:60024)]{}
[to3em]{}, *Determinantal probability: [B]{}asic properties and conjectures*, Proceedings of the [I]{}nternational [C]{}ongress of [M]{}athematicians. [V]{}olume [IV]{} (Sun Young Jang, Young Rock Kim, Dae-Woong Lee, and Ikkwon Yie, eds.), Kyung Moon Sa, Seoul, 2014, Invited lectures, Held in Seoul, August 13–21, 2014, pp. 137–161. [MR ]{}[3727606]{}
Hirofumi Osada and Shota Osada, *Discrete approximations of determinantal point processes on continuous spaces: Tree representations and tail triviality*, J. Stat. Phys. **170** (2018), no. 2, 421–435. [MR ]{}[3744393]{}
Hirofumi Osada and Hideki Tanemura, *Infinite-dimensional stochastic differential equations and tail $\sigma$-fields*, (2014), Preprint, .
Tomoyuki Shirai and Yoichiro Takahashi, *Random point fields associated with certain [F]{}redholm determinants. [I]{}. [F]{}ermion, [P]{}oisson and boson point processes*, J. Funct. Anal. **205** (2003), no. 2, 414–463. [MR ]{}[2018415]{}
[^1]: In fact, there is a gap in [@Osada]: Lemmas 4 and 5 there do not follow from the reasoning given and can be false when the tail $\sigma$-field is nontrivial. This gap can be filled via reasoning similar to that used here. More precisely, one can use the partition ${{\mathscr C}}$ here in place of their sequence of partitions $\mathit{\Delta}(\ell)$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Haishan Liu[$\, ^{1}$]{}, H. Lü[$\, ^{2,3}$]{} and Zhao-Long Wang[$\, ^{4}$]{}
[$\, ^{1}$]{}[*Zheijiang Institute of Modern Physics\
Department of Physics, Zheijiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China*]{}
[$\, ^{2}$]{}[*China Economics and Management Academy\
Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China*]{}
[$\, ^{3}$]{}[*Institute for Advanced Study, Shenzhen University\
Nanhai Ave 3688, Shenzhen 518060, China*]{}
[$\, ^{4}$]{} [*School of Physics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 130-722, Korea*]{}
The paper consists mainly of two parts. In the first part, we obtain well-defined Killing spinor equations for the low-energy effective action of the bosonic string with the conformal anomaly term. We show that the conformal anomaly term is the only scalar potential that one can add into the action that is consistent with the Killing spinor equations. In the second part, we demonstrate that the Kaluza-Klein theory can be gauged so that the Killing spinors are charged under the Kaluza-Klein vector. This gauging process generates a scalar potential with a maximum that gives rise to an AdS spacetime. We also construct solutions of these theories.
Introduction
============
An underlying property for the successful construction of supergravities is that the bosonic sector admits consistent Killing spinor equations, whose projected integrability condition gives rise to the full set of the bosonic equations of motion. This property exists in some intrinsically non-supersymmetric gravity theories as well. In fact, the concept of Killing spinor was introduced in Riemannian Geometry which predates the concept of supersymmetry. In pure Einstein gravities in diverse dimensions, which are not supersymmetric in general, a Killing spinor is defined to satisfy the Killing spinor equation $D_M \epsilon=0$. The integrability condition $[D_M, D_N]\epsilon=\ft14 R_{MNPQ}\Gamma^{PQ}\epsilon=0$ suggests that only a subset of Ricci-flat metrics may admit Killing spinors. However, the projected integrability condition, namely $$\Gamma^M [D_M, D_N]\epsilon = \ft12 R_{MN}\Gamma^M\epsilon=0\,,$$ is satisfied automatically by the Einstein equation of motion. However, for generic gravity theories with scalar and form fields that cannot be supersymmetrized to become supergravities, consistent Killing spinor equations exist rarely.
Killing spinors for domain wall solutions in some scalar-gravity theories in general dimensions solutions were studied in [@fnss], where the scalar potentials can be expressed in terms of superpotentials. We shall review this example and present the Killing spinor equations in section 2. A far more non-trivial example has recently been discovered that the low-energy effective action of the bosonic string in an arbitrary dimension admits Killing spinor equations [@lpw; @lw]. Furthermore, this property is up held even when arbitrary Yang-Mills fields are included, at least to the $\alpha'$ quadratic curvature order [@lw]. This suggests that the hidden pseudo-supersymmetry associated with the existence of the Killing spinor equations is a stringy property, regardless whether the string is supersymmetric or not. It reflects some generalized geometric property of string theory.
One clue of constructing Killing spinor equations for the bosonic string is from the observation of the general study of pseudo-Killing spinor equations for Einstein gravity coupled to an $n$-form field strength [@lw0]. By pseudo-Killing spinor equations, we mean that they are not consistent equations, in that the projected integrability conditions have extra constraints on the fields in additional to the equations of motion.[^1] Interestingly, there appears to be a mysterious connection between the consistency of Kaluza-Klein sphere reduction of a theory and the existence of Killing spinor equations. Since it was long established that it is consistent to perform the $S^3$ and $S^{D-3}$ reductions of the effective action of the bosonic string [@clpred], Killing spinor equations were proposed in [@lpw] and it was verified that their projected integrability conditions indeed give rise to the full set of the equations of motion, without any further constraint. The result was then generalized to include the $\alpha'$ correction terms in [@lw].
However, in the previous discussions [@lpw; @lw], the conformal anomaly term arising from the bosonic string theory in the non-critical dimensions is set to zero. In section 3, we construct Killing spinor equations with this term included. The construction can be expected to be successful since this term has been shown not to spoil the consistency of the sphere reduction [@clpred]. In fact, we consider a general scalar potential that can be expressed in terms of a generic superpotential. Although Killing spinor equations exist for either the bosonic string without the scalar potential, or the pure scalar-gravity system, the projected integrability conditions of the full system give rise to extra conditions that fix the scalar potential. It turns out that the conformal anomaly term and only this scalar potential works with the Killing spinor equations. We also find that the system can be pushed to include the $\alpha'$-order corrections as well.
Killing spinor equations also exist in the Kaluza-Klein theory that is the $S^1$ reduction of pure gravity [@lpw]. In section 4, we consider adding a scalar potential. We find that as in the case of the string theory, the projected integrability of the Killing spinor equations restricts the scalar potential to a single particular exponential term, analogous to the conformal anomaly term in string theory. We compare the results with the $S^1$ reduction of pure gravity with a cosmological constant in the appendix and find that these two scalar potentials are different.
The existence of a vector field in Kaluza-Klein theory provides a possibility of gauging the theory such that the Killing spinors are charged under the gauge symmetry. In section 5, we demonstrate that the effect of the gauging is that both the superpotential and the scalar potential contain additional exponential scalar factors. The (super) potential has a maximum that gives rise to the AdS spacetime. This gauged Kaluza-Klein theory can be embedded in known gauged supergravities in four, five and seven dimensions. We obtain the charged AdS black hole and discuss its properties.
One advantage of having Killing spinor equations for a pure bosonic system is that it may help to construct a general class of BPS solutions that preserve Killing spinors. Some of these solutions are unlikely to be found by trying to solve the bosonic equations of motion alone. In section 6, we use the $D=5$ string theory as an example to demonstrate this point and obtain the most general solutions involving Killing spinors. We conclude the the paper in section 7.
Scalar-gravity theory
=====================
In supergravities, there are two types of solutions. Those that admit Killing spniors are called BPS solutions. These solutions preserve certain fractions of the supersymmetry of the theories. The other type of solutions are non-supersymmetric. However, it was observed that even the Schwarzschild-AdS black hole can be solved by the super-potential method in which the second-order differential equations can be successfully reduced to a set of first-order equations [*via*]{} a super potential [@clv; @lpv]. (See also [@psrv].) This suggests that certain non-supersymmetric systems may exhibit characteristics of supersymmetry; they are [*pseudo*]{}-supersymmetric. Pseudo-supersymmetry for de Sitter “supergravity" was discussed in [@ds1; @ds2]. Note that, owing to the lack of clear definition, the concept of pseudo-supersymmetry in the past literatures may refer both solutions and abstract theories.
In this section, We consider gravity coupled to a scalar with a scalar potential in $D$ dimensions. The Lagrangian is given by $${\cal L}_D = \sqrt{-g} \Big(R - \ft12(\partial\phi)^2 - V(\phi)
\Big)\,.$$ We now determine the condition for $V$ such that the above system admits consistent Killing spinor equations. Inspired by supergravities, we introduce a super potential $W(\phi)$ in the Killing spinor equations, which are given by $$D_M\eta + \fft{W}{2\sqrt2\,(D-2)}\Gamma_M \eta =0\,,\qquad
\Gamma^M\partial_M\phi \eta -\sqrt2\,W' \eta=0\,,$$ where a prime denotes a derivative with respect to $\phi$. In the above equations, we start with two arbitrary coefficients for the $W$ and $W'$ terms. The consistency of the projected integrability condition fixes the above two coefficients. Furthermore, it relates the potential $V$ to the super potential $W$ as follows $$V=\Big(\fft{d W}{d\phi}\Big)^2 - \fft{D-1}{2(D-2)}
W^2\,,\label{vwrelation}$$ The projected integrability conditions are then given by $$(R_{MN} - \ft12 \partial_M \phi \partial_N \phi - \fft{V}{D-2}
g_{MN}) \Gamma^M \eta=0\,,\qquad (\Box \phi - V')\eta =0\,.$$ Thus provided that the potential $V$ can be expressed in terms of a superpotential $W$, the scalar-gravity theory has well-defined Killing spinor equations. The Killing spinor equations for such a scalar-gravity theory were studied in the context of AdS domain wall solutions [@fnss]. The application of the scalar-gravity theory in cosmology was discussed in [@sketow].
Bosonic string with the conformal anomaly term
==============================================
The critical dimension for the bosonic string is $D=26$. It suffers from a conformal anomaly in the dimension $D\ne 26$. It turns out that the effect of this anomaly is to generate an additional scalar potential of the dilaton to the effective action [@cmpf] $${\cal L}_D = \sqrt{-g} \Big(R - \ft12(\partial\phi)^2 - \ft1{12}
e^{a\phi} H_\3^2 - V\Big)\,.\label{bslag}$$ where $H_\3=dB_\2$, $a=2\sqrt2/(D-2)$ and $$V=\ft12(D-26) m^2 e^{-\ft12a\phi}\,.\label{stringV}$$ It was shown that it is consistent to perform $S^3$ and $S^{D-3}$ reductions even when the conformal anomaly term is present [@clpred]. In the absence of the conformal anomaly term, the Killing spinor equations for this system were obtained in [@lpw; @lw]. The ansatz for the Killing spinor equations with the anomaly term is $$\begin{aligned}
D_M\eta + \ft{1}{96} e^{\fft12a\phi}\Big(a^2 \Gamma_M \Gamma^{NPQ} -
12 \delta_{M}^N\Gamma^{PQ}\Big) H_{NPQ}\,\eta
+ \fft{W}{2\sqrt2\,(D-2)}\Gamma_M \eta &=&0\,,\label{ks1}\\
\Big(\Gamma^M\partial_M \phi+ \ft{1}{12}a e^{\fft12a\phi}
\Gamma^{MNP} H_{MNP}-\sqrt2\,W'\Big)\eta &=&0\,, \label{ks2}\end{aligned}$$ As we see in section 2, one necessary condition for the above equation to be consistent is that the scalar potential $V$ and its superpotential $W$ must be related by (\[vwrelation\]). Thus, given that the scalar potential $V$ is known (\[stringV\]), $W$ can be straightforwardly determined. However, it is still necessary to check the full projected integrability conditions to verify whether they are consistent with equations of motion. Furthermore, one may also ask whether the theory (\[bslag\]) can admit Killing spinor equations for other scalar superpotentials.
Thus for now, let us consider that $V$ is given by (\[vwrelation\]), but with the superpotential $W$ being unspecified. We shall use the consistency of the projected integrability condition to determine the superpotential $W$ and hence the potential $V$.
Acting on (\[ks2\]) with $\Gamma^N D_N$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big(\nabla^2\phi- \ft1{12}ae^{a\phi}H^2- V'(\phi)\Big)\eta
+\ft1{12}ae^{\fft12a\phi}\Gamma^{NM_1M_2M_3} \nabla_N
H_{M_1M_2M_3}\eta\cr && +\ft14ae^{-\fft12a\phi} \Gamma^{M_2M_3}
\nabla_N\left(e^{a\phi} H^N{}_{M_2M_3}\right)\eta - U_1
e^{\ft12a\phi} \Gamma^{M_1M_2M_3} H_{M_1 M_2 M_3} \eta =0\,,
\label{strintcon1}\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is given by (\[vwrelation\]) and $$U_1=\fft{1}{3\sqrt{D-2}} (W'' - \fft{1}{\sqrt{2(D-2)}}\, W' -
\fft{1}{D-2} W)\,.$$ Thus for the projected integrability condition to be consistent with the equations of motion, we must have $U_1=0$, implying that $$W=c_1 e^{-\fft{\phi}{\sqrt{2(D-2)}}} + c_2
e^{\fft{2\phi}{\sqrt{2(D-2)}}} \,.\label{wsol1}$$ We now examine the projected integrability condition for (\[ks1\]). we find $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big[R_{MN}-\ft{1}{2} \partial_M\phi\partial_N\phi
-\ft14e^{a\phi}(H^2_{MN}-\ft{2}{3(D-2)} H^2 g_{MN}) - \fft{V}{D-2}
g_{MN} \Big]\Gamma^{N} \eta \cr &&-\ft{1}{6(D-2)} e^{\fft12a\phi}\nabla_N
H_{M_1M_2M_3}\left(\Gamma_{M}\Gamma^{NM_1M_2M_3}
-2(D-2)\delta_M^{[N}\Gamma^{M_1M_2M_3]}\right)\eta \cr &&-\ft{1}{2(D-2)}e^{-\fft12a\phi}\nabla_N \left( e^{a\phi}
H^N{}_{M_2M_3}\right)
\left(\Gamma_{M}\Gamma^{M_2M_3}-(D-2)\delta_M^{M_2}
\Gamma^{M_3}\right)\eta\cr &&+\fft{1}{4(D-2)^\fft32} U_2 e^{\ft12a\phi} \Big(\Gamma_M
\Gamma^{M_1M_2M_3} - (D-2) \delta^{M_1}_M
\Gamma^{M_2M_3}\Big)H_{M_1M_2M_3} \eta =0\,,\label{strintcon2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$U_2=W' + \fft{1}{\sqrt{2(D-2)}} W\,.$$ It is easy to see that the solution (\[wsol1\]) with $c_2=0$ satisfy the equation $U_2=0$. Thus, the scalar potential is precisely the conformal anomaly term provided that the non-vanishing constant $c_2$ is given by $$c_1=\sqrt{26-D}\, m\,.$$ Thus we demonstrate that the presence of the conformal anomaly term does not spoil the existence of the consistent Killing spinor equations. Furthermore, the conformal anomaly term is the only scalar potential that we can add to the bosonic string such that Killing spinor equations remain consistent. The result confirms the suggestion that there is an underlying generalized geometric structure associated with Killing spnior equations in string theory, whether it is supersymmetric or not, critical or non-critical.
In the string frame, defined by $ds^2_{\rm string} = e^{-\fft12
a\phi} ds_{\rm Einstein}^2$, the effective Lagrangian becomes $${\cal L} = \sqrt{-g}\, e^{-2\Phi} \Big(R + 4 (\partial\Phi)^2 -
\ft{1}{12} H_\3^2 + \ft12 c_1^2\Big)\,,$$ where $\Phi=-\phi/a$. The Killing spinor equations, after scaling $\eta\rightarrow e^{-\fft18a\phi} \eta$, become $$D_M(\omega_-) \eta=0\,,\qquad \Big(\Gamma^M \partial_M \Phi
-\ft{1}{12} \Gamma^{MNP} H_{MNP} + \fft{c_1}{2\sqrt2}\Big) \eta=0\,,
\label{stringks0}$$ where $\omega_-$ is the torsionful spin connection, given by $$\omega_{M\pm}{}^{AB} = \omega_{M}^{AB} \pm \ft12 H_{M}{}^{AB}\,.$$ It is interesting to note that the equation $D_M(\omega_-)\eta=0$ is unmodified by the conformal anomaly.
It was shown in [@lw] that the Killing spinor equations can be well-defined for the effective action of the bosonic string with arbitrary Yang-Mills fields up to the $\alpha'$ order. A crucial property that enables one to write the action up to the quadratic curvature terms is the first equation in (\[stringks0\]) [@lw]. This equation is unmodified by the conformal anomaly. This implies that the procedure of obtaining the $\alpha'$-order Lagrangian works equally well with the presence of the conformal anomaly. We find that the most general Lagrangian at the tree level, up to the $\alpha'$ order, is given by $${\cal L}_D = \sqrt{-g}e^{-2\Phi}\Big[R+\ft12c_1^2 +
4(\partial\phi)^2 - \ft1{12} H_\3^2 -\ft14\alpha \Big({\rm
tr}'F_\2^2 -
R_{MNAB}(\omega_+)R^{MNAB}(\omega_+)\Big)\Big]\,,\label{alpha'lag}$$ where $$dH_\3 = \ft12\alpha \Big({\rm tr}(R_\2(\omega_+)\wedge
R_\2(\omega_+))-{\rm tr}' (F_\2\wedge F_\2) \Big)\,.
\label{stringbianchi}$$ The Killing spinors equations are given by $$D_M(\omega_-) \eta=0\,,\quad \Big(\Gamma^M \partial_M \Phi
-\ft{1}{12} \Gamma^{MNP} H_{MNP} + \fft{c_1}{2\sqrt2}\Big)
\eta=0\,,\quad \Gamma^{M_1M_2} F_{M_1M_2}\eta=0\,,\label{stringks}$$ We adopt exactly the same notation as in [@lw].
Kaluza-Klein theory with a scalar potential
===========================================
In this section we consider Kaluza-Klein theory with a scalar potential $${\cal L}_D= \sqrt{-g} \Big(R - \ft12 (\partial\phi)^2 - \ft14
e^{a\phi} F_\2^2 - V(\phi)\Big)\,,\label{f2lag}$$ where $F_\2=dA_\1$, $a=\sqrt{2(D-1)/(D-2)}$. For $V=0$, the Lagrangian is the $S^1$ reduction of $(D+1)$-dimensional pure gravity, and $A_\1$ is the Kaluza-Klein vector. It was shown in [@lpw] that the system admits well-defined Killing spinor equations. Following the discussion of the bosonic string theory with the conformal anomaly, we now derive the scalar potential $V$ such that consistent Killing spinor equations can still be defined. As discussed in section 2, a necessary condition is that $V$ can be expressed in terms of a superpotential $W$ as in (\[vwrelation\]). The ansatz for the Killing spinor equations is $$\begin{aligned}
&&D_M\eta + \fft{\rm i}{8(D-2)}e^{\fft12a\phi}
\Big(\Gamma_M\Gamma^{M_1M_2} - 2(D-2)\delta_{M}^{M_1}
\Gamma^{M_2}\Big) F_{M_1M_2}\eta\cr&&\qquad\qquad+ \fft{W}{2\sqrt2\,(D-2)}\Gamma_M \eta =0\,,\cr &&\Gamma^M\partial_M\phi \eta + \ft{\rm i}{4}ae^{\fft12 a\phi}
\Gamma^{M_1M_2} F_{M_1M_2}\eta {-}\sqrt2\fft{dW}{d\phi}
\eta=0\,.\label{f2kseq1}\end{aligned}$$ We find that the projected integrability condition for the second equation in (\[f2kseq1\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big(\nabla^2\phi- \ft1{4}ae^{a\phi}F^2 - V'(\phi)\Big)\eta
+\ft{\rm i}4 ae^{\fft12a\phi}\Gamma^{NM_1M_2} \nabla_N
F_{M_1M_2}\eta\cr && +\ft{\rm i}{2} ae^{-\fft12a\phi} \Gamma^{M_2}
\nabla_N\left(e^{a\phi} F^N{}_{M_2}\right)\eta - \ft{\rm i}2
\sqrt{\ft{D-1}{D-2}}\, U_1e^{\fft12 a\phi} \Gamma^{M_1M_2} F_{M_1
M_2}\eta=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $U_1$ is a function of $W$, $W'$ and $W''$, given by $$U_1=W'' + \sqrt{\fft{2}{(D-1)(D-2)}}\, W' - \fft{D-3}{2(D-2)} W\,.$$ Since the structure $U_1$ is unrelated to any of the equations of motion, it has to vanish on its own. The solution to $U_1=0$ is $$W=c_1 e^{\fft{D-3}{\sqrt{2(D-1)(D-2)}}\,\phi}+ c_2
e^{-\fft{D-1}{\sqrt{2(D-1)(D-2)}}\,\phi}\,.\label{wsol2}$$ The projected integrability condition for the first equation of (\[f2kseq1\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big[R_{MN} - \ft12 \partial_M \phi \partial_N\phi - \ft12
e^{a\phi} (F_{MN}^2 - \ft{1}{2(D-2)} F^2 g_{MN}) - \ft1{D-2}V(\phi)
g_{MN}\Big]\Gamma^N \eta \cr&&-\ft{\rm i}{4(D-2)} e^{\fft12a\phi}\nabla_N F_{M_1M_2}\Big(
\Gamma_M\Gamma^{NM_1M_2} - 3(D-2) \delta_{M}^{[N} \Gamma^{M_1M_2]}
\Big)\eta \cr &&-\ft{\rm i}{2(D-2)} e^{-\fft12 a\phi} \nabla_N \Big(e^{a\phi}
F^N{}_{M_2}\Big) \Big(\Gamma_M \Gamma^{M_2} - (D-2)
\delta_M^{M_2}\Big)\eta\cr && +U_2 \delta_M^{M_1}\Gamma^{M_2} e^{\fft12a\phi} F_{M_1M_2} \eta
=0\,,\label{f2ksint2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$U_2 = \ft{\rm i}2 \sqrt{\fft{D-1}{D-2}}\, W' - \fft{\rm
i\sqrt2(D-3)}{4(D-2)}\, W\,.$$ Again the term $U_2$ is unrelated to any of the equations of motion and it has to vanish. However, it is easy to see that $W$ in (\[wsol2\]) with $c_2=0$ satisfy the equation $U_2=0$. Thus the scalar potential $V$ is given by $$V=-\fft{2c_1^2}{D-1}\, e^{\fft{2(D-3)}{\sqrt{2(D-1)(D-2)}}\,\phi}\,.$$ Naively one would expect that the this single exponential scalar potential has an origin as the cosmological constant in Einstein gravity in $D+1$ dimensions, since cosmological Einstein gravity does accept a well-defined Killing spinor equation. However, as we show in the appendix, the scalar potential from $S^1$ reduction of the cosmological constant, given by (\[cosmopot\]), is different from this structure. Thus the origin of this scalar potential remains to be understood.
Gauging the Killing spinors and AdS spacetimes
==============================================
With the Kaluza-Klein vector, it is possible that we can gauge the theory such that fermions are charged under the vector. In the case of supergravities, this procedure may turn a supergravity theory to the gauged supergravity, where a scalar potential is generated. Let us propose that the Killing spinors are charged under $A_\1$. The equations are now given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&(D_M+ b A_M)\eta + \fft{\rm i}{8(D-2)}e^{\fft12a\phi}
\Big(\Gamma_M\Gamma^{M_1M_2} - 2(D-2)\delta_{M}^{M_1}
\Gamma^{M_2}\Big) F_{M_1M_2}\eta\cr&&\qquad\qquad+ \fft{W}{2\sqrt2\,(D-2)}\Gamma_M \eta=0\,,\cr &&\Gamma^M\partial_M\phi \eta + \ft{\rm i}{4}ae^{\fft12 a\phi}
\Gamma^{M_1M_2} F_{M_1M_2}\eta {-}\sqrt2\fft{dW}{d\phi}
\eta=0\,,\label{f2kseq2}\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $b$ is to be determined. Note that these equations (\[f2kseq2\]) are invariant under the gauge transformation $$A_\1 \rightarrow A_\1 + d\Lambda\,,\qquad \eta\rightarrow \eta\,
e^{-b\Lambda}\,.$$ The projected integrability condition for the second equation in (\[f2kseq2\]) remains the same as the previous ungauged case. It implies that $W$ is given by (\[wsol2\]). Note that we can shift $\phi$ by constant to adjust the relative coefficients of $c_1$ and $c_2$. Make a convention that the fixed point occurs at $\phi=0$, we have $$c_1=\fft{D-1}{\sqrt2} g\,,\qquad
c_2=\fft{D-3}{\sqrt2}g\,.$$ We have chosen the convention such that $g^2=1$ corresponds to the AdS with unit length. The projected integrability condition for the first equation in (\[f2kseq2\]) gives the same form as (\[f2ksint2\]), but now with $U_2$ given by $$U_2 = \ft{\rm i}2 \sqrt{\fft{D-1}{D-2}}\, W' - \fft{\rm
i\sqrt2(D-3)}{4(D-2)}\, W +2 b\, e^{-\fft12 a \phi}\,.$$ Thus the vanishing of $U_2$ implies that $$b=-{\rm i} \ft{\sqrt2}4\, c_2 =-\ft{\rm i} 4(D-3)g\,.$$ The full consistent Killing spinor equations are now given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big(D_M-\ft14(D-3)\,{\rm i}\, g A_M\Big) \eta +
\fft{W}{2\sqrt2\,(D-2)}\Gamma_M \eta\cr && \qquad + \fft{\rm i}{8(D-2)}e^{\fft12a\phi}
\Big(\Gamma_M\Gamma^{M_1M_2} - 2(D-2)\delta_{M}^{M_1}
\Gamma^{M_2}\Big) F_{M_1M_2}\eta=0\cr&&\Gamma^M\partial_M\phi \eta + \ft{\rm i}{4}ae^{\fft12 a\phi}
\Gamma^{M_1M_2} F_{M_1M_2}\eta -\sqrt2\fft{dW}{d\phi}
\eta=0\,,\label{f2kseqres}\end{aligned}$$ where the super potential $W$ is completely determined, given by $$W=\fft{g}{\sqrt2}\Big((D-3) e^{-\fft{D-1}{\sqrt{2(D-1)(D-2)}}\,
\phi} + (D-1) e^{\fft{D-3}{\sqrt{2(D-1)(D-2)}}\, \phi}\Big)\,.$$ The corresponding scalar potential is $$V=-g^2 (D-1) \Big( (D-3) e^{-\sqrt{\fft{2}{(D-1)(D-2)}}\,\phi} +
e^{\fft{\sqrt2\,(D-3)}{\sqrt{(D-1)(D-2)}}\,\phi}\Big)\,.
\label{f2pot}$$ It is clear that this potential has a maximum at $\phi=0$ with $V(0)=-(D-1)(D-2) g^2$.
We find that the Lagrangian (\[f2lag\]) with the scalar potential (\[f2pot\]) can be embedded in gauged supergravities in $D=4,5$ and 7. (See, for example, [@tenauthor].) In the case of $D=6$, it may also be possible to embed the theory in the $F(4)$ gauged supergraity [@romans] coupled to a vector multiplet [@cglp; @clpbubble]. Thus it may not be surprising that the Kaluza-Klein theories with this scalar potential in $D=4,5,6$ and 7 admit Killing spinor equations. However it is of great interest to observe that the theory can admit Killing spinor equations in an arbitrary dimnension $D$.
We obtain the charged black hole solutions in general dimensions, for this gauged Kaluza-Klein theory; they are given by $$\begin{aligned}
ds_D^2&=&-H^{-\fft{D-3}{D-2}} f dt^2 + H^{\fft{1}{D-2}}
\Big(\fft{dr^2}{f} + r^2 d\Omega_{(D-2),k}^2\Big)\,,\cr F_\2&=&\sqrt{k} \coth\delta dt\wedge dH^{-1}\,,\qquad \phi =\ft12
a\log H\,,\label{chargedbh}\end{aligned}$$ where $$H=1+ \fft{\mu\sinh^2\delta}{k\,r^{D-3}}\,,\qquad f=k -
\fft{\mu}{r^{D-3}} + g^2 r^2 H\,,$$ and $k=1,0,-1$ corresponding $d\Omega_{(D-2),k}^2$ being the sphere, torus and hyperbolic spaces. In the case of $k=0$, we need to scale $\sinh^2\delta\rightarrow k\,\sinh^2\delta$ before sending $k$ to zero, and hence $F_\2$ for $k=0$ is given by $$F_\2 = \fft{1}{\sinh\delta} dt\wedge dH^{-1}\,.$$ These solutions in relevant gauged supergravities in $D=4,5,6$ and $7$ have string and M-theory origins [@tenauthor].
We now examine the thermodynamical properties of the black hole (\[chargedbh\]), with $k=1$. The temperature, entropy, electric potential and charge are given by $$\begin{aligned}
T&=&\fft{f'(r)}{4\pi H^{1/2}}\Big|_{r=r_+}\,,\qquad S=\ft14 H^{1/2}
r_+^{D-2} \omega_{D-2}\,,\cr \Phi&=&(1-H^{-1}) \coth\delta\,,\qquad Q=\fft{D-3}{32\pi} \mu
\sinh(2\delta) \omega_{D-2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The mass of the black hole is given by $$M=\fft{r_+^{D-3}(1 + g^2 r_+^2)(D-1 + (D-3)\cosh(2\delta))}{32\pi
(1-g^2r_+^2 \sinh^2\delta)}\,.$$ The BPS limit is given by setting $\mu\rightarrow 0$ while keeping $\mu\sinh^2\delta=q$ fixed, for which $H=1 + q/r^{D-3}$ and $f=1 +
g^2 r^2 H$ and $\coth\delta=1$. The Killing spinors exist in this BPS limit, satisfying the following projection $$\Big(f^{\fft12} + {\rm i}\, \Gamma^t + g r H^{\ft12}
\Gamma^r\Big)\eta=0\,.$$ For $k=0$, the extremal limit implies the vanishing of the 2-form and the resulting solution is the BPS domain wall.
To conclude this section, we would like to mention that the general charged rotating black holes in the Kaluza-Klein theory with the scalar potential (\[f2pot\]) was obtained in [@wu].
A class of general “BPS” solutions
==================================
The existence of well-defined Killing spinor equations can be a powerful tool in finding “BPS” solutions that preserve at least one Killing spinor [@gghpr]. As an example, let us consider the effective action of the bosonic string at $D=5$, with the conformal anomaly term set to 0. The Killing spinor equations are given by (\[ks1\]) and (\[ks2\]), with $W=0=W'$. In $D=5$, the spinors are pseudo-Majorana, and hence all possible bi-spinors take the following form $$f={\rm i}\bar\eta\eta\,,\qquad K^M=\bar\eta\Gamma^M\eta\,,\qquad
Y_{(3)}^{MN}=\bar\eta\Gamma^{MN}\eta\,,$$ which are real, together with $$Y^{MN}=\bar\eta^c\Gamma^{MN}\eta\equiv Y_{(1)}^{MN}+i
Y_{(2)}^{MN}\,,$$ which is complex. Here, we have $\bar \eta = \eta^\dagger \Gamma_0$ and $\bar \eta^c=\eta^T C$, where $C$ is the charge conjugation matrix. We find the following identity for these bi-spinors: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{M}f&=&\ft1{18} e^{\fft12a\phi}\epsilon_{M} {}^{M_1M_2M_3N}
H_{M_1M_2M_3}K_N\,, \label{5ddf1}
\\
\nabla_{M}K_N&=&\ft1{18}
e^{\fft12a\phi}\left(f\epsilon_{MNM_1M_2M_3}
H^{M_1M_2M_3}+3H_{MNM_3}K^{M_3} \right) \,, \label{5ddf2}
\\
\nabla_{M}Y_{(3)}^{N_1N_2}&=& \ft1{18}
e^{\fft12a\phi}\left[6Y_{(3)}{}_{MM_3}H^{N_1N_2M_3}
-6\delta_M^{[N_2}Y_{(3)}{}_{M_2M_3}H^{N_1]M_2M_3}\right.\cr &&\qquad\qquad\left.- 6H_{M}{}^{M_3[N_2}
Y_{(3)}^{N_1]}{}_{M_3}\right]\, \,, \label{5ddf3}
\\
\nabla_{M}Y^{N_1N_2}&=& \ft1{18}
e^{\fft12a\phi}\left[6Y_{MM_3}H^{N_1N_2M_3}-
6\delta_M^{[N_2}Y_{M_2M_3}H^{N_1]M_2M_3}\right.\cr &&\qquad\qquad \left. - 6H_{M}{}^{M_3[N_2} Y^{N_1]}{}_{M_3}\right]\,
\,. \label{5ddf4}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $K\equiv K^{M}\partial_M$ is a Killing vector and $$\nabla_{[M}Y_{(i)N_1N_2]}= 0\,\,,\qquad \nabla_{M}Y_{(i)}^{MN_2}=
\ft13 e^{\fft12a\phi}H_{(i)}{}_{M_2M_3}F^{N_2M_2M_3} \,.$$ In addition, we have $$\begin{aligned}
K^{M}\partial_M \phi=Y_{(i)}\wedge F=0 \label{5ddf5} \,,\qquad
Y_{(i)}\equiv Y_{(i)MN}dx^M\wedge dx^N\,.\end{aligned}$$ With some lengthy algebra, we also obtain the following product relations $$\begin{aligned}
K_M K^M &=& -f^2\,,\qquad K_{N}Y_{(i)}^{NM}=0\,,\\
K_{[M_1}Y_{(i)M_2M_3]}&=&-\ft{1}{6}\epsilon_{M_1M_2N_1N_2N_3}f
Y_{(i)}^{M_1M_2}\label{5dky2}\,,\\
Y_{(i)N_1}{}^{N_3}Y_{(j)N_2N_3}&=& \delta_{ij}\left(f^2g_{N_1N_2}
+K_{N_1}K_{N_2}\right)+\epsilon_{ij}{}^{k}f
Y_{(k)N_1N_2}\label{5dyy1}\,,\\
Y_{(i)[N_1N_2}Y_{(j)N_3N_4]}&=&\ft13\delta_{ij}
\epsilon_{MN_1N_2N_3N_4}fK^M\label{5dyy2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We are now in the position to derive the explicit solutions. For the case $f\ne 0$, the Killing vector $K$ is time-like and we can choose the coordinate such that $K=\partial_t$. Without loss of generality we consider $f>0$. We find that the general BPS solution is simply given by $$ds_5^2=-f^2 dt^2 + f^{-1} ds_4^2\,,\qquad H_\3={*_4
df^{-3}}\,,\qquad e^{a\phi} = f^4\,,$$ where the bi-spinor relations define the hyper-Kähler structure for $ds_4^2$. The Bianchi identity and the equation of motion for the 3-form $H_\3$ further imply that $f^{-3}$ is the harmonic function on the hyper-Kähler space $ds_4^2$.
When $f=0$, the Killing vector $K$ is null and we can choose the coordinate such that $K=\partial_{v}$. The bi-spinor relations and the Killing spinor equations imply that the general BPS solution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&ds^2=H^{-1}(\lambda du^2+2dudv)+H^2(dx_i+A_i du)(dx^i+A^i du)\,,
\cr&&H_\3=-3H^{-4}\partial_iHdx^i\wedge du\wedge
dv-H^{-2}\partial_{i}A_{ j}dx^i\wedge dx^j\wedge du \,,
\cr&&e^{a\phi}=H^4\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that there should be no confusion between the the 3-form $H_\3$ and the function $H$. After imposing the Bianchi identity and the equation of motion for $H_\3$ as well as the Einstein equation along the $uu$ direction, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_i\partial^i H^3=0\,,\quad \partial_i\partial^iA_{j} =0\,,\quad
\partial_{[i}H\partial_{j}A_{ k]}=0\,,\quad
\partial_i\partial^i\lambda =-2H^3\partial_{i}A_{ j}\partial^{i}A^{ j}
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have imposed the gauge condition $\partial_u H^3 =
\partial_j (H^3 A^j)$ on $A_j$.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we extend the construction of the Killing spinors in [@lpw; @lw] for non supersymmetric theories, by introducing scalar potentials. In the case of the effective action of the bosonic string, we find that the existence of consistent Killing spinor equations requires that the scalar potential is precisely the conformal anomaly term, which is a single exponential of the dilaton field. We obtain the most general tree-level action for the bosonic string up to the $\alpha'$ order, suggesting that the hidden pseudo-supersymmetry associated with the Killing spinor equations is an intrinsic stringy property, regardless whether the theory is supersymmetric or not.
We also consider the Killing spinor equations for the Kaluza-Klein theories with scalar potentials in general dimensions. If the Killing spinor is neutral under the Kaluza-Klein vector, the scalar potential also has to be a single exponential term, which has no fixed point. However, we can gauge the theory such that the Killing spinors are charged under the $U(1)$ Kaluza-Klein vector, and the resulting scalar potential has one maximum, giving rise to an AdS vacuum. We obtain the charged black hole and discuss its BPS limit. The gauegd Kaluza-Klein theory has obvious application in the AdS/CFT correspondence. For $D=4,5,6$ and 7, these theories can be embedded in gauged supergravities and lifted to higher dimensional fundamental theories, such as M-theory or the type IIB theory. However, the origin of theories in general dimensions are not clear. The existence of Killing spinor equations warrants further investigations in these gauged Kaluza-Klein AdS theories.
Although in scalar-gravity theories, Killing spinor equations can be defined for an arbitrary superpotential, the situation is much more restrictive when form fields are involved. So far, the bosonic string and the Kaluza-Klein theory (\[f2lag\]) with the scalar potential (\[f2pot\]) are the only known non-trivial examples of intrinsically non-supersymmetry theories that admit Killing spinor equations. It is of great interest to investigate systematically the conditions for which Killing spinor equations can arise.
Finally we used the Killing spinor equations to obtain the most general solutions that admits at least one Killing spinor for the effective action for the five-dimensional bosonic string.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We are grateful to Chris Pope for useful discussions. H. Liu is grateful to KITPC, Beijing, for hospitality during the course of this work, and is supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China (10425525,10875103), National Basic Research Program of China (2010CB833000) and Zhejiang University Group Funding (2009QNA3015).
KK reduction of Killing spinor equations
========================================
Let us consider $(D+1)$-dimensional Einstein gravity $${\cal L}_{D+1} = \sqrt{-\hat g} \hat R\,.$$ It’s Killing spinor is defined by $$D_M \hat \epsilon\equiv \partial_M \hat \epsilon+ \ft14
\omega^{AB}{}_{M} \hat \Gamma_{AB} \hat \epsilon=0\,.$$ Performing the $S^1$ reduction, $$\begin{aligned}
ds_{D+1}^2 &=& e^{2\alpha\phi} ds_{D}^2 + e^{2\beta\phi} (dz +
A)^2\,,\cr \beta &=& - (D-2)\alpha\,,\qquad \alpha^2 = \fft{1}{2(D-1)(D-2)}\,,
\label{s1red}\end{aligned}$$ the lower-dimensional Lagrangian is $${\cal L}_D = \sqrt{-g} (R - \ft12(\partial\phi)^2 - \ft14 e^{a\phi}
F_\2^2)\,,$$ where $a=-2(D-1)\alpha$.
A convenient choice for the vielbein for the metric in (\[s1red\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat e^{A}{}_M = e^{\alpha \phi} e^{A}{}_M\,,&& \hat
e^{Z}{}_M=e^{\beta\phi} A_M\,,\cr \hat e^{A}{}_z=0\,, && \hat e^{Z}{}_z=e^{\beta\phi}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $Z$ denotes the flat index. The spin connection is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \omega^{AB} &=& \omega^{AB} + \alpha
e^{-\alpha\phi}(\partial^B\phi \hat e^{A} - \partial^A\phi \hat
e^{B}) - \ft12 F^{AB} e^{(\beta-2\alpha)\phi} \hat e^Z\,,\cr \hat \omega^{AZ}&=& -\beta e^{-\alpha\phi}\partial^A\phi \hat e^{Z}
- \ft12 F^A{}_B e^{(\beta-2\alpha)\phi} \hat e^B\,.\end{aligned}$$
Let us first consider the case when $D$ is even. The $(D+1)$-dimensional gamma matrices can be decomposed as $$\hat \Gamma_A= \Gamma_A\,,\qquad \hat \Gamma_Z = \gamma$$ where $\gamma$, with $\gamma^2=1$, is the chiral operator that is anti-commuting with all gamma matrices. The Killing spinor is given by $$\hat \epsilon=e^{\fft12\alpha\phi}\, \eta\,.$$ The reduction of $D_z\hat \epsilon=0$ gives rise to $$-\gamma \Gamma^M \partial_M \phi \eta + \ft1{4\beta}
e^{(\beta-\alpha)\phi} \Gamma^{MN} F_{MN} \eta=0\,.$$ The reduction of $D_M \hat \epsilon=0$ gives rise to $$D_M\eta + \fft{\gamma}{8(D-2)} e^{(\beta-\alpha)\phi} \Big( \Gamma_M
\Gamma^{M_1 M_2} -2(D-2) \delta_M^{M_1} \Gamma^{M_2}\Big)
F_{M_1M_2}\eta=0\,.$$
We now consider adding a cosmological constant in $D+1$ dimensions, namely ${\cal L}_{\rm cosmo}=-(D-1)(D-2)\lambda^2 \sqrt{-g}$, which generates a scalar potential in $D$ dimensions: $${\cal L}_{\rm pot} = -(D-1)(D-2)\lambda^2
e^{2\alpha\phi}\,.\label{cosmopot}$$ The Killing spinor equation in $D+1$ is modified as $$\hat D_M \hat \epsilon + \ft12\lambda\hat \Gamma_M \hat
\epsilon=0\,.$$ The reduced Killing spinor equations become $$-\gamma \Gamma^M \partial_M \phi \eta + \ft1{4\beta}
e^{(\beta-\alpha)\phi} \Gamma^{MN} F_{MN} \eta -
\fft{\lambda}{\beta} e^{\alpha \phi} \gamma \eta=0\,.$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&D_M\eta + \fft{\gamma}{8(D-2)} e^{(\beta-\alpha)\phi} \Big(
\Gamma_M \Gamma^{M_1 M_2} -2(D-2) \delta_M^{M_1} \Gamma^{M_2}\Big)
F_{M_1M_2}\,\eta \cr &&\qquad\qquad + \ft{D-1}{2(D-2)}\lambda e^{\alpha\phi} \Gamma_M
\eta =0\,.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$W=\sqrt{2}\,(D-1)\lambda\, e^{\alpha\phi}\,.\label{wform}$$ Note that this scalar potential is different from given in section 4.
We now consider the case when $D$ is odd. The gamma matrix decomposition is given by $$\hat \Gamma_M = \sigma_1\otimes \Gamma_M\,,\qquad \hat \Gamma_Z =
\sigma_2\otimes \oneone\,.$$ The reduced Killing spinor equations become $$\begin{aligned}
&&D_M\eta - \fft{\rm i}{8(D-2)}e^{\fft12a\phi}
\sigma_3\Big(\Gamma_M\Gamma^{M_1M_2} - 2(D-2)\delta_{M}^{M_1}
\Gamma^{M_2}\Big) F_{M_1M_2}\eta \cr &&\qquad+ \fft{W}{2\sqrt2\,(D-2)}\sigma_1\Gamma_M \eta =0\,,\cr &&\Gamma^M\partial_M\phi \eta - \ft{\rm i}{4}ae^{\fft12 a\phi}
\sigma_3 \Gamma^{M_1M_2} F_{M_1M_2}\eta
-\sqrt2\fft{dW}{d\phi}\sigma_1 \eta=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $W$ takes the same form as that in (\[wform\]). Note that the Pauli matrices tensor product with the gamma matrices. The appearance of these pauli matrices reflects that the Killing spinors are symplectic Majorana. Not also that since $D$ is odd, so $(D+1)$ is even. This implies that in $(D+1)$ dimensions, the Killing spinor equation can have an alternative form $\hat D_M \hat\epsilon + {\rm
i}\hat \gamma\hat \Gamma_M\hat \epsilon=0$. Since $\hat \gamma \sim
\sigma_3$, thus it is equivalent to set $\sigma_1$ in the above equation to $\sigma_2$.
The reason we present the Kaluza-Klein reduction of pure gravity and its Killing spinor equations is to make comparison to the discussion in section 4. The abstract construction of the Killing spinors in the Kaluza-Klein theory is somewhat different from the dimensional reduction of the Killing spinors in one dimension higher. The integrability conditions suggest that they are equivalent. However, when the scalar potentials are added, they becomes inequivalent, each admits a different scalar potential. In particular, the Killing spinor equations obtained from the Kaluza-Klein reduction cannot be gauged and $W$ cannot be augmented with an extra term to generate AdS spacetimes. This leaves the origin of the scalar potential (\[f2pot\]) intriguing to investigate.
[99]{}
D.Z. Freedman, C. Nunez, M. Schnabl and K. Skenderis, [*Fake supergravity and domain wall stability,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 104027 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0312055\]. H. Lü, C.N. Pope and Z.L. Wang, [*Pseudo-supersymmetry, consistent sphere reduction and Killing spinors for the bosonic string,*]{} arXiv:1105.6114 \[hep-th\], to appear in JHEP. H. Lü and Z.L. Wang, [*Killing spinors for the bosonic string,*]{} arXiv:1106.1664 \[hep-th\]. H. Lü and Z.L. Wang, [*Pseudo-Killing spinors, pseudo-supersymmetric $p$-branes, bubbling and less-bubbling AdS spaces,*]{} to appear in JHEP, arXiv:1103.0563 \[hep-th\]. M. Cvetič, H. Lü and C.N. Pope, [*Consistent Kaluza-Klein sphere reductions,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 064028 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0003286\]. S. Cucu, H. Lü and J.F. Vazquez-Poritz, [*Interpolating from AdS$_{D-2} \times S^2$ to AdS$_D$,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**677**]{}, 181 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0304022\]. H. Lü, C.N. Pope and J.F. Vazquez-Poritz, [*From AdS black holes to supersymmetric flux-branes,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**709**]{}, 47 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0307001\]. J. Perz, P. Smyth, T. Van Riet and B. Vercnocke, [*First-order flow equations for extremal and non-extremal black holes,*]{} JHEP [**0903**]{}, 150 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.1528 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Grover, J.B. Gutowski, C.A.R. Herdeiro and W. Sabra, [*HKT Geometry and de Sitter Supergravity,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**809**]{}, 406 (2009) \[arXiv:0806.2626 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Grover, J.B. Gutowski, C.A.R. Herdeiro, P. Meessen, A. Palomo-Lozano and W.A. Sabra, [*Gauduchon-Tod structures, Sim holonomy and De Sitter supergravity,*]{} JHEP [**0907**]{}, 069 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.3047 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Skenderis and P. K. Townsend, [*Pseudo-supersymmetry and the domain-wall/cos- mology correspondence,*]{} J. Phys. A [**40**]{}, 6733 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0610253\]. C.G. Callan, E.J. Martinec, M.J. Perry and D. Friedan, [*Strings in Background Fields,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**262**]{}, 593 (1985). M. Cvetič, M.J. Duff, P. Hoxha, James T. Liu, H. Lü, J.X. Lü, R. Martinez-Acosta, C.N. Pope, H. Sati, T.A. Tran, [*Embedding AdS black holes in ten-dimensions and eleven-dimensions,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**558**]{}, 96 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9903214\]. L.J. Romans, [*The $F_4$ gauged supergravity in six dimensions,*]{} Nucl. Phys. B [**269**]{}, 691 (1986). M. Cvetič, S.S. Gubser, H. Lü and C.N. Pope, [*Symmetric potentials of gauged supergravities in diverse dimensions and Coulomb branch of gauge theories,*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 086003 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9909121\]. Z.W. Chong, H. Lü and C.N. Pope, [*BPS geometries and AdS bubbles,*]{} Phys. Lett. B [**614**]{}, 96 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0412221\]. J.P. Gauntlett, J.B. Gutowski, C.M. Hull, S. Pakis and H.S. Reall, [*All supersymmetric solutions of minimal supergravity in five- dimensions,*]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**20**]{}, 4587 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0209114\]. S.Q. Wu, [*General rotating charged Kaluza-Klein AdS black holes in higher dimensions*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{} (2011) 121502 (R)
[^1]: It should be emphasized that pseudo-Killing spinors can still be extremely useful in constructing non-trivial solutions including non-supersymmetric bubbling and less-bubbling AdS spaces, in which extra constraints can either be easily satisfied or give restrictions to the solution space [@lw0]. However, in this paper, we shall be concerned only with theories that admit the (consistent) Killing spinor equations.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper generalizes the bordered-algebraic knot invariant introduced in an earlier paper, giving an invariant now with more algebraic structure. It also introduces signs to define these invariants with integral coefficients. We describe effective computations of the resulting invariant.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics, Princeton University\
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
- |
Department of Mathematics, Princeton University\
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
author:
- Peter Ozsváth
- 'Zolt[á]{}n Szab[ó]{}'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Bordered knot algebras with matchings
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^1]: PSO was supported by NSF grant number DMS-1405114
[^2]: ZSz was supported by NSF grant numbers DMS-1309152 and DMS-1606571
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Ryan Viertel$^1$
- Braxton Osting$^2$
- Matthew Staten$^1$
bibliography:
- 'partition-simplification.bib'
date: |
$^1$Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A. [email protected], [email protected]\
$^2$University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, U.S.A. [email protected]
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Block structured quad meshes are often desirable because of their numerical efficiency [@lindquist_comparison_1989], low memory requirements [@sandia_trilinos_2017], and high mesh quality [@kowalski_pde_2013]. Having such a block structure on a surface is also advantageous for tasks such as spline fitting and isogeometric analysis [@campen_partitioning_2017]. In the past, such meshes have been designed by hand or in an interactive environment [@dlr_megacads_2001]. More recently, researchers have made progress towards fully automating this process [@campen_partitioning_2017]. The problem of coarse quad layout generation can be summarized as determining the placement of irregular nodes of the layout, and determining the connectivity of those nodes in such a way that the resulting layout is topologically valid, coarse, and such that a mapping of the region to a quadrilateral in the plane results in low distortion.
Various approaches have been taken to generate coarse quad partitions of surfaces, each of which address these problems of irregular node placement and determining connectivity in different ways. These methods include medial axis subdivision [@tam_2d_1991; @gould_automated_2012], computing the Morse-Smale complex [@dong_spectral_2006], surface foliations [@lei_generalized_2017], dual loops [@campen_dual_2012], simplifying an existing quad mesh [@tarini_simple_2011; @bommes_global_2011], and more recently, cross field based approaches [@kowalski_pde_2013; @bommes_integer-grid_2013; @razafindrazaka_perfect_2015; @fogg_automatic_2015; @campen_quantized_2015; @zhang_automatic_2016; @pietroni_tracing_2016]. While in this discussion we focus on cross field based streamline tracing approaches, Campen \[4\] provides an excellent literature review on quad patching algorithms.
In cross field based streamline tracing approaches, irregular node placement is determined by computing singular points of the cross field, where simple singularities of positive or negative index correspond to irregular nodes of valence 3 or 5 respectively. The connectivity of the layout is then determined by either tracing out raw separatrices of the cross field, or by using the isolines of an underlying parameterization. A common problem with separatrix tracing approaches is that on a discrete geometry, singularities are never perfectly aligned. In practice, this frequently causes limit cycles and very thin regions to occur within the quad layout. This is problematic for meshing because very small mesh elements are required. Further, the *base complex* of the mesh is often far more complicated than necessary, mitigating the benefits of a multi-block decomposition. Another problem is that despite the fact that in the continuum, streamlines can only cross each other orthogonally [@viertel_approach_2019], numerical inaccuracies often lead to tangential crossings of streamlines. This is especially true near singularities, where large changes in direction occur over arbitrarily small lengths.
We make three primary contributions:
1. We extend the diffusion generated method for cross field design in [@viertel_approach_2019] to curved surfaces. This method which has previously only been described in 2D tends to have good singularity placement in locations where singularities occur because of boundary curvature rather than Gaussian curvature of the surface, a common scenario for CAD surfaces.
2. We prove that near singularities, streamlines of a cross field are hyperbolic under a conformal map. This results in a simple method to compute streamlines in the neighborhood of a singularity that prevents tangential crossings.
3. We describe a novel algorithm for simplifying a quad partition with T-junctions such that the number of partition components strictly decreases and the number of T-junctions decreases monotonically.
A triangle mesh $T$ representing a surface $M$ in ${\mathbb R}^3$.
A quad layout with T-junctions $Q$ partitioning $M$ into four-sided regions.
1\. Compute a smooth cross field on $\mathrm{T}$. 2. Construct a quad layout with T-junctions by tracing out separatrices of the cross field. 3. Simplify the quad layout with T-junctions.
To demonstrate these contributions, we include them in the pipeline described in algorithm \[alg:ps-overview\], which takes as input a triangle mesh, and outputs a coarse quad layout, possibly with T-junctions.
Related Work
------------
Several researchers have taken an approach to generating quad layouts that is similar to the pipeline in algorithm \[alg:ps-overview\]. Kowalski et al. [@kowalski_pde_2013] design a cross field by solving a PDE with a constraint applied via Lagrange multipliers. They numerically integrate streamlines from each interior singularity and boundary corner, and snap streamlines to singularities when they pass within a certain tolerance of the singularity in order to obtain a coarser quad layout. While streamline snapping works well on some examples, it is not robust in general because it can introduce tangential crossings when more than one streamline passes nearby a singularity. Fogg et al. [@fogg_automatic_2015] take a similar approach, but initialize the cross field by an advancing front method and then smooth it with the energy functional introduced by Hertzmann and Zorin [@hertzmann_illustrating_2000]. Rather than snapping separatrices to singularities, they allow them to pass by singularities, resulting in thin regions throughout the partition. Ray and Sokolov [@ray_robust_2014] and Myles et al. [@myles_robust_2014] both implement robust streamline tracing algorithms based on edge maps [@jadhav_consistent_2012], and then trace out streamlines in parallel until their first crossing with another streamline, forming a motorcycle graph [@eppstein_motorcycle_2008]. This approach yields coarse quad patches because of the large number of T-junctions that appear in the decomposition. Because of the T-junctions, it is a non-trivial matter to assign globally consistent parametric lengths to each edge. Myles et al. [@myles_robust_2014] are able to achieve this via a heuristic method, which includes a collapse operation, similar to the one we describe in \[sec:partition-simplification\], used to remove edges with zero parametric length, and 2-6 cone insertion to remove zero edges which cannot be collapsed. They subsequently generate a globally consistent seamless parameterization on each quad region. This method differs from our goal in that the parameterization is not *quantized* (cf. [@campen_quantized_2015]) and so does not correspond to a quad mesh let alone a coarse quad decomposition. Campen et al. [@campen_quantized_2015] compute quantized parameterizations on surfaces by solving a combinatorial optimization problem similar to [@bommes_integer-grid_2013] but leverage the structure of a motorcycle graph to determine a set of linear equality constraints which are applied to the final optimization problem, guaranteeing a valid solution which also outperforms previous parameterization methods, especially in cases with a large number of singularities or large target edge lengths. This enables them finally to extract a coarse quad mesh. Razafindrazaka et al. [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015] trace out separatrices of a seamless parameterization to generate a graph of possible matchings between separatrices and singularities. They then formulate the problem of connecting singularities together as a minimum weight perfect matching problem. In a second paper [@razafindrazaka_optimal_2017] they extend their perfect matching method to work on an input quad mesh rather than a seamless parameterization. Zhang et al. [@zhang_automatic_2016] employ a similar strategy to [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015], from an input seamless parameterization they identify candidate separatrices as monotone isolines of the parameterization in areas they call *safety turning areas* which are rectangular parameterizations between opposite singularities. From these candidate separatrices they choose an optimal set via a binary optimization problem. Pietroni et al. [@pietroni_tracing_2016] trace out candidate curves connecting either two singularities or a singularity to a boundary which they call *field-coherent* streamlines, which can deviate from the cross field but never switch to a different direction of the field. They then select a valid subset of these candidate streamlines to form a quad layout with T-junctions by solving a binary optimization problem.
The pipeline we implement is most similar to [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015; @zhang_automatic_2016] and [@pietroni_tracing_2016] because it attempts to generate a quad layout by directly manipulating the streamlines of an underlying cross field. It also shares similarities with the methods of Tarini et al. [@tarini_simple_2011] and Bommes et al. [@bommes_global_2011], which attempt to simplify the base complex of an unstructured quad mesh via greedy application of grid preserving operators, the difference being that our simplification method is applied directly to the separatrices of a cross field rather than an input quad mesh.
Cross Field Design {#sec:cross-fields}
==================
Many different methods exist to design a smooth cross field on a curved surface [@hertzmann_illustrating_2000; @palacios_rotational_2007; @ray_n-symmetry_2008; @ray_geometry-aware_2009; @bommes_mixed-integer_2009; @crane_trivial_2010; @knoppel_globally_2013; @panozzo_frame_2014; @jakob_instant_2015; @vaxman_directional_2016; @huang_extrinsically_2016; @beaufort_computing_2017], any of which might be used in algorithm \[alg:ps-overview\]. In the interest of brevity, we will not offer a full review of the literature here but instead refer the reader to [@vaxman_directional_2016]. The diffusion generated method introduced in Viertel and Osting [@viertel_approach_2019] is appealing in the context of meshing CAD surfaces because it is comparable in speed to the fastest methods such as those described in Knöppel et al. [@knoppel_globally_2013] and Jakob et al. [@jakob_instant_2015], but also has an advantage over these methods on surfaces with boundary, which are common in CAD and meshing for FEM, because it tends to place singularities symmetrically even when the surface is flat (see ).
![Left to right, a comparison of singularity placement from cross fields described in Knöppel et al. [@knoppel_globally_2013], Viertel and Osting [@viertel_approach_2019], and Jakob et al. [@jakob_instant_2015]. Singularities with positive and negative index are shown in blue and red respectively.[]{data-label="fig:disks"}](disks-trimmed.png){width="\linewidth"}
In this section, we extend the diffusion generated method for cross field design to curved surfaces. We use this method of cross field design as the first step in our pipeline (\[alg:ps-overview\]). In \[sec:surfaces\], we first review some tools from the literature that have been used previously to develop cross field design methods on surfaces. In \[sec:discrete-MBO\], we describe the implementation details of our method.
Cross Fields on Surfaces {#sec:surfaces}
------------------------
The main difficulty in extending flat 2D methods to curved surfaces is the lack of a global coordinate system. In this section, we use concepts from differential geometry to formulate the cross field design problem on 2-manifolds. We consider a smooth, orientable 2-manifold $M$ embedded in ${\mathbb R}^3$ and endowed with the Riemannian metric induced by the the Euclidean metric on ${\mathbb R}^3$. Let $\mathbb{T} = \{ z \in \mathbb{C}\colon |z| = 1 \}$ be the circle group with group operation given by complex multiplication and let $\rho(4)$ be the set of the $4$th roots of unity. A *cross* is an element of $C = \mathbb{T}/\rho(4)$. There is a canonical group isomorphism $R \colon C \rightarrow \mathbb{T}$ called the *representation map* given by $R([c]) = c^4,$ where $c$ is any representative member of the equivalence class $[c] \in C$. We will refer to $u = c^4$ as the *representation vector* for $[c]$. The *inverse representation map* $R^{-1} \colon \mathbb{T} \rightarrow C$ assigns $u \in \mathbb{T}$ to $R^{-1}(u) = \left[\sqrt[4]{u}\right]$, the equivalence class of the $4$th roots of $u$.
Let $T_p$ be the tangent space of $M$ at a point $p$. The disjoint union of all tangent spaces on $M$ is called the *tangent bundle* and is denoted $TM$. For each tangent space $T_p$ we select a coordinate basis, $\{\frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}|_p,\frac{\partial }{\partial x^2}|_p\}$. We also associate with each point $p$ of $M$ a space homeomorphic to $C$, which we call the *cross space* at $p$. We denote this space by $C_p$. The disjoint union of all cross spaces of $M$ defines a fiber bundle that we refer to as the *cross bundle*. A section of the cross bundle, or a choice of one cross per cross space, is called a *cross field* on $M$. We make the natural identification between $T_p$ and the complex plane by the map $(a,b) \mapsto a + ib$. In this way, we can identify a cross, $[c_p]$, in $C_p$ as an unordered set of four orthogonal unit vectors in $T_p$, which we call the cross *component vectors*. This also allows us to define a representation map $R_p$ at each point with respect to the local coordinate basis, and a representation vector $u_p = R_p([c_p])$, which we identify with the corresponding unit tangent vector in $T_p$. For simplicity, we will use complex notation for equations throughout the paper.
In 2D cross field design, the goal of designing a smooth cross field is often formulated as designing a harmonic representation vector field $u$ [@viertel_approach_2019; @vaxman_directional_2016]. That is, to minimize the Dirichlet energy $$\label{eq:energy}
E[u] \coloneqq \frac{1}{2}\int_M{|\nabla{u}|^2dA}$$
with the constraint that $|u| = 1$ at each point of the domain. We note that in general, this problem is ill-posed; however, generalized solutions exist if a finite number of singular points are removed from $M$ [@viertel_approach_2019; @bethuel_ginzburg-landau_1994].
This strategy can be extended to surfaces by replacing the gradient operator $\nabla$ with the appropriate *connection* on the tangent bundle. The Levi-Civita connection provides a way to compare vectors on the tangent bundle that preserves the notion of inner product between tangent spaces. That is, if $P_{pq}$ is the parallel transport function for the Levi-Civita connection between $T_p$ and $T_q$, and if ${v}_1, {v}_2 \in T_p$, then $$\langle{v}_1,{v}_2 \rangle_{T_P} = \langle P_{pq}({v}_1),P_{pq}({v}_2) \rangle_{T_q}.$$
Visually, the effect of using this connection in equation \[eq:energy\] is that a minimizing vector field appears smooth (see ).
{width="\textwidth"}
In order to extend the strategy from 2D, using equation \[eq:energy\] to design a smooth cross field, we seek a connection, $\nabla^Q$, on the tangent bundle with corresponding parallel transport function, $Q$, appropriate for transporting *representation vectors*. We choose $Q$ in such a way that the component vectors of the corresponding crosses are transported by $P$, the parallel transport function corresponding to the Levi-Civita connection. Let $\gamma_{pq}(t) \colon [0,1] \rightarrow M$ be a Levi-Civita geodesic connecting points $p$ and $q$ such that $\gamma_{pq}(t_p) = p$, $\gamma_{pq}(t_q) = q$, and $t_p, t_q \in (0,1)$. Let $\phi_p$ be the signed angle from the velocity vector $\gamma'_{pq}(t_p)$ to $\frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}|_p$ and let $\phi_q$ be the signed angle from $\gamma'_{pq}(t_q)$ to $\frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}|_q$. Then if $\phi_{pq} = \phi_p - \phi_q$, $P_{pq}({v}) = e^{i\phi_{pq}}{v}$ gives the Levi-Civita parallel transport function, $P_{pq}$, in coordinates with respect to the basis $\{\frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}|_p,\frac{\partial }{\partial x^2}|_p\}$.
Then, $Q_{pq}$, the parallel transport function for *representation vectors* between $p$ and $q$, must satisfy $$\label{eq:parallel-transport}
Q_{pq}(R_p([c_p])) = R_q([P_{pq}(c_p)]).$$
We can write $c_p = e^{i(\theta_p +2k\pi/4)}$ for some $k \in \{0,1,2,3\}$ where $\theta_p$ is the signed angle from $\frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}|_p$ to one of the component vectors of $[c_p]$. We can now write equation \[eq:parallel-transport\] as $$Q_{pq}(e^{4i\theta_p}) = e^{4i(\theta_p + \phi_{pq})}.$$
It follows that $Q_{pq}({v}) = e^{4i\phi_{pq}}{v}$. In addition, we can define parallel transport on the cross bundle from $C_p$ to $C_q$ by $R^{-1}_q \circ Q_{pq} \circ R_p$. We can now use $\nabla^Q$ in equation \[eq:energy\] to define a smooth cross field. In the following section, we define the discrete Laplace equation corresponding to this energy and describe the diffusion generated method for cross field design in detail.
Discrete Formulation {#sec:discrete-MBO}
--------------------
On each node $n_i$ of the input triangle mesh, $\mathrm{T}$, a normal vector, $\vec{n}_i$, is computed as an average of the vectors normal to each adjacent face weighted by the tip angle at the node. This normal vector in turn defines the tangent space, $T_i$, at node $n_i$. We then arbitrarily select a vector in $T_i$, which we assign to be $\frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}|_i$. Then $\frac{\partial }{\partial x^2}|_i$ is the vector such that $\frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}|_i \times \frac{\partial }{\partial x^2}|_i = \vec{n}_i$.
Let $e_{ij}$ be the edge connecting nodes $n_i$ and $n_j$. We compute the value $\phi_i$ as the signed angle between the projection of $e_{ij}$ onto $T_{i}$ and $\frac{\partial }{\partial x^1}|_{i}$. We then store the value $\phi_{ij} = \phi_j - \phi_i$, on the edge $e_{ij}$.
We now define the discrete parallel transport function $Q_{ij} \colon T_i \rightarrow T_j$ by $Q_{ij}(u) = e^{4i\phi_{ij}}u$, which parallel transports representation vectors across $e_{ij}$. This allows us to compare two representation vectors $u \in T_i$ and $v \in T_j$ by $$|v - Q_{ij}(u)|^2.$$
In order to state a well-defined problem, we apply a Dirichlet condition. In the case of closed manifolds, we arbitrarily fix the orientation of a single cross. In the case of a bounded manifold, we apply a Dirichlet boundary condition by fixing $u_i$ on each boundary node. We make the convention that the cross field index of a boundary node (see [@viertel_approach_2019]) is assigned according to .
[p[2cm]{}p[2.4cm]{}p[2cm]{}p[4.9cm]{}]{} Interior Angle & Index\
$(0, \frac{3\pi}{4})$ & $\frac{1}{4}$\
$[\frac{3\pi}{4}, \frac{5\pi}{4}]$ & 0\
$(\frac{5\pi}{4}, \frac{7\pi}{4}]$ & $-\frac{1}{4}$\
$(\frac{7\pi}{4}, 2\pi)$ & $-\frac{1}{2}$\
For a boundary node $n_i$ of index 0 or $-\frac{1}{2}$, we compute the outward pointing unit normal vector of each boundary edge adjacent to $n_i$ lying in the plane of the adjacent boundary face. We then project these vectors into the tangent plane at $n_i$, and bisect them with a unit vector, $d_i$, which averages the directions of the facet normals. Since we want to align the cross to this vector, we set $u_i = d_i^4$. For nodes of index $\pm$ $\frac{1}{4}$, $d_i$ is first rotated $\pi/4$ radians about $\mathbf{n}_i$ in the positive direction before computing $u_i$.
### The Diffusion Generated Method for Cross Field Design
Intuitively, we would like to solve until stationarity the time dependent problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:time-dependent}
u_t(t,x) &= \Delta u(t,x) && x \in M\nonumber\\
u(t,x) &= g(x) && x \in \partial M\\
u(0,x) &= u^0(x) && x \in M\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
with the constraint that $|u(x)| = 1$ pointwise, rather than directly solving the stationary problem with the same constraint. This key difference allows one to avoid the necessity of using a non-linear solver because the pointwise constraint can be enforced simply by normalizing the solution in between discrete time steps (see [@ruuth_diffusion-generated_2001; @laux_analysis_2019]). We proceed by defining a discrete Laplacian operator, $\Delta_Q$ corresponding to the connection $\nabla^Q$. $$\label{eq:discrete-laplacian}
\Delta_Q(u)|_i = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}(n_i)|} \sum_{n_j \in \mathcal{N}(n_i)}{\left(u_j - Q_{ij}(u_i)\right)}$$
where $\mathcal{N}(n_i)$ is the one-ring neighborhood of $n_i$ and $|\mathcal{N}(n_i)|$ is the area of that neighborhood. This discrete Laplacian operator allows us to assemble a discrete diffusion equation using a backward Euler time discretization; $$(I - \tau A)u = u_0 + \tau b$$
where $A$ is the matrix form of $\Delta_Q$. We iteratively solve this equation for a small time step $\tau$ and pointwise renormalize the solution between each iteration. The algorithm is described in detail in algorithm \[alg:MBO\].
Let $u^0$ be the solution to $Au = b$. Fix $\tau$, $\delta$, and set $k = 0$. Solve the discrete diffusion equation, $$(I - \tau A)u^{k+1} = u^k + \tau b$$ Set $u^{k+1}_j = \frac{u^{k+1}_j}{|u^{k+1}_j|}$\
$k++$
Generation of a Quad Layout with T-junctions {#sec:quad-layout}
============================================
After designing a cross field on a triangle mesh, the next step in \[alg:ps-overview\] is to construct a quad layout with T-junctions. This is accomplished in two steps:
1. Determine singularity locations and ports.
2. Trace out separatrices of the cross field.
In \[sec:singularities-and-ports\], we detail the first step of this process. In \[sec:separatrices\], we describe our approach to streamline tracing, including our novel method for computing the trajectory of a streamline in the neighborhood of a singularity. In \[sec:tangential-crossings\], we discuss stopping conditions for the streamline tracing algorithm as well as a heuristic method for handling tangential streamline crossings that occur commonly when tracing streamlines via numerical integration.
Singularity and Port Detection {#sec:singularities-and-ports}
------------------------------
Singularity and port detection in a cross field defined per node is well documented in the literature [@kowalski_pde_2013; @fogg_automatic_2015; @viertel_approach_2019; @knoppel_globally_2013; @jakob_instant_2015]. We use methods that have been developed previously, but include a description here for completeness.
### Matchings
Across each edge, we assume that crosses make the smallest rotation possible. This is called the *principle matching* of the crosses. If $u_i = e^{4i\theta_i}$, then the change in cross orientation between two nodes $n_i$ and $n_j$, denoted $\Delta_{ij}$, is the number between $-\frac{\pi}{4}$ and $\frac{\pi}{4}$ given by $$\Delta_{ij} = (\theta_j - (\phi_{ij} + \theta_i)) (\bmod\:\pi/2) - \pi/4.$$
### Singularity Detection
The *index* of a triangle, $t_{ijk}$, with nodes $n_i$, $n_j$, and $n_k$ is the number given by $$\operatorname*{I}{(t_{ijk})} = \frac{\Delta_{ij} + \Delta_{jk} + \Delta_{ki} - \phi_{ij} - \phi_{jk} - \phi_{ki}}{2\pi}.$$
Practically, this is the number of turns that a cross makes while circulating the triangle, which is always an integer multiple of $\frac{1}{4}$. A triangle is *singular* if its index is non-zero. Summing the changes in cross orientation along each edge, we compute the total circulation of the cross around the triangle. On a flat surface, the total circulation must be a multiple of $\pi/2$; however, on curved surfaces, this is not the case. In general, a vector in the tangent bundle of $M$ parallel transported along a closed curve does not always return to the same orientation after circulating the curve. To mitigate the effects of *holonomy* while transporting a cross around the triangle, we subtract from the total circulation the angle defect that occurs when parallel transporting a vector around the triangle via our discrete connection. This angle defect is given by $\phi_{ij} + \phi_{jk} + \phi_{ki}$. Subtracting the angle defect from the total circulation leaves us with a number that is a multiple of $\pi/2$, from which we compute the index.
After we determine singular triangles, we approximate the location of the singularity within the triangle by taking the barycenter of the triangle. We choose an arbitrary node, $n$, on the triangle and rotate the cross component vectors at that node into the plane of the face. We use the ray starting at the barycenter and passing through $n$ as a reference axis, and compute the angle $\alpha$ that the nearest cross component vector makes with the reference axis. We then compute the angles where streamlines exit the singularity (ports) as $\alpha + \frac{2\pi k}{4-d}$ where $d/4$ is the index of the singularity (see [@viertel_approach_2019]).
Separatrix Tracing {#sec:separatrices}
------------------
After designing a cross field on $T$, we build an initial quad partition by tracing separatrices of the cross field. Below, we describe the methods used for tracing separatrices in non-singular and singular triangles.
### Non-Singular Triangles {#sec:non-singular-triangles}
In non-singular triangles $t_{ijk}$, we project the crosses on each corner of $t_{ijk}$ into the plane of the triangle. We define a reference coordinate axis in that plane, and compute a representation vector for each cross with respect to this reference coordinate axis. We interpolate the argument of the representation vector linearly over the triangle. This is possible because in a non-singular triangle, the argument is continuous as it circulates the boundary. Using this interpolation, we trace out the streamlines using Heun’s method [@kowalski_pde_2013].
### Singular Triangles {#sec:singular-triangles}
Previously, no streamline tracing methods have been suitable for accurately tracing streamlines in the neighborhood of a singular triangle. Numerical integration methods such as Heun’s method and other Runge-Kutta methods [@kowalski_pde_2013; @fogg_automatic_2015; @viertel_approach_2019; @zhang_vector_2006] are inaccurate in the neighborhood of a singularity since cross directions can change arbitrarily fast. They frequently compute discretizations of the streamline that “cut the corner” rather than traversing around the singularity as they should (see ). Streamline tracing methods based on edge maps [@ray_robust_2014; @myles_robust_2014] are guaranteed to never result in tangential crossings, but since paths are discretized by straight lines through each triangle, they are limited in their ability to resolve the path of a trajectory around a streamline by the number of triangles that meet at a singular point.
![An illustration of a numerically traced streamline that “cuts the corner” and does not traverse around the singularity.[]{data-label="fig:cut-the-corner"}](cut-corners.pdf){width="15.00000%"}
Here we develop a new method to accurately trace streamlines within the neighborhood of a singularity to any predefined resolution. This method guarantees that no tangential intersections of streamlines will occur within the neighborhood. We first prove that in $\mathbb{R}^2$, trajectories of streamlines through the neighborhood of a singularity are hyperbolas under a conformal transformation.
Let $f$ be a canonical harmonic cross field (see [@viertel_approach_2019]) on a domain $D \subset {\mathbb R}^2$. Let $a \in {\mathbb R}^2$ be the location of a singularity of index $\frac{d}{4}$ where $d$ is an integer $\leq 1$. Consider the open ball $B(a,r_0)$ of radius $r_0 > 0$ centered at $a$. We seek an approximation for the trajectory of an arbitrary streamline passing through a point $q \neq a$ in $B(a,r_0)$.
The cross field, $f(z)$, partitions $B(a,r_0)$ into $4 - d$ evenly angled sectors bounded by separatrices of the cross field [@viertel_approach_2019]. In each sector, the cross field defines a local $(u,v)$ parameterization. Let $S$ be the open sector containing $q$, and let $s_0$ and $s_1$ be the separatrices bounding $S$ ordered counterclockwise. Because the cross field defines a local $(u,v)$ parameterization on $S$, there are two streamlines passing through $q$, one crossing $s_0$ orthogonally, the other crossing $s_1$ orthogonally. Without loss of generality, we consider $\gamma$, the streamline crossing $s_1$ orthogonally. This streamline crosses $s_1$ into $S'$, the open sector adjacent to $S$ that is also bounded by $s_1$, and then exits $B(a,r_0)$ (see ).
![Streamlines in a neighborhood of a singularity become hyperbolas under a conformal map $g$.[]{data-label="fig:hyperbolic"}](hyperbolic.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
By [@viertel_approach_2019], the cross field in $B(a,r_0)$ can be written as $$f(z) = e^{i(\frac{d\theta}{4} + \frac{2k\pi}{4})} + o(r)$$ where $d/4$ is the index of the singularity, $z=re^{i\theta}$, $k \in \{0,1,2,3\}$, and $\theta = 0$ corresponds to $s_0$. For $r < r_0$ where $r_0$ is sufficiently small, we make the approximation $$f(z) = e^{i(\frac{d\theta}{4} + \frac{2k\pi}{4})}.$$ Streamlines of the cross field are given by $$z' = f(z).$$ Since we are looking for the streamline crossing through $s_1$, we consider $k = 0$. Thus, we are looking for the set $C = \{z(t) \in B(a,r_0)\, |\, t \in (t_a,t_b)\}$ where $z(t)$ on $(t_a,t_b)$ is the solution to the problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ODE}
z' &= e^{i\frac{d\theta}{4}}\\
z(0) &= (r_q,\theta_q)\end{aligned}$$
in $D = \{z = re^{i\theta}\, |\, r \in (0,r_0),\, \theta \in (0,\frac{4\pi}{4-d})\}$.
\[prop:hyperbolic-trajectory\] $C = \{(x + iy)^{-(4-d)/8}\, |\, xy = A,\, x \in I_x\}$ for some constant $A$ on some interval $I_x$.
Consider a differentiable curve in $D$ given by $z(t)$ for $t \in (a,b)$. Consider the function $g(z) = z^{(4-d)/8}$ that maps $D$ to $\tilde{D}$, the sector of the upper right quadrant given by $\{w = \rho e^{i\varphi}\, |\, \rho \in (0,\rho_0 = r_0^{(4-d)/8}),\, \varphi \in (0,\frac{\pi}{2})\}$ (see ). Let $w(t) = g(z(t))$ for $t \in (a,b)$. Taking the derivative of both sides, we have $$w'(t) = g'(z(t))z'(t)$$
since $g'(z) \neq 0$ in $D$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:conformal-relation}
\arg{(g'(z(t))z'(t))} &= \arg{g'(z(t))} + \arg{z'(t)}\\
&= \left(\frac{4-d}{8} - 1\right)\theta + \arg(z'(t))
\end{aligned}$$
In the case that $z(t)$ is a solution of equation \[eq:ODE\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\arg{w'(t)} &= \frac{d\theta}{4} + \left(\frac{4-d}{8} - 1\right)\theta\\
&= -\frac{(4-d)\theta}{8} = -\varphi
\end{aligned}$$
Thus $w'(t) = \alpha(t)e^{-i\varphi}$ for some function $\alpha(t)$. Writing $w(t) = x(t) + iy(t)$, we have $x'(t) = \alpha(t)\cos(\varphi)$, $y'(t) = -\alpha(t)\sin(\varphi)$. Thus $$\frac{dy}{dx} = -\tan(\varphi) = -\frac{y}{x} \implies y = \frac{A}{x}$$
for some constant $A$. This equation describes the family of hyperbolas in the first quadrant with asymptotes at $\varphi = 0$ and $\varphi = \frac{\pi}{2}$. The curve from this family passing through the point $g(q) = \rho_q e^{i\varphi_q}$ is given by $\{x + iy\, |\, xy = A_q\}$, where $A_q = \rho_q^2\sin{\varphi_q}\cos{\varphi_q}$. The curve $C$ can be recovered by taking the inverse image of this set under the mapping $g$, that is $C = \{(x + iy)^{-(4-d)/8}\, |\, xy = A_q,\, x \in I_x\}$ where $I_x$ is an interval such that $(x+iy)^{-(4-d)/8} \in B(a,r_0)$ for $x \in I_x$.
provides a simple method for computing the trajectory of a streamline through a singular triangle. We make the assumption that within the triangle, the estimate $$f(z) \approx e^{i\left(\frac{d\theta}{4} + \frac{2k\pi}{4}\right)}$$
holds. Here again $\theta = 0$ corresponds to the nearest separatrix clockwise from $q$. Making this assumption, we simply compute points along the hyperbola $xy = A_q$, and take the inverse image of each point. We use these points as discretization points of the streamline so long as they lay within the singular triangle. Since hyperbolas are convex, and $g^{-1}$ preserves the order of points along rays, in order to guarantee that two streamlines don’t intersect tangentially, it is sufficient to evaluate the points of the hyperbola along predefined rays from the singular point.
Partition Construction and Tangential Crossings {#sec:tangential-crossings}
-----------------------------------------------
By the Poincaré-Bendixson theorem for manifolds [@schwartz_generalization_1963], streamlines of a cross field on a bounded manifold $M$ can do one of the following:
1. Connect one or more singularities in a homoclinic or heteroclinic orbit
2. Exit the boundary
3. Approach a limit cycle
4. Approach a limit set that is all of $M$. In this case, $M$ must be a torus.
Because we are tracing out separatrices on a discrete mesh, in practice, they never line up perfectly with another singularity, so homoclinic and heteroclinic orbits will never occur. Thus streamlines in the discrete case can only either exit the boundary, or continue forever approaching either a limit cycle, or a limit set that is all of $M$. In order to generate a quad partition via separatrix tracing, separatrices that continue forever must be cut off after crossing some separatrix orthogonally. In practice, we use two stopping conditions: separatrices are traced until they either exit the boundary or cross the same separatrix more than once. The second condition is a simple way to eliminate the possibility of tracing out a separatrix forever, but can potentially create T-junctions on separatrices that would eventually exit the boundary.
When tracing streamlines using a numerical method such as Heun’s method, there is no guarantee that streamlines won’t cross each other or exit the boundary tangentially. This becomes especially problematic along boundaries of meshes where the underlying geometry has high curvature but few triangles, resulting in few crosses that are actually aligned with the discrete boundary of the triangle mesh. Tangential crossings are problematic because the regions produced via separatrix tracing are no longer guaranteed to be four-sided. Assuming a sufficiently fine triangle mesh along the boundary such that no separatrices exit tangentially, we observe in practice that tangential crossings on the interior typically occur in one of two cases. The first case is when one or more separatrices that approach a limit cycle are traced out for several rotations around the limit cycle. This problem is virtually eliminated by our approach of cutting off separatrices after they cross the same separatrix more than once.
The second case where tangential crossings occur is when there is a very small misalignment of singularities, such that two different separatrices follow virtually the same path. If the two separatrices are heading in opposite directions when the crossing occurs, then this problem can easily be fixed by cutting both separatrices off at the tangential crossing and combining them into a single separatrix, now connecting the two singularities in a heteroclinic orbit. If both separatrices are traveling in the same direction when they cross tangentially, there is no analogous simple operation to combine the two. However, we have observed that in practice, this almost always occurs when one of the separatrices passes very near the singularity where the other began. To mitigate the occurrence of tangential crossings when both separatrices are traveling in the same direction, we add a third stopping criteria for tracing separatrices: we cut off any separatrix at a T-junction inside a singular triangle when it orthogonally crosses a separatrix leaving leaving the singularity. This third stopping condition greatly reduces the number of tangential crossings that occur when both streamlines are traveling in the same direction.
Partition Simplification {#sec:partition-simplification}
========================
The misalignment of singularities when tracing out separatrices often results in small regions and limit cycles in the initial partition that would not exist if the separatrices coincided. In this section, we present a robust algorithm to simplify the partition obtained by naive separatrix tracing. The central step in the algorithm is an operation that extends the chord collapse operation for quad meshes [@borden_hexahedral_2002; @daniels_quadrilateral_2008] to quad layouts with T-junctions. A similar collapse operation appears in Myles et al. [@myles_robust_2014].
A *chord* in a quad mesh is a maximal sequence of quads, $q_1, q_2, \dots, q_n$ such that $q_i$ is adjacent to $q_{i+1}$, and $q_{i-1}$ and $q_{i+1}$ are on opposite sides of $q_i$. shows a chord of a quad mesh highlighted in blue. A partition obtained from streamline tracing is a quad layout with T-junctions, or a *T-layout* for short. We say that each component of a T-layout has four total *sides*, 2 pairs that are opposite each other. A side consists of at least one edge or more when T-junctions occur on that side. A *chord of a T-layout* is a maximal sequence of components, $c_1, c_2, \dots, c_n$ such that $c_i$ is adjacent to $c_{i+1}$, $c_{i-1}$ and $c_{i+1}$ are on opposite sides of $c_i$, and no T-junction exists between $c_i$ and $c_{i+1}$. top shows various chords in a T-layout.
![A chord in a quad mesh.[]{data-label="fig:chord"}](chord-highlighted-trimmed.png){width="0.35\linewidth"}
![Illustrations of chords in two T-layouts. [**Top:**]{} Chords in a T-layout shown in various colors. The yellow and cyan chords overlap on the green component, illustrating how each component is part of two chords. [**Bottom:**]{} The four patches of a chord highlighted in cyan, green, blue, and red.[]{data-label="fig:t-chords"}](t-chords.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
![Illustrations of chords in two T-layouts. [**Top:**]{} Chords in a T-layout shown in various colors. The yellow and cyan chords overlap on the green component, illustrating how each component is part of two chords. [**Bottom:**]{} The four patches of a chord highlighted in cyan, green, blue, and red.[]{data-label="fig:t-chords"}](chord-illustration.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}
We call the set of edges shared by two partition components in a chord the *transverse rungs* of a chord. In the case that a chord begins or ends at a T-junction or on a boundary, we also include the first and last set of edges as transverse rungs of the chord. We also say that a chord has two *longitudinal sides* that consist of all the edges of the partition components that are orthogonal to the transverse rungs.
A *patch* is a maximal subset of consecutive components of a chord such that singularities only occur on the first and last transverse rungs. A chord is partitioned into one or more patches, and singularities can occur only on the corners of patches. bottom shows the patches of a chord.
![The four collapsible chords of a partition. Zip patches are highlighted in red and non-zip patches are highlighted in blue.[]{data-label="fig:collapsible"}](chords-trimmed.png){width="\linewidth"}
Our definition of chord collapse on a T-layout is motivated by the goal of simplifying the partition by removing one separatrix from each of two singularities, and then connecting singularities together by a single curve. We say that a patch of a chord in a T-layout is *collapsible* if it satisfies the following:
1. No singularities are connected across any transverse rung of the patch.
2. No singularity is connected to a boundary across any transverse rung of the patch.
3. If the patch starts or ends at a T-junction, then one of the following must be satisfied:
1. The node opposite the T-junction on the same transverse rung is a singularity.
2. The node opposite the T-junction on the same transverse rung is another T-junction with the same orientation.
3. The node on the opposite corner of the patch from the T-junction is a singularity.
We say that a chord is *collapsible* if all of its patches are collapsible.
The first and second conditions prevent the possibility of having to combine two singularities into a single one or move a singularity to the boundary. They reflect an assumption that throughout the simplification process, we would like to keep the singularity set of the cross field and only modify the connectivity of the singularity graph. The third condition prevents the introduction of new T-junctions when collapsing chords or other invalid configurations such as a node with only two edges meeting at a corner. shows the collapsible chords for a given quad layout.
Given these assumptions, we can define a collapse operation on a collapsible chord. We define this operation by defining two sub-operations on patches. On a collapsible chord, any patch will either have singularities on opposite corners, or it will have one or two singularities only on one longitudinal side. We refer to the former as a *zip* patch, and the latter as a *non-zip* patch. The green patch in bottom is a zip patch and the other 3 are non-zip patches.
The collapse operation on a non-zip patch is to simply delete the edges on the longitudinal side without any singularities. The operation on a zip patch is to remove both longitudinal sides of the patch and replace them with a single line that connects the two singularities together. In practice, we take a weighted average of the two sides, figuratively “zipping” the two edges together to form the new line. If any T-junctions occur on a side that is deleted during a collapse, the hanging separatrix is simply extended after the collapse operation until it crosses the next separatrix. illustrates three consecutive chord collapses used to simplify a partition. The next chord to be collapsed in each frame has its zip patches highlighted in red and its non-zip patches highlighted in blue.
This collapse operation effectively replaces the two longitudinal sides of a chord with a single curve passing through each of the singularities on either side. It is easy to see that the resulting graph is still a T-layout because the local connectivity at singularities is not changed and other crossings of separatrices are either unaffected or simply removed (see the proof of theorem 5.4 in [@viertel_approach_2019]). We summarize this section with the following proposition,
![Three consecutive chord collapses simplify the quad layout. Zip patches to be collapsed at each step are colored in red and non-zip patches are colored in blue.[]{data-label="fig:simplification"}](collapses-trimmed.png){width="\linewidth"}
Each chord collapse operation removes a chord from the T-layout, resulting in another T-layout with the same irregular nodes on the boundary and interior. A series of collapses monotonically reduces the number of T-junctions in the layout, and strictly decreases the number of partition components.
This simple operation forms the core of our partition simplification algorithm. As illustrate, repeated application of this operation has the potential to dramatically simplify a T-layout obtained from separatrix tracing. We take a greedy approach, collapsing first the thinnest chord that satisfies all conditions for collapse. The full loop is described in \[alg:simplification\].
![Before and after partition simplification. [**Top Left:**]{} The initial partition obtained by tracing separatrices. [**Top Right:**]{} A simplified partition after 10 chord collapses. [**Bottom:**]{} A close up of the top left corner of the geometry reveals extremely small components that occur because of misalignment in singularities in the initial partition.[]{data-label="fig:spline"}](partitions-grouped.png){width="\linewidth"}
Let $\Gamma$ be the set of collapsible chords of the partition
$\mathbf{Stop.}$ Collapse the chord with the smallest minimum width Determine new set of collapsible chords $\Gamma$
Conditions for Collapse
-----------------------
It is not always beneficial to collapse every collapsible chord. highlights four collapsible chords in a partition, but by most measures, it would only be beneficial to collapse the thinnest of the chords, since collapsing the others would lead to severe deformation in the newly created partition components adjacent to the zipped edge. The decision of whether to collapse is also application dependent. For example, in the final chord collapse in , the difference in length on opposite sides of the regions adjacent to the zipped separatrix may outweigh the cost of a slightly more complex partition, depending on the application.
A complete exploration of how different applications might benefit from various collapse conditions will not be treated here, rather we only describe the conditions used in our examples. We define an *energy* for each patch and we subsequently define the energy of the chord as the minimum energy of any of its patches. The collapse condition evaluates to true if the energy is positive and false if the energy is negative.
For a non-zip patch, we set the energy to a positive constant value. The exact value is not important, this simply reflects the notion that collapsing a non-zip patch is not detrimental to the overall quality of the partition.
For zip patches, let $w$ be the mean of the length of each transverse rung of the patch. Let $l$ be the mean of the length of each longitudinal side of the chord. The energy for the patch is then defined as
----------- ------- ------------- --------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -----------
Cross Field Tracing Simp. Chord
Model $n$ (s) (s) (s) Before After Before After Collapses
cognit 7274 0.444 0.274 0.450 583 190 86 0 72
chainr5 4781 0.105 0.318 0.494 440 176 88 0 61
gluegun 1842 0.074 0.124 0.254 725 189 36 0 45
sprayer 954 0.037 0.027 0.011 29 12 6 0 4
faceplate 47655 7.036 0.989 2.270 1500 227 120 0 101
part29 3265 0.121 0.051 0.023 66 22 3 0 6
test1 2703 0.115 0.044 0.027 47 19 1 0 5
engine2 564 0.025 0.053 0.057 194 63 11 1 15
pump 2592 0.067 0.249 0.821 1014 303 88 4 80
----------- ------- ------------- --------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -----------
$$e = \frac{\pi}{8} - \arctan{\frac{w}{l}}.$$ If the zip patch were perfectly rectangular, then $\arctan{\frac{w}{l}}$ would be equivalent to the angle that the diagonal makes with the base of the rectangle. In rough terms, this condition prevents chord collapses that result in a large deformation of the angles that separatrices make at singularities.
We found this particular collapse condition and the heuristic of collapsing thinnest chords first to produce quads with more rectangular corners than other collapsing strategies that we tried. shows a comparison between the results of collapsing a given initial partition using the strategy that we describe versus the strategy of greedily collapsing chords via our chord collapse operation, but using an energy analogous to that used in Tarini et al. [@tarini_simple_2011] and Razafindrazaka et al. [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015].
![A comparison of collapse strategies. [**Top:**]{} The partition obtained by collapsing an initial partition according to the strategy defined in \[alg:simplification\]. [**Bottom:**]{} Result of collapsing the same partition using a greedy strategy collapsing chords in the order of highest to lowest energy using an energy analogous to that used in Tarini et al. [@tarini_simple_2011] and Razafindrazaka et al. [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015]. This strategy is over-aggressive in collapsing chords and we conclude that the energy does not work well with the chord collapse approach.[]{data-label="fig:energy-comparison"}](driver1-balanced.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
![A comparison of collapse strategies. [**Top:**]{} The partition obtained by collapsing an initial partition according to the strategy defined in \[alg:simplification\]. [**Bottom:**]{} Result of collapsing the same partition using a greedy strategy collapsing chords in the order of highest to lowest energy using an energy analogous to that used in Tarini et al. [@tarini_simple_2011] and Razafindrazaka et al. [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015]. This strategy is over-aggressive in collapsing chords and we conclude that the energy does not work well with the chord collapse approach.[]{data-label="fig:energy-comparison"}](driver1-aggressive.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}
While we found the strategy of collapsing chords according to the conditions specified in this section to work well in our examples, it is a simple matter to substitute the sorting function and conditions for collapse in this algorithm with whatever is deemed appropriate for the application at hand.
Numerical Experiments {#sec:results}
=====================
We tested our algorithm on 100 triangle meshes of surfaces with boundary derived from CAD models. All of the models except for the “faceplate” model are from a test suite used for development of the CUBIT software [@sandia_cubit_2017]. The “faceplate” model is the faceplate of the motor from the fan model at <https://grabcad.com/library/electric-fan-model-1>. For the diffusion generated method, we used a time step $\tau = 1/\lambda_1$ where $\lambda_1$ is the first eigenvalue of the matrix $A$. We continued the iterations until $\|\vec{u}_k - \vec{u}_{k-1}\| < \sqrt{2n} \times 10^{-6}$ where $n$ is the number of free nodes in the mesh. All examples were run on an Intel Core i5-2420m on a single thread.
In and , we present nine example models that are representative of the models used and results obtained in our experiment. shows data for the number of nodes in the triangle mesh, timing for the diffusion generated method, streamline tracing, and partition simplification methods, the number of components and T-junctions before and after simplification, and the total number of chord collapses performed. show the initial partition obtained via streamline tracing on the top and the final simplified partition on the bottom. The models in the table are shown in the same order as they appear in the figures, and the horizontal lines in identify the cutoffs between figures.
{width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"}\
{width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"}
{width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"}\
{width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"}
{width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"}\
{width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"}
Overall, we observe that our algorithm performs well both in terms of efficiency and results. The timings reported for our cross field design method are comparable to those for the fastest cross field design methods [@knoppel_globally_2013; @jakob_instant_2015]. The timings for partition simplification reported in this paper are approximately an order of magnitude faster than those reported in [@tarini_simple_2011] and [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015] on similar sized models. Visually, the coarseness of the final quad layouts appear to be comparable across all three methods; however, a better comparison using the same models with each method is needed.
Out of the database of 100 models that we tested, eight models still had T-junctions after the simplification process. On four of those models, the T-junctions could be removed by simply continuing to trace the streamlines until they reached the boundary; see top. On the other four, there was at least one T-junction where the corresponding streamline approached a limit cycle. In each case that we observed, all T-junctions could have been removed from the initial partition by collapsing the chords in a different order ( bottom), which suggests that perhaps a better collapse order would prioritize or even require collapsing chords that end in T-junctions.
![T-junctions not eliminated by our method. [**Top:**]{} A T-junction that can be removed simply by tracing the streamline until it reaches the boundary. The T-junction occurred here because the separatrix intersected another separatrix while passing through a singular triangle. Collapsing the chord (highlighted in blue, full chord not shown) would remove the T-junction, but the energy condition for collapse was not met. [**Bottom:**]{} A T-junction resulting from a singularity approaching a limit cycle. Zip and non-zip patches of the chord adjacent to the T-junction are marked in red and blue respectively. The colored chord is not collapsible because further up the chord a singularity is opposite a transverse rung (not shown). In the initial partition, this T-junction could have been removed by a chord collapse without this obstruction.[]{data-label="fig:removable-ts"}](removable-T-colored.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
![T-junctions not eliminated by our method. [**Top:**]{} A T-junction that can be removed simply by tracing the streamline until it reaches the boundary. The T-junction occurred here because the separatrix intersected another separatrix while passing through a singular triangle. Collapsing the chord (highlighted in blue, full chord not shown) would remove the T-junction, but the energy condition for collapse was not met. [**Bottom:**]{} A T-junction resulting from a singularity approaching a limit cycle. Zip and non-zip patches of the chord adjacent to the T-junction are marked in red and blue respectively. The colored chord is not collapsible because further up the chord a singularity is opposite a transverse rung (not shown). In the initial partition, this T-junction could have been removed by a chord collapse without this obstruction.[]{data-label="fig:removable-ts"}](essential-T-colored.png "fig:"){width=".8\linewidth"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper, we have further developed three parts of the pipeline described in \[alg:ps-overview\]: an efficient method for high-quality cross field design, a method to accurately compute the trajectory of streamlines in the neighborhood of a singularity that avoids tangential crossings, and a robust partition simplification algorithm. We implemented a pipeline including these improvements, and executed our code on a database of 100 CAD surfaces. In all cases, the number of partition components and T-junctions was significantly reduced, and in 92 out of 100 cases we were able to generate a coarse quad layout with no T-junctions.
The diffusion generated method is well suited for cross field design on CAD surfaces because it results in smooth boundary aligned cross fields with good singularity placement near the boundaries. It is also comparable in speed to the fastest cross field design methods; however, a more in-depth analysis is needed to fully compare the results.
Our novel method for tracing the trajectories of streamlines near singular points is simple and allows for accurate computation while avoiding tangential crossings. Our implementation away from singularities is, however, limited by our choice of a node-based cross field representation, as we are not aware of any methods for such a representation that guarantee that streamlines in regular triangles will not cross tangentially. Our method could be improved by extending it to work in conjunction with streamline tracing methods such as Ray and Sokolov [@ray_robust_2014] and Myles et al. [@myles_robust_2014].
![A simple geometry where a motorcycle graph can not be simplified via a chord collapse. [**Top:**]{} The partition traced out according to the conditions in section \[sec:tangential-crossings\]. The chord running lengthwise through the center can be collapsed. [**Bottom:**]{} The motorcycle graph for the same geometry. The collapsible chord from above is never formed because separatrices are cut off prior to it forming.[]{data-label="fig:motorcycle-comparison"}](motorcycle-comparison.png){width="\linewidth"}
Our partition simplification algorithm is based on a simple chord collapse operation and is guaranteed to strictly decrease the number of partition components at each step as well as monotonically decrease the number of T-junctions. While our collapse operation is similar to the operation for collapsing zero-chains in Myles et al. [@myles_robust_2014], the context in which the operation is applied is different. Perhaps the most important difference is that the T-mesh in [@myles_robust_2014] is a motorcycle graph, where separatrices are cut off after their first crossing with another separatrix, while in our method we trace out separatrices further, and cut them off according to conditions which allow for the collapse to have the effect of connecting two singularities together. This is illustrated in . Our method also collapses chords much more aggressively than [@myles_robust_2014], as the primary goal of our algorithm is to generate a coarse quad layout (without T-junctions) whereas the reason for collapsing in [@myles_robust_2014] is to remove zero-chains which would result in a degenerate parameterization. The collapsing order in our algorithm prioritizes collapsing thin regions first whereas in [@myles_robust_2014] there is no discussion of order. There are also some subtle differences between the definitions of the operations themselves. For example, in [@myles_robust_2014], the definition of collapsible zero-chains depends on the assignment of parametric lengths to edges of the input T-layout, whereas our definition of a chord is strictly geometric. Further, the notion of a *patch* in our operation allows for zip operations spanning multiple quads where a zip like operation in [@myles_robust_2014] always occurs across a single quad. The cumulative effect of these differences is that we are able to demonstrate that the iterative collapse of chords can be an effective tool for generating coarse quad layouts, many times eliminating all T-junctions, whereas in [@myles_robust_2014], the collapse operation is used in a limited scope, with the purpose of ensuring global consistency of their parametric length assignment.
{width="0.3\linewidth"} {width="0.3\linewidth"}
Our collapse method works directly on streamlines, so it does not require pre-meshing like methods such as Tarini et al. [@tarini_simple_2011] and Bommes et al. [@bommes_global_2011], or prior computation of a seamless parameterization like Razafindrazaka et al. [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015], Campen et al. [@campen_quantized_2015], or Zhang et al. [@zhang_automatic_2016]. Since our method requires tracing streamlines accurately enough to avoid tangential crossings, the number of streamlines to be traced in our method scales linearly with the number of singularities as opposed to the method of Pietroni et al. [@pietroni_tracing_2016], who allow computation of streamlines that cross tangentially at the cost that the number of streamlines to be drawn increases with combinatorial complexity as the number of singularities increases.
Each of [@razafindrazaka_perfect_2015; @campen_quantized_2015; @zhang_automatic_2016; @pietroni_tracing_2016] formulate their problems as binary optimization problems, however, in order to achieve reasonable run times, they each significantly prune the search space by employing some clever method which leverages the structure of the T-layout generated by the separatrices of the underlying cross field or parameterization. While it appears that our method is at a disadvantage because it takes a greedy approach, it is not clear to what degree the final results of each method are driven by heuristics or optimization. In addition, its not clear how well indirect objectives such as the total length of separatrices weighted by how far they drift from the underlying field, reflect objectives such as minimizing the number of quad components, or maximizing the minimal width of a chord which can be pursued directly via our method. A specific application with objectively stated goals and a common set of models is needed for a clear comparison between the quality of the quad layouts generated by all of the methods mentioned above.
The main downside of our partition simplification method is that it does not completely eliminate T-junctions from the layout. It is not always possible to produce a quad layout with no T-junctions for a given set of singularities, so an important direction for future work is to develop a method that uses strategic insertion or removal of singularities in order to guarantee that the elimination all T-junctions from a given input T-layout is possible. Such a result would be beneficial for applications in meshing for FEM, surface reconstruction into CAD from image data or geometries generated via topology optimization, and in constructing spline bases for isogeometric analysis.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
B. Osting is partially supported by NSF DMS 16-19755 and 17-52202. R. Viertel and M. Staten are supported by Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-mission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. SAND2019-5668 C.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a general method for constructing integrable stochastic processes, with two-step discrete time Floquet dynamics, from the transfer matrix formalism. The models can be interpreted as a discrete time parallel update. The method can be applied for both periodic and open boundary conditions. We also show how the stationary distribution can be built as a matrix product state. As an illustration we construct parallel discrete time dynamics associated with the R-matrix of the SSEP and of the ASEP, and provide the associated stationary distributions in a matrix product form. We use this general framework to introduce new integrable generalized exclusion processes, where a fixed number of particles is allowed on each lattice site in opposition to the (single particle) exclusion process models. They are constructed using the fusion procedure of R-matrices (and K-matrices for open boundary conditions) for the SSEP and ASEP. We develop a new method, that we named “fused” matrix ansatz, to build explicitly the stationary distribution in a matrix product form. We use this algebraic structure to compute physical observables such as the correlation functions and the mean particle current.'
---
[ ]{}\
[ M. Vanicat$^{a}$[^1]]{}\
[$^{a}$ Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana,\
Jadranska 19, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. ]{}
Introduction.
=============
Systems of particles in interaction on a one-dimensional lattice have attracted lots of attention in the last decades. The reason is twofold: on one hand they seem to capture the essential physical features of out-of-equilibrium systems, and on the other hand they allow in some particular cases for exact computations of physical quantities. In particular the study of exclusion processes, for which particles experience a hard-core interaction (there is at most one particle on each site of the lattice), turned out to be very fruitful. The Asymmetric Simple Exclusion Process (ASEP) is a paradigmatic example of such model [@CMZ; @DerrReview]. The phase diagram of the continuous time model with open boundaries was exactly computed using a matrix product construction of the stationary state [@DEHP; @Sandow94]. The ASEP was also studied in the discrete time setting using various stochastic update rules [@RajewskySSS] (see also for instance [@AppertRollandCH] and references therein for more recent developments and applications to traffic flow). The matrix product ansatz was successfully used to solve the ASEP with discrete time parallel update and sequential update [@Hinrichsen; @HoneckerP; @RajewskySS; @RajewskySSS; @EvansRS; @deGierN; @WoelkiS].
The reason behind the exact solutions of these models is their integrability: the Markov matrix $M$ ruling their stochastic dynamics is part of a family of commuting operators generated by a transfer matrix. The transfer matrix is constructed from a $R$-matrix satisfying the Yang-Baxter equation [@Baxter]. It is well known that continuous time Markov matrices with local stochastic rules can be obtained by taking the first logarithmic derivative of an appropriate transfer matrix. This mechanism is quite general and relies only on minor assumptions on the $R$-matrix (essentially the regularity property). It has also been observed that the transfer matrix of the six vertex model can be used to define specific discrete time exclusion process [@KandelDN; @Schutz2; @SchutzS]. However we are lacking a general picture to construct discrete time Markovian dynamics from the transfer matrix, without specific assumptions on the $R$-matrix of the model.
We try to address this question in this paper by proposing a generic formalism to obtain Markovian discrete time dynamics from the transfer matrix of an integrable system. The dynamics can be written easily in terms of local Markovian operators acting on two sites of the lattice. It can be interpreted as two-step discrete Floquet dynamics, where one pair of sites over two is updated during the first step and the other pairs during the second step.
We stress that the method can also be used to define integrable discrete time Floquet dynamics for quantum spin chains by simply requiring the evolution operator to be unitary (instead of being Markovian) [@ProsenVZ]. We show the efficiency of this general framework by introducing new integrable discrete time generalized exclusion processes, where several particles are allowed to occupy the same site instead of a single particle in usual exclusion processes. As far as we know, these are the first examples of integrable generalized exclusion processes with open boundary conditions.
An advantage of the discrete time picture is that the probabilities ${{\langle\cC'|}}M^n{{|\cC\rangle}}$, *i.e* the matrix elements of the propagator of the model (where ${{|\cC\rangle}}$ is the initial configuration, $M$ is the Markov matrix and ${{\langle\cC'|}}$ is the final configuration), can be easily interpreted as (equilibrium) partition functions of vertex models in $d=1+1$ dimensions for which a lot of techniques have already been developed. It should be possible to compute such probabilities in some specific cases for models defined through our formalism.
The outline of the paper is the following. In section \[sec:integrable\_Floquet\] we introduce the transfer matrix formalism and we show how it can be used in a general setting to define discrete time Floquet dynamics in the exclusion processes context. This method is valid for both periodic and open boundary conditions. We explain how the associated stationary state can be computed in a matrix product form. We illustrate the method with two examples: the Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process (SSEP) and the Asymmetric Simple Exclusion Process (ASEP). In section \[sec:generalized\_exclusion\] we use the method to introduce new integrable models with generalized exclusion rules where several particles are allowed on the same site. The building blocks of the models, the $R$ and $K$ matrices, are constructed through the fusion procedure. We present a precise description of the transition probabilities of the Markov matrix. The associated stationary state is exactly computed in a matrix product form, by introducing a new technique that we call *fused* matrix ansatz. We finally end up in section \[sec:conclusion\] with some concluding remarks and interesting open questions.
Integrable Floquet dynamics from transfer matrix formalism. \[sec:integrable\_Floquet\]
=======================================================================================
Integrability and transfer matrix formalism.
--------------------------------------------
We give in this subsection a very brief review of integrability in the context of exclusion processes. We introduce the main objects that are needed in our construction of discrete time models. The reader is invited to refer to [@CRV; @VanicatThesis] for details.
#### Preliminaries.
We are interested in describing a system of interacting particles on a one dimensional lattice with $L$ sites. Each site of the lattice can carry at most $s$ particles. Note that when $s=1$, there is at most one particle per site and this class of model is known as exclusion processes. Paradigmatic examples of exclusion processes are the ASEP and the SSEP [@DerrReview]. For $s>1$ the exclusion constraint is partially relaxed and the corresponding class of models is called generalized exclusion process. For each site $i$ of the lattice, we define a local state variable $\tau_i \in \{0,1,\dots,s \}$ denoting the number of particles lying on site $i$. A configuration of particles on the lattice is thus efficiently encapsulated in a $L$-uplet $\bm{\tau}=(\tau_1,\tau_2,\dots,\tau_L)$. We will specify later on a stochastic dynamics on this configuration space, which motivates the introduction of the quantity $\cP_t(\bm{\tau})$, which stands for the probability to observe the system in the configuration $\bm{\tau}$ at time $t$.
The time evolution of $\cP_t(\bm{\tau})$ obeys a master equation. It will be particularly efficient to formulate this master equation in a matrix form, introducing a Markov matrix and a probability vector. The first step toward this goal is to associate to each value $\tau=0,\dots,s$ of the local state variable with a local basis vector of $\cV={{\mathbb C}}^{s+1}$ $${{|\tau\rangle}}=(\underbrace{0,\dots,0}_{\tau},1,\underbrace{0,\dots,0}_{s-\tau})^t.$$ It allows us to define a probability vector $${{|\cP_t\rangle}} = \sum_{\bm{\tau}} \cP_t(\bm{\tau}) {{|\bm{\tau}\rangle}},$$ where we have constructed a basis vector of $\cV^{\otimes L}$ associated to each configuration $\bm{\tau}$ as tensor product of elementary vectors $${{|\bm{\tau}\rangle}} = {{|\tau_1\rangle}} \otimes {{|\tau_2\rangle}} \otimes \cdots \otimes {{|\tau_L\rangle}}.$$ The time evolution of the probability vector can be encoded in a master equation that takes slightly different forms depending if the stochastic model describes *continuous-time* or *discrete-time* dynamics. For *continuous-time* dynamics, the master equation reads $$\frac{d{{|\cP_{t}\rangle}}}{dt} = M{{|\cP_t\rangle}},$$ where $M$ is a *continuous-time* Markov matrix (acting on the space $\cV^{\otimes L}$) with non-negative off-diagonal entries and whose sum of the entries of each column vanishes.
In the case of a *discrete-time* dynamics, the master equation reads $${{|\cP_{t+1}\rangle}} = M{{|\cP_t\rangle}},$$ where $M$ is a *discrete-time* Markov matrix with non-negative entries whose sum over each column is one. The present paper will be essentially devoted to the construction of integrable *discrete-time* Markov matrices $M$ from the transfer matrix approach. We will also be interested in computing exactly in a matrix product form the stationary state[^2] [^3] ${|{\cal S}\rangle}$, satisfying $$\label{eq:steady}
M {|{\cal S}\rangle}= {|{\cal S}\rangle}.$$
#### Periodic boundary conditions.
The building block of integrable models with periodic boundary conditions is a matrix $R(z)$ depending on a spectral parameter $z$ and acting on two components $\cV\otimes\cV$ of the tensor space $\cV$ (*i.e* on two sites of the lattice).
The key equation for integrability in the periodic boundary case is the Yang-Baxter equation $$\label{eq:YBE}
R_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right) R_{13}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_3}\right) R_{23}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_3}\right) =
R_{23}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_3}\right) R_{13}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_3}\right) R_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right).$$ The previous equation holds in $\cV\otimes\cV\otimes\cV$. The subscripts indicate on which components of the tensor space the matrix $R$ is acting non-trivially. For instance $R_{12}(z)=R(z)\otimes 1$, $R_{23}(z)=1 \otimes R(z)$,... We also require that the matrix $R(z)$ satisfies further properties. We are in this paper interested in constructing integrable discrete time Markov matrices, *i.e* matrices with non-negative entries whose sum on each column is equal to one. We will therefore consider $R$-matrices satisfying the Markovian property $$\label{eq:markovian}
{{\langle\sigma|}} \otimes {{\langle\sigma|}} R(z) = {{\langle\sigma|}} \otimes {{\langle\sigma|}}$$ where ${{\langle\sigma|}} = \sum_{v=0}^{s}{{\langlev|}}$ is the row vector with all entries equal to one. The latter property is nothing else than imposing that the sum of the entries of each column is equal to one. In our construction the $R$-matrix will indeed play the role of a local Markovian operator, see for instance . We will also require that $R$-matrices satisfy the regularity property $$\label{eq:regularity}
R(1)=P$$ where $P$ is the permutation operator in $\cV\otimes \cV$, *i.e* we have $P {{|\tau\rangle}} \otimes {{|\tau'\rangle}} = {{|\tau'\rangle}} \otimes {{|\tau\rangle}}$ for all $\tau,\tau'=0,\dots,s$. In the continuous time setting, it is known that this property ensures that one obtains a continuous time Markov matrix (or a quantum Hamiltonian in the context of spin chains) acting locally on the lattice from the transfer matrix constructed below. In the discrete time setting, we will show that this property allows us to simplify the expression of the transfer matrix to end up with a Markov matrix which has an easy interpretation in the parallel update picture. We also require the $R$-matrix to satisfy the unitarity property $$\label{eq:unitarity}
R_{12}(z) R_{21}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right) = 1$$ where $R_{21}(z)=PR_{12}(z)P$. This property is used to show the commutation of the transfer matrix below[^4] and it appears as a consistency relation when constructing the stationary state in a matrix product form, see subsection \[subsec:stationary\_state\].
Up to now, we wrote all the definitions and properties about the $R$-matrix assuming that the spectral parameter is . We can easily translate them to an spectral parameter:
- the Yang-Baxter equation reads $$\label{eq:YBE_additive}
R_{12}\left(z_1-z_2\right) R_{13}\left(z_1-z_3\right) R_{23}\left(z_2-z_3\right) =
R_{23}\left(z_2-z_3\right) R_{13}\left(z_1-z_3\right) R_{12}\left(z_1-z_2\right)$$
- the Markovian property reads ${{\langle\sigma|}} \otimes {{\langle\sigma|}} R(z) = {{\langle\sigma|}} \otimes {{\langle\sigma|}}$
- the regularity property reads $R(0)=P$
- the unitarity property reads $R_{12}(z) R_{21}\left(-z\right) = 1$
We are now equipped to construct the inhomogeneous transfer matrix for a model with periodic boundary conditions $$\label{eq:inhomogeneous_transfer_matrix_periodic}
t(z|\mathbf{z})=tr_0\left( R_{0L}\left(\frac{z}{z_L}\right) \dots R_{02}\left(\frac{z}{z_2}\right)R_{01}\left(\frac{z}{z_1}\right) \right).$$ The transfer matrix acts on the tensor space $\cV^{\otimes L}$ (*i.e* on the whole lattice). The subscripts indicate on which components of the tensor space (*i.e* on which sites of the lattice) the operators are acting non-trivially. Note that an auxiliary space $0$ is introduced and traced out at the end. The main feature of this transfer matrix is that it commutes for different values of the spectral parameter $$\label{eq:transfer_matrix_periodic_commutation}
[t(x|\mathbf{z}),t(y|\mathbf{z})]=0.$$ It can be shown using the Yang-Baxter equation and the unitarity property .
The transfer matrix is commonly used in the context of exclusion processes (respectively of quantum spin chains) without inhomogeneity parameters, *i.e* with all $z_i=1$. In this setting the first logarithmic derivative of the transfer matrix w.r.t the spectral parameter generates the continuous time Markov matrix of the exclusion process (or respectively the Hamiltonian of the quantum spin chain). The higher order logarithmic derivatives generates other local charges which commute with the Markov matrix (respectively with the Hamiltonian) because of the commutation relation .
In the next subsection \[subsec:parallel\_update\], we will use the inhomogeneous transfer matrix with very particular inhomogeneity parameters (different from $1$) to define a discrete time Markov matrix.
In the case of an spectral parameter, the inhomogeneous transfer matrix reads $$t(z|\mathbf{z})=tr_0\left( R_{0L}\left(z-z_L\right) \dots R_{02}\left(z-z_2\right)R_{01}\left(z-z_1\right) \right).$$
#### Open boundary conditions.
In the case of a model with open boundary conditions, the building blocks of integrable models (together with the $R$-matrix already introduced in the last paragraph) are the reflection matrices $K(z)$ and $\overline{K}(z)$, both depending on the spectral parameter $z$ and acting on a single copy $\cV$ of the tensor space (*i.e* on a single site of the lattice). The matrix $K(z)$ is associated to the left boundary and satisfies the reflection equation $$\label{eq:reflection_equation}
R_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right) K_1(z_1) R_{21}(z_1 z_2) K_2(z_2) =
K_2(z_2) R_{12}(z_1 z_2) K_1(z_1) R_{21} \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right).$$ The previous equation holds in $\cV\otimes \cV$. Once again the subscripts indicate on which components of the tensor space the operators are acting non-trivially. For instance $K_1(z) = K(z) \otimes 1$ and $K_2(z) = 1 \otimes K(z)$. The matrix $\overline{K}(z)$ is associated to the right boundary and satisfies the reversed reflection equation $$\label{eq:reflection_equation_reversed}
R_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)^{-1} \overline K_1(z_1) R_{21}(z_1 z_2)^{-1} \overline K_2(z_2) =
\overline K_2(z_2) R_{12}(z_1 z_2)^{-1} \overline K_1(z_1) R_{21}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)^{-1}.$$
We require also that the $K$-matrices satisfy further properties. We recall that we are interested in constructing discrete time Markov matrices. We therefore impose that the $K$-matrices fulfill the Markovian property $$\label{eq:markovian_K}
{{\langle\sigma|}}K(z)={{\langle\sigma|}} \quad \mbox{and} \quad {{\langle\sigma|}}\overline{K}(z)={{\langle\sigma|}}$$ which is nothing else than demanding that the sum of the entries on each column of the boundary matrices is equal to one. In our construction the $K$-matrices will indeed play the role of local Markovian operators on the boundaries. We also require the boundary matrices to satisfy the regularity property $$\label{eq:regularity_K}
K(1) = 1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \overline{K}(1) = 1$$ and the unitarity property $$\label{eq:unitarity_K}
K(z)K\left(\frac{1}{z}\right) = 1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \overline{K}(z)\overline{K}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right) = 1.$$
Once again we wrote all the definitions and properties about the $K$-matrices assuming that the spectral parameter is . We can easily translate them to an spectral parameter (we give them for the matrix $K(z)$ but similar ones hold also for the matrix $\overline{K}(z)$):
- the reflection equation reads $$\label{eq:reflection_equation_additive}
R_{12}\left(z_1-z_2\right) K_1(z_1) R_{21}(z_1+z_2) K_2(z_2) =
K_2(z_2) R_{12}(z_1+z_2) K_1(z_1) R_{21} \left(z_1-z_2\right)$$
- the Markovian property reads ${{\langle\sigma|}} K(z) = {{\langle\sigma|}}$
- the regularity property reads $K(0)=1$
- the unitarity property reads $K(z)K(-z) = 1$
We are now in position to define the inhomogeneous transfer matrix for a model with open boundary conditions [@sklyanin] $$\label{eq:inhomogeneous_transfer_matrix_open}
t(z|\mathbf{z})=tr_0 \left(\widetilde{K}_0(z) R_{0,L}\left(\frac{z}{z_L}\right) \dots R_{0,1}\left(\frac{z}{z_1}\right)
K_0(z) R_{1,0}(z z_1) \dots R_{L,0}(z z_L) \right),$$ where the dual boundary matrix $\widetilde{K}(z)$ is defined as[^5] $$\label{eq:Ktilde_from_Kb}
\widetilde K_1(z)= tr_0\left(\overline{K}_0\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\left(\left(R_{0,1}(z^2)^{t_1}\right)^{-1}\right)^{t_1}P_{0,1}\right),$$ or equivalently $$\label{eq:Kb_from_Ktilde}
\overline{K}_1(z)= tr_0\left( \widetilde{K}_0\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)R_{01}\left(\frac{1}{z^2}\right)P_{01} \right).$$
The matrix $\widetilde{K}(z)$ satisfies the dual reflection equation $$\label{eq:reflection_equation_dual}
\widetilde{K}_2(z_2)\,\left(R_{21}^{t_1}(z_1z_2)^{-1}\right)^{t_1}\,\widetilde{K}_1(z_1)\,R_{21}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_1}\right)
=R_{12}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_1}\right)\,\widetilde{K}_1(z_1)\,\left(R_{12}^{t_2}(z_1z_2)^{-1}\right)^{t_2}\,\widetilde{K}_2(z_2).$$
Thanks to the Yang-Baxter equation and to the reflection equations and (or equivalently ), it is possible to show [@sklyanin] that the transfer matrix commutes for different values of the spectral parameter $$\label{eq:transfer_matrix_open_commutation}
[t(x|\mathbf{z}),t(y|\mathbf{z})]=0.$$
In the context of continuous time exclusion processes or of quantum spin chains, the transfer matrix is often used with inhomogeneity parameters $z_i=1$. In this case the derivative with respect to the spectral parameter gives a continuous time Markov matrix (respectively a quantum spin chain Hamiltonian) with two-site local updating rules (respectively with nearest neighbor interactions). We are going to see in the next subsection \[subsec:parallel\_update\] that the inhomogeneity parameters can be efficiently used to define discrete time processes from the transfer matrix. We stress that the construction is quite general in the sense that it does not rely on a particular choice for the $R$-matrix and the $K$-matrices (they only have to fulfill the properties mentioned above).
In the spectral parameter picture, the inhomogeneous transfer matrix reads $$t(z|\mathbf{z})=tr_0 \left(\widetilde{K}_0(z) R_{0,L}(z-z_L) \dots R_{0,1}(z-z_1)
K_0(z) R_{1,0}(z+z_1) \dots R_{L,0}(z+z_L) \right)$$ and the matrices $\overline{K}$ and $\widetilde{K}$ are related for instance through the equation $$\overline{K}_1(z)= tr_0\left( \widetilde{K}_0(-z)R_{01}(-2z)P_{01} \right).$$
Definition of the process. \[subsec:parallel\_update\]
------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this subsection is to use the transfer matrix to define a discrete time Markov matrix. The general idea is to specify particular values of the spectral parameter $z$ and of the inhomogeneity parameters $z_i$ in the transfer matrix to obtain Markovian dynamics on the lattice with simple stochastic rules. Several different approaches have already been proposed in the literature.
Among the recent developments we can mention the work [@KunibaMMO] where a large class of integrable discrete time exclusion processes were introduced using particular values for the inhomogeneity parameters (this was defined for periodic boundary conditions). It would be interesting to investigate what is the physical interpretation, in terms of transition probabilities on the lattice, of all these models. In [@CrampeMRV15inhomogeneous] the transfer matrix was used, without specifying any inhomogeneity parameters, to define a discrete time process in the specific case of the totally asymmetric exclusion process for both periodic and open boundary conditions. A physical interpretation in terms of a sequential update was provided. Note that a similar result has been obtained earlier in the periodic homogeneous case in [@GM1].
In fact the use of the transfer matrix approach in the definition of discrete time exclusion processes follows the pioneering work of Baxter [@Baxter]. It was soon realized that the inhomogeneous transfer matrix of the six-vertex model can be used to define an asymmetric exclusion process with discrete time parallel update on the periodic lattice [@KandelDN; @SchutzS; @Schutz2; @Schutz]. Our construction is inspired by these works and aims to provide a general framework (independent of the $R$ matrix considered) to define an integrable discrete time Markov matrix from the transfer matrix machinery of integrable systems. Moreover we generalize it also for open boundary conditions using the Sklyanin transfer matrix [@sklyanin]. The discrete time dynamics that we obtain for both periodic and open boundary conditions appears to be two-step Floquet dynamics. Note that another approach has been developed recently in [@FloquetInt] to construct integrable continuous time Floquet dynamics for quantum systems from the transfer matrix formalism.
#### Periodic boundary conditions.
To define our process on the periodic lattice, we need to consider a lattice with an even number of sites $L$. We fix $z_1=z_3=\dots=z_{L-1}=\frac{1}{\kappa}$ and $z_2=z_4=\dots=z_L=\kappa$. The inhomogeneous transfer matrix then takes the following staggered form $$\label{eq:transfer_matrix_periodic}
t(z)=tr_0\left( R_{0L}\left(\frac{z}{\kappa}\right)R_{0L-1}\left(z\kappa\right) \dots R_{02}\left(\frac{z}{\kappa}\right)R_{01}\left(z\kappa\right) \right).$$ Note that a similar staggered construction already appeared in a monodromy matrix in [@FaddeevV]. Let us introduce the local Markovian operator (acting on two sites) $$\label{eq:definition_U}
U = \check R(\kappa^2)$$ where $\check R(z)=P.R(z)$. Note that $U$ also fulfill the Markovian property ${{\langle\sigma|}}U={{\langle\sigma|}}$. A straightforward computation[^6] yields $$t\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)= P_{1L}P_{1L-1}\dots P_{13}P_{12} \times U_{L-1,L}^{-1} U_{L-3,L-2}^{-1} \dots U_{1,2}^{-1}$$ and $$t(\kappa) = P_{1L}P_{1L-1}\dots P_{13}P_{12} \times U_{L-2,L-1}U_{L-4,L-3} \dots U_{2,3}U_{L,1}.$$ We can thus define a Markov matrix $M$ in the following way $$\label{eq:Markov_matrix_periodic}
M=t\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)^{-1}t(\kappa) = {{\mathbb U}}^{o} {{\mathbb U}}^{e}$$ with[^7] $$\label{eq:Floquet_operators_periodic}
{{\mathbb U}}^{o} = \prod_{k=1}^{L/2} U_{2k-1,2k} \quad \mbox{and} \quad {{\mathbb U}}^{e} = \prod_{k=1}^{L/2} U_{2k,2k+1}.$$ The property that expression together with fulfills the requirement of a Markov matrix, *i.e* non-negativity and sum to one property of the entries, follows from the fact that the entries of the local operator $U$ are non-negative and sum to one on each column (thanks to the Markovian property of the R-matrix). Note that the local operators $U$ involved in the definition of ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ all commute one with each other and thus the order in the product is not important. The same is true for ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$. From the expression it is clear that the Markov matrix $M$ can be interpreted as describing a Floquet dynamics composed of two steps: the first one embodied in ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$ and the other one in ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$. We stress that ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$ and ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ do not commute. The operator ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$ updates every pair of consecutive sites with the first site located at an even position. The local stochastic update is encoded in the matrix $U$ acting on $\cV\otimes\cV$. We will give precise examples of such matrices in subsections \[subsec:examples\] and \[subsec:fusion\]. The operator ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ updates every pair of consecutive sites with the first site located at an odd position. A pictorial representation of the discrete time dynamics is given in figure \[fig:periodic\]. In the exclusion process literature this kind of dynamics is sometimes referred to as discrete time parallel update, see for instance [@Schutz2; @Schutz]. The same structure also appeared in the propagator of the quantum Hirota model [@FaddeevV] and in a deterministic cellular automaton [@MedenjakKP].
iin [0,2,...,6]{} [(i,0) – (i,0.5) ; (i,0.5) – (i,1) ; (i,2) – (i,3) ; (i,4) – (i,5) ; (i,6) – (i,6.5) ; (i,6.5) – (i,7) ;]{} iin [1,2,5,6]{} [(-1,i) – (-0.5,i) ; (-0.5,i) – (0.5,i) ; (1.5,i) – (4.5,i) ; (5.5,i) – (6.5,i) ; (6.5,i) – (7,i) ;]{} iin [3,4]{} [(-0.5,i) – (2.5,i) ; (3.5,i) – (6.5,i) ;]{} iin [0.5,1.5,4.5,5.5]{} [(i,1) – (i,2) ; (i,5) – (i,6) ;]{} iin [-0.5,2.5,3.5,6.5]{} [(i,3) – (i,4) ;]{} at (0,-0.5) \[\] [$1$]{}; at (2,-0.5) \[\] [$2$]{}; at (4,-0.5) \[\] [$3$]{}; at (6,-0.5) \[\] [$4$]{}; at (-1,1.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (-1,5.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (3,1.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (3,5.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (7,1.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (7,5.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (1,3.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (5,3.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (-2,1.5) \[\] [${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$]{}; at (-2,5.5) \[\] [${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$]{}; at (-2,3.5) \[\] [${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$]{};
The model is said to be integrable because the Markov matrix $M$ commutes with a whole family of operators generated by $t(z)$ $$[M,t(z)] = 0$$ which is direct consequence of the commutation relation and of the definition .
#### Open boundary conditions.
To define our process on a lattice with open boundaries, we need to consider a lattice with an odd number of sites $L$. The idea is essentially the same as for the periodic boundary conditions case. We fix $z_1=z_3=\dots=z_L=\kappa$ and $z_2=z_4=\dots=z_{L-1}=\frac{1}{\kappa}$. The inhomogeneous transfer matrix then takes the following staggered form $$\label{eq:transfer_matrix_open}
t(z)=tr_0 \left(\widetilde{K}_0(z) R_{0L}\left(\frac{z}{\kappa}\right)\dots R_{02}\left(z\kappa\right) R_{01}\left(\frac{z}{\kappa}\right)
K_0(z) R_{10}(z\kappa)R_{20}\left(\frac{z}{\kappa}\right) \dots R_{L0}(z\kappa) \right).$$ A direct computation yields $$t(\kappa) = B_1 U_{23}U_{45}\dots U_{L-1,L}\, U_{12}U_{34} \dots U_{L-2,L-1} \overline{B}_L,$$ where $B=K(\kappa)$ and $\overline{B}=\overline{K}(1/\kappa)$. Once again we can define a Markov matrix as $$\label{eq:Markov_matrix_open}
M = t(\kappa) = {{\mathbb U}}^{e} {{\mathbb U}}^{o}$$ with operators ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$ and ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ having similar expression as in the periodic case but with additional boundary terms $${{\mathbb U}}^{o} = \prod_{k=1}^{\frac{L-1}{2}} U_{2k-1,2k} \, \overline{B}_L \quad \mbox{and} \quad {{\mathbb U}}^{e} = B_1 \prod_{k=1}^{\frac{L-1}{2}} U_{2k,2k+1}.$$ The local operators involved in ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ (respectively in ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$) commute one with each other because they are acting on different sites of the lattice. ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ realizes a stochastic update on every pair of consecutive sites with the first site located at an odd position, and also a stochastic update on the last site $L$ (describing an interaction with reservoir at the right boundary). ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$ similarly realizes a stochastic update on every pair of consecutive sites with the first site located at an even position, and also a stochastic update on the first site $1$ (describing an interaction with reservoir at the left boundary). Note that the operators ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ and ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$ do not commute and can be interpreted as describing a two-step Floquet dynamics. A pictorial representation of the discrete time dynamics is given in figure \[fig:open\]. This discrete time update is very similar to the *sublattice-parallel update* [@RajewskySSS]: the difference is that in the present model the size of the lattice $L$ has to be *odd* instead of *even* in the sublattice-parallel update with open boundaries.
iin [0,2,...,8]{} [(i,0) – (i,0.5) ; (i,0.5) – (i,1) ; (i,2) – (i,3) ; (i,4) – (i,5) ; (i,6) – (i,6.5) ; (i,6.5) – (i,7) ;]{} iin [1,2,5,6]{} [(-0.5,i) – (0.5,i) ; (1.5,i) – (4.5,i) ; (5.5,i) – (8.5,i) ;]{} iin [3,4]{} [(-0.5,i) – (2.5,i) ; (3.5,i) – (6.5,i) ; (7.5,i) – (8.5,i) ;]{} iin [-0.5,0.5,1.5,4.5,5.5,8.5]{} [(i,1) – (i,2) ; (i,5) – (i,6) ;]{} iin [-0.5,2.5,3.5,6.5,7.5,8.5]{} [(i,3) – (i,4) ;]{} at (0,-0.5) \[\] [$1$]{}; at (2,-0.5) \[\] [$2$]{}; at (4,-0.5) \[\] [$3$]{}; at (6,-0.5) \[\] [$4$]{}; at (8,-0.5) \[\] [$5$]{}; at (0,1.5) \[\] [$B$]{}; at (0,5.5) \[\] [$B$]{}; at (3,1.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (3,5.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (7,1.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (7,5.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (1,3.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (5,3.5) \[\] [$U$]{}; at (8,3.5) \[\] [$\overline{B}$]{}; at (-1.5,1.5) \[\] [${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$]{}; at (-1.5,5.5) \[\] [${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$]{}; at (-1.5,3.5) \[\] [${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$]{};
Once again the model is said to be integrable because the Markov matrix $M$ commutes with a whole family of operators generated by the transfer matrix $$[M,t(z)]=0.$$ The goal is now to use the integrable machinery to handle exact computations for these models.
Stationary distribution in a matrix product form. \[subsec:stationary\_state\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It turns out that the integrability framework can be efficiently exploited to construct exactly in a matrix product form the stationary state of the models. The general method has been proposed in [@Sasamoto2; @CRV] and we sketch here the main points. We will focus on the open boundaries case but the periodic boundaries case can be treated similarly and we just provide the solution at the end of the subsection. We introduce a $(s+1)$-component vector $\mathbf{A}(z)$ depending on a spectral parameter and with algebraic-valued (*i.e* non-commutative) entries. These algebraic elements will be basically the matrices entering the matrix product construction of the stationary state.
The construction relies essentially on two key relations. The Zamolodchilov-Faddeev (ZF) relation encodes the commutation relations of the matrix ansatz algebra $$\label{eq:ZF}
\check{R}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right) \mathbf{A}(z_1) \otimes \mathbf{A}(z_2) = \mathbf{A}(z_2) \otimes \mathbf{A}(z_1).$$ The associativity of the algebra is ensured by the Yang-Baxter equation . Another consistency relation is ensured by the unitarity property .
The Ghoshal-Zamolodchilov (GZ) relations encode the action of the matrix ansatz algebra on the boundary vectors ${\langle\!\langle}W|$ and $|V{\rangle\!\rangle}$ (which are used to contract the matrix product into a scalar) $$\label{eq:GZ}
{\langle\!\langle}W| \left( K(z)\mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)-\mathbf{A}(z) \right)=0, \qquad
\left(\overline{K}(z)\mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)-\mathbf{A}(z) \right)|V{\rangle\!\rangle}= 0.$$ The consistency between these actions and the commutation relations of the matrix ansatz algebra (*i.e* the ZF relation) is ensured by the reflection equations and .
We can now introduce the matrix product state $$\label{eq:inhomogeneous_ground_state}
{{|\cS(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_L)\rangle}}=\frac{1}{Z_L(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_L)}
{\langle\!\langle}W| \mathbf{A}(z_1) \otimes \mathbf{A}(z_2) \otimes \dots \otimes \mathbf{A}(z_L) |V{\rangle\!\rangle},$$ with $Z_L(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_L) = {\langle\!\langle}W|\bm{C}(z_1)\bm{C}(z_2) \cdots \bm{C}(z_L)|V{\rangle\!\rangle}$ where the algebraic element $\bm{C}(z)$ is defined as the sum of the components of the vector $\bm{A}(z)$ $$\bm{C}(z)={{\langle\sigma|}}\bm{A}(z).$$ It has been shown in [@CRV] that if the ZF and GZ relations and are fulfilled, then ${{|\cS(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_L)\rangle}}$ satisfies $$t(z_i){{|\cS(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_L)\rangle}} = {{|\cS(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_L)\rangle}}, \quad \mbox{for} \quad 1\leq i \leq L,$$ where $t(z)$ is the inhomogeneous transfer matrix defined in with inhomogeneity parameters $z_1,\dots,z_L$. On specific models, it is even possible to prove using symmetry and degree arguments that ${{|\cS(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_L)\rangle}}$ is an eigenvector of $t(z)$ for all $z$ (but with an eigenvalue possibly different from $1$), see for instance [@CRV; @VanicatThesis].
For our process we recall that we took a specific staggered picture for the inhomogeneity parameters, see subsection \[subsec:parallel\_update\]. The steady state of the process is thus given in the staggered form (similar to the transfer matrix ) $${|{\cal S}\rangle}= \frac{1}{Z_L} {\langle\!\langle}W|\mathbf{A}(\kappa)\otimes\mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf{A}(\kappa)|V{\rangle\!\rangle}$$ where $Z_L= Z_L(\kappa,1/\kappa,\dots,\kappa)$. Let us briefly show that it provides the correct stationary state. The following relations indeed hold (they are a direct consequence of and ) $$U \mathbf{A}(\kappa)\otimes\mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)= \mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right) \otimes \mathbf{A}(\kappa), \quad
B {{\langle\!\langleW|}} \mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)= {{\langle\!\langleW|}} \mathbf{A}(\kappa), \quad
\overline{B} \mathbf{A}(\kappa) {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}} = \mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$ Using these properties, it is then easy to check that $${{\mathbb U}}^{o} {|{\cal S}\rangle}= {{|\cS'\rangle}} \quad \mbox{and} \quad {{\mathbb U}}^{e} {{|\cS'\rangle}} = {|{\cal S}\rangle},$$ where $$\label{eq:stationary_state_bis}
{{|\cS'\rangle}} = \frac{1}{Z_L} {\langle\!\langle}W|\mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)\otimes \mathbf{A}(\kappa)\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)|V{\rangle\!\rangle}.$$ It thus implies $M{|{\cal S}\rangle}= {|{\cal S}\rangle}$. Note that this kind of staggering mechanism for the stationary state has already appeared in [@ProsenB].
For an spectral parameter, the stationary state is given by $${|{\cal S}\rangle}= \frac{1}{Z_L} {\langle\!\langle}W|\mathbf{A}(\kappa)\otimes\mathbf{A}(-\kappa)\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbf{A}(\kappa)|V{\rangle\!\rangle}$$ where $Z_L= Z_L(\kappa,-\kappa,\dots,\kappa)$.
We recall also that the construction of the stationary state exposed in this subsection holds only for models with open boundary conditions. For models with periodic boundary conditions, we would need to adapt the construction of the stationary state $${|{\cal S}\rangle}_N = \frac{1}{Z_{L,N}} \pi_N\Big[
tr \left(\mathbf{A}(\kappa)\otimes\mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)\otimes\dots\otimes \mathbf{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)\right)\Big],$$ where $tr(\cdot)$ denotes a trace operator (*i.e* satisfying the cyclic property) on the auxiliary space of the matrix ansatz algebra. $\pi_N$ is the projector (in the physical space of configurations) on the sector with $N$ particles on the lattice. Indeed with periodic boundary conditions, the number of particles in the system is often conserved and the configuration space can be decomposed into different sectors (labeled by the number of particles) that are stable under the action of the Markov matrix. $Z_{L,N}$ is the appropriate normalization (so that the sum of the components of ${|{\cal S}\rangle}_N$ is $1$).
To ease the presentation, and to avoid dealing with these different sectors, we will focus on systems with open boundary conditions in the rest of the paper. We will provide explicit examples of the construction of discrete time models and of the associated stationary state.
Examples: the SSEP and ASEP case. \[subsec:examples\]
-----------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we apply the generic construction introduced above in subsection \[subsec:parallel\_update\] to the $R$ and $K$ matrices associated with the SSEP and the ASEP. We define the discrete time stochastic dynamics and provide explicitly the transition probabilities between the configurations. The stationary states are then computed following the general procedure presented in \[subsec:stationary\_state\]. The matrix ansatz algebra is found to be closely related to the one used to solve the continuous time models.
#### The SSEP case.
We are first interested in the SSEP, which is a stochastic model where particles can jump to the left or to the right with equal probability (*i.e* there is no driving force in the bulk) and with an exclusion constraint. We introduce an $R$-matrix which reads in the basis ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$ and ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$ (ordered this way) $$\label{eq:SSEP_R}
R(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{z}{z+1} & \frac{1}{z+1} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1}{z+1} & \frac{z}{z+1} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ It satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation , the Markovian, regularity and unitarity properties. The $R$-matrix will be used below to define a local Markovian operator in the bulk of the system. The jumping probabilities to the left and to the right will be equal because of the following property of the $R$-matrix: $PR(z)P=R(z)$. We also introduce two reflection matrices which read in the basis ${{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}$ (ordered this way) $$\label{eq:SSEP_K}
K(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{(c-a)z+1}{(a+c)z+1} & \frac{2cz}{(a+c)z+1} \\
\frac{2az}{(a+c)z+1} & \frac{(a-c)z+1}{(a+c)z+1}
\end{pmatrix} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\overline{K}(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{(b-d)z-1}{(b+d)z-1} & \frac{2bz}{(b+d)z-1} \\
\frac{2dz}{(b+d)z-1} & \frac{(d-b)z-1}{(b+d)z-1}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ They satisfy the reflection equation and the reversed reflection equation respectively (with additive spectral parameters). They also fulfill the Markovian, regularity and unitarity properties. They will be used to define local Markovian operators acting on the first and last sites, which describe the interaction with particle reservoirs at the boundaries.
Following the general procedure introduced in subsection \[subsec:parallel\_update\] we define the local Markovian operators using the $R$ and $K$ matrices $$U = \check R(2\kappa), \qquad B=K(\kappa), \qquad \overline{B}=\overline{K}(-\kappa).$$ It allows us to define an integrable discrete time Markov matrix defined by . We now give an explicit description of the local stochastic rules of the model. In the bulk the dynamics encoded by the matrix $U$ explicitly reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 01 \longrightarrow 10 \quad \frac{2\kappa}{2\kappa+1}; \qquad 01 \longrightarrow 01 \quad \frac{1}{2\kappa+1}; \\
& 10 \longrightarrow 01 \quad \frac{2\kappa}{2\kappa+1}; \qquad 10 \longrightarrow 10 \quad \frac{1}{2\kappa+1}; \\
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the dynamics are symmetric as announced: the particles jump to the left or to the right with the same probability. On the left boundary the dynamics encoded by the matrix $B$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 0 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{2a\kappa}{(a+c)\kappa+1}; \qquad 0 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{(c-a)\kappa+1}{(a+c)\kappa+1}; \\
& 1 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{2c\kappa}{(a+c)\kappa+1}; \qquad 1 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{(a-c)\kappa+1}{(a+c)\kappa+1}; \\
\end{aligned}$$ It may for instance describe the interaction with a particle reservoir at fixed density. On the right boundary the dynamics encoded by the matrix $\overline{B}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 0 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{2d\kappa}{(b+d)\kappa+1}; \qquad 0 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{(b-d)\kappa+1}{(b+d)\kappa+1}; \\
& 1 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{2b\kappa}{(b+d)\kappa+1}; \qquad 1 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{(d-b)\kappa+1}{(b+d)\kappa+1}; \\
\end{aligned}$$
Now that the discrete time model is precisely defined, we can look for its stationary distribution in a matrix product form following the general method presented in subsection \[subsec:stationary\_state\]. We only need to construct a vector $\bm{A}(z)$ satisfying the ZF and GZ relations (with additive spectral parameters).
For such a purpose, we introduce the vector $\bm{A}(z)$ with algebraic entries $$\label{eq:SSEP_A}
\bm{A}(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
-z+\bm{E} \\ z+\bm{D}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The matrices $\bm{E}$ and $\bm{D}$ satisfy the following commutation relation $$\label{eq:SSEP_commutation_relation}
\bm{DE}-\bm{ED}=\bm{D}+\bm{E}$$ and the relations on the boundary vectors ${{\langle\!\langleW|}}$ and ${{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$ $$\label{eq:SSEP_relations_boundaries}
{{\langle\!\langleW|}}\Big(a\bm{E}-c\bm{D}-1\Big)=0, \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \Big(b\bm{D}-d\bm{E}-1\Big){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}=0.$$ Note that these algebraic relations are exactly the ones appearing when constructing the stationary state of the continuous time SSEP. It is known that there exists an explicit representation of $\bm{E}$, $\bm{D}$, ${{\langle\!\langleW|}}$ and ${{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$, satisfying and , as infinite dimensional matrices and vectors. A direct computation shows that if the relations and are fulfilled, then the vector $\bm{A}(z)$ satisfies the ZF and GZ relations (together with ${{\langle\!\langleW|}}$ and ${{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$) with additive spectral parameters.
We stress that, despite the similitude of the underlying algebraic relations, the stationary distribution of the present discrete time SSEP model is not the same as the one of the continuous time model because of the staggered construction[^8] $${|{\cal S}\rangle}= \frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}} \bm{A}(\kappa) \otimes \bm{A}(-\kappa) \otimes \bm{A}(\kappa) \otimes \cdots \otimes \bm{A}(\kappa) {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$ We can use this matrix product solution to compute physical quantities. The first step is to compute the normalization $Z_L$. We recall that it is defined as $$Z_L= Z_L(\kappa,-\kappa,\dots,\kappa) = {{\langle\!\langleW|}} \bm{C}(\kappa)\bm{C}(-\kappa)\cdots \bm{C}(\kappa){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}} = {{\langle\!\langleW|}}(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^L {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$$ because $\bm{C}(z)={{\langle\sigma|}}\bm{A}(z)=\bm{E}+\bm{D}$ is independent of $z$. It is exactly the expression of the normalization for the continuous time SSEP [@DerrReview; @MartinRev]. We thus have $$\label{eq:SSEP_normalisation}
Z_L = \frac{(a+c)^L(b+d)^L}{(ab-cd)^L} \frac{\Gamma\left(L+\frac{1}{a+c}+\frac{1}{b+d}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{a+c}+\frac{1}{b+d}\right)}$$ where the function Gamma satisfies $\Gamma(z+1)=z\Gamma(z)$. We can also compute the mean particle density on site $i$. We have to be careful because of the two-step Floquet dynamics: in the stationary regime the system is for one out of two time steps described by the probability vector ${|{\cal S}\rangle}$ and for one out of two time steps described by the probability vector ${{|\cS'\rangle}}$ (defined in ). In the stationary regime the mean particle density (averaged also over the two time steps of the Floquet dynamics) is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SSEP_density}
\langle \tau_i \rangle & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}}(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{i-1}\big((-1)^{i+1}\kappa+\bm{D}\big)(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{L-i}{{|V\rangle\!\rangle}} \\
& & + \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}}(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{i-1}\big((-1)^{i}\kappa+\bm{D}\big)(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{L-i}{{|V\rangle\!\rangle}} \\
& = & \frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}}(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{i-1}\bm{D}(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{L-i}{{|V\rangle\!\rangle}} \\
& = & \frac{\frac{a}{a+c}\left(L+\frac{1}{b+d}-i\right)+\frac{d}{b+d}\left(i-1+\frac{1}{a+c}\right)}{L+\frac{1}{a+c}+\frac{1}{b+d}-1},\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is obtained using again the results derived for the continuous time SSEP matrix ansatz algebra [@DerrReview; @MartinRev]. It appears to be identical to the continuous time SSEP density. Let us mention here that the similarity of the physical observables between the discrete time and continuous time SSEP is specific to this model. We will see in the next paragraph that the results are different between discrete and continuous time in the ASEP case. Note that the result can be obtained without using the matrix product structure because the mean densities satisfy a set of closed equations, similarly to the continuous time case. The matrix product solution provides nevertheless an efficient tool to compute multi-point correlation functions.
The computation of the mean particle current can also be handled. We have to be careful again because of the Floquet two steps dynamics: particles can only jump from site $i$ to site $i+1$, where $i$ is odd (respectively even), during the first time step (respectively the second time step) encoded by ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ (respectively by ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$). It implies that when $i$ is odd we have to investigate the action of ${{\mathbb U}}^{o}$ on sites $i$ and $i+1$ of the vector ${|{\cal S}\rangle}$, whereas when $i$ is even we have to investigate the action of ${{\mathbb U}}^{e}$ on sites $i$ and $i+1$ of the vector ${{|\cS'\rangle}}$. It turns out that both cases reduce consistently to the same following computation $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J \rangle & = & \frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}}(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{i-1}
\frac{2\kappa}{2\kappa+1}\Big[\big(\kappa+\bm{D}\big)\big(\kappa+\bm{E}\big)-\big(-\kappa+\bm{E}\big)\big(-\kappa+\bm{D}\big)\Big](\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{L-i-1}{{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}\nonumber \\
& = & 2\kappa\frac{Z_{L-1}}{Z_L} \nonumber \\
& = & 2\kappa\frac{\frac{a}{a+c}-\frac{d}{b+d}}{L+\frac{1}{a+c}+\frac{1}{b+d}-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the factor $2\kappa$ it differs slightly from the corresponding result for the continuous time SSEP.
#### The ASEP case.
We are now interested in the ASEP, which is a stochastic model where particles can jump to the left or to the right with an asymmetric probability (which can describe a driving force in the bulk) and with an exclusion constraint. We introduce a $R$-matrix which reads in the basis ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$ and ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$ (ordered this way) $$\label{eq:ASEP_R}
R(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{(1-z)t^2}{1-t^2z} & \frac{z(1-t^2)}{1-t^2z} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1-t^2}{1-t^2z} & \frac{(1-z)}{1-t^2z} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$ It satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation , the Markovian , regularity and unitarity properties. The $R$-matrix will be again used below to define a local Markovian operator in the bulk of the system. Note that the R-matrix of the SSEP can be recovered from the R-matrix of the ASEP taking the limit $R^{SSEP}(z)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} R^{ASEP}(e^{hz})|_{t^2=e^h}$.
We also introduce two reflection matrices which read in the basis ${{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}$ (ordered this way) $$\label{eq:ASEP_K}
K(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{(c-a)z^2+z}{cz^2+z-a} & \frac{c(z^2-1)}{cz^2+z-a} \\
\frac{a(z^2-1)}{cz^2+z-a} & \frac{c-a+z}{cz^2+z-a}
\end{pmatrix} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\overline{K}(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{(b-d)z^2-z}{bz^2-z-d} & \frac{b(z^2-1)}{bz^2-z-d} \\
\frac{d(z^2-1)}{bz^2-z-d} & \frac{b-d-z}{bz^2-z-d}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ They satisfy the reflection equation and the reversed reflection equation respectively. They also fulfill the Markovian , regularity and unitarity properties. They will be again used to define local Markovian operators acting on the first and last sites, which describe the interaction with particle reservoirs at the boundaries.
Following one more time the general procedure introduced in subsection \[subsec:parallel\_update\] we define the local Markovian operators using the $R$ and $K$ matrices $$U = \check R(\kappa^2), \qquad B=K(\kappa), \qquad \overline{B}=\overline{K}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right).$$ It allows us to define an integrable discrete time Markov matrix defined by . We now give an explicit description of the local stochastic rules of the model. In the bulk the dynamics encoded by the matrix $U$ explicitly reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 01 \longrightarrow 10 \quad \frac{(1-\kappa^2)t^2}{1-t^2\kappa^2}; \qquad 01 \longrightarrow 01 \quad \frac{1-t^2}{1-t^2\kappa^2}; \\
& 10 \longrightarrow 01 \quad \frac{1-\kappa^2}{1-t^2\kappa^2}; \qquad 10 \longrightarrow 10 \quad \frac{\kappa^2(1-t^2)}{1-t^2\kappa^2}; \\
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the dynamics is asymmetric as announced: the particles jump to the left and to the right with different probabilities. It can for instance describe a driving force in the bulk. Note that the SSEP dynamics is recovered by setting $\kappa\rightarrow e^{h\kappa}$, $t^2\rightarrow e^h$ and taking the limit $h$ going to zero. On the left boundary the dynamics encoded by the matrix $B$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 0 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{a(1-\kappa^2)}{a-\kappa-c\kappa^2}; \qquad 0 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{(a-c)\kappa^2-\kappa}{a-\kappa-c\kappa^2}; \\
& 1 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{c(1-\kappa^2)}{a-\kappa-c\kappa^2}; \qquad 1 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{a-c-\kappa}{a-\kappa-c\kappa^2}; \\
\end{aligned}$$ It may for instance describe the interaction with a particle reservoir at fixed density. On the right boundary the dynamics encoded by the matrix $\overline{B}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 0 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{d(1-\kappa^2)}{b-\kappa-d\kappa^2}; \qquad 0 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{b-d-\kappa}{b-\kappa-d\kappa^2}; \\
& 1 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{b(1-\kappa^2)}{b-\kappa-d\kappa^2}; \qquad 1 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{(b-d)\kappa^2-\kappa}{b-\kappa-d\kappa^2}; \\
\end{aligned}$$ Now that the discrete time dynamics has been introduced, we can look for its stationary distribution in a matrix product form following the general method presented in subsection \[subsec:stationary\_state\]. Again, we only need to construct a vector $\bm{A}(z)$ satisfying the ZF and GZ relations.
To achieve this goal, we define the algebraic-valued vector $\bm{A}(z)$ by the following expression $$\label{eq:ASEP_A}
\bm{A}(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
z+\bm{e} \\ \frac{1}{z}+\bm{d}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The generators $\bm{e}$ and $\bm{d}$ satisfy the following commutation relation $$\label{eq:ASEP_commutation_relation}
\bm{de}-t^2\bm{ed}=1-t^2$$ and the relations on the boundary vectors ${{\langle\!\langleW|}}$ and ${{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$ $$\label{eq:ASEP_relations_boundaries}
{{\langle\!\langleW|}}\Big(a\bm{e}-c\bm{d}+1\Big)=0, \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \Big(b\bm{d}-d\bm{e}+1\Big){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}=0.$$ Let us stress the difference between $\bm{d}$ and $\bm{e}$ in bold, that are operators, and $a,b,c,d$ that are boundary parameters. Note that these algebraic relations are essentially identical (up to some change of parameters) to the ones appearing when constructing the stationary state of the continuous time ASEP. It is known that there exists an explicit representation of $\bm{e}$, $\bm{d}$, ${{\langle\!\langleW|}}$ and ${{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$, satisfying and , as infinite dimensional matrices and vectors [@Sandow94; @MartinRev]. A direct computation shows that if the relations and are fulfilled, then the vector $\bm{A}(z)$ satisfies the ZF and GZ relations (together with ${{\langle\!\langleW|}}$ and ${{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$).
Similarly to the symmetric case, we stress that, despite the similitude of the underlying algebraic relations, the stationary distribution of the present discrete time ASEP model is not the same as the one of the continuous time model because of the staggered construction[^9] $${|{\cal S}\rangle}= \frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}} \bm{A}(\kappa) \otimes \bm{A}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right) \otimes \bm{A}(\kappa) \otimes \cdots \otimes \bm{A}(\kappa) {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$ We can in principle use this matrix product solution to compute physical quantities. However in the present case of the ASEP, we will not handle the computations up to the final result but rather give an idea on how to use the matrix product formalism in this discrete time dynamics framework. Performing a complete derivation of the physical quantities would require dealing with the explicit representation of the algebraic elements $\bm{e}$, $\bm{d}$ , ${{\langle\!\langleW|}}$ and ${{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$ and introducing $q$-calculus and $q$-hypergeometric functions [@Sandow94; @MartinRev] which is beyond the scope of this paper.
The first step is to compute the normalization $Z_L$. We recall that it is defined as $$Z_L= Z_L(\kappa,1/\kappa,\dots,\kappa) = {{\langle\!\langleW|}} \bm{C}(\kappa)\bm{C}(1/\kappa)\cdots \bm{C}(\kappa){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}
= {{\langle\!\langleW|}}\left(\kappa+\frac{1}{\kappa}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^L {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$$ because $\bm{C}(z)={{\langle\sigma|}}\bm{A}(z)=\bm{C}(1/z)$. It depends explicitly on the parameter $\kappa$ and thus differs from the corresponding expression for the continuous time ASEP. It would be interesting to compute the asymptotic behavior of this normalization for large system size $L$ and see how it is modified in comparison to the continuous time [@DEHP; @Sandow94]. As we will see below the asymptotic behavior of the normalization plays an important role in the determination of the phase diagram of the model.
We can also study the mean particle density on site $i$. Similarly to the symmetric case, taking into account the two steps Floquet dynamics, $$\langle \tau_i \rangle = \frac{1}{Z_L}
{{\langle\!\langleW|}}\left(\kappa+\frac{1}{\kappa}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^{i-1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\kappa+\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)+\bm{d}\right)\left(\kappa+\frac{1}{\kappa}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^{L-i}{{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$ We are finally interested in the mean particle current. We have first to compute the quantity $$\frac{1-\kappa^2}{1-t^2\kappa^2}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}+\bm{d}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}+\bm{e}\right)
-\frac{(1-\kappa^2)t^2}{1-t^2\kappa^2}(\kappa+\bm{e})(\kappa+\bm{d})
=\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}-\kappa\right)\left(\kappa+\frac{1}{\kappa}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right),$$ which is related to the mean number of particles jumping over a particular bond per time step. Hence we deduce that $$\langle J \rangle = \left(\frac{1}{\kappa}-\kappa\right)\frac{Z_{L-1}}{Z_L}.$$ It has a similar structure as the mean particle current of the continuous time ASEP but with an additional factor $1/\kappa-\kappa$.
Integrable generalized exclusion processes from the fusion procedure. \[sec:generalized\_exclusion\]
====================================================================================================
This section is devoted to the construction of integrable generalized exclusion processes, *i.e* models for which the exclusion constraint of the SSEP and ASEP (there is at most one particle per site, $s=1$) is a bit relaxed: there is at most $s$ particles per site with $s>1$. The general idea to construct such models is the following. The $R$-matrix associated to the ASEP (respectively to the SSEP) can be viewed as the fundamental representation (also known as spin $1/2$ representation) of the universal $R$-matrix associated to the quantum group $\cU_q(\hat{sl}_2)$ (respectively to the Yangian $\cY(\hat{sl}_2)$). We can construct the $R$-matrices associated to generalized exclusion processes by taking higher dimensional irreducible representations (*i.e* higher spin representations) of the universal $R$-matrix. A well-known technique, called *fusion procedure* [@Karowski; @KulishS; @KulishRS; @Jimbo], allows us to construct easily the higher dimensional representations of the $R$-matrix starting from the $R$-matrix in fundamental (spin $1/2$) representation. We summarize briefly the key points of the procedure in the next subsection \[subsec:fusion\] because it will shed some light on the *fused* matrix ansatz construction of subsection \[subsec:fused\_MA\].
Fusion of R and K matrices and description of the new models. \[subsec:fusion\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We wish to give in this small paragraph some insight on the fusion procedure. It is not meant to be fully rigorous. The reader is invited to refer to [@Karowski; @KulishS; @KulishRS; @Jimbo] and references therein or to the specific examples developed hereafter to get into the technical details.
Let us first introduce some notations and properties associated with quantum groups. The discussion holds for the quantum group $\cA=\cU_q(\hat{sl}_2)$, corresponding to the asymmetric case, and also for $\cA = \cY(\hat{sl}_2)$ corresponding to the symmetric case. The quantum group is endowed with an algebra homomorphism $\Delta:\cA \rightarrow \cA \otimes \cA$ called the *coproduct*, which allows us to construct easily tensor products of representations (see below). There exists an element $\mathfrak{R} \in \cA \otimes \cA$ called *universal R-matrix*, satisfying the Yang-Baxter equation $$\mathfrak{R}_{12}\mathfrak{R}_{13}\mathfrak{R}_{23}=\mathfrak{R}_{23}\mathfrak{R}_{13}\mathfrak{R}_{12}.$$ It satisfies also convenient relations with the coproduct, such as $(1\otimes \Delta)(\mathfrak{R})=\mathfrak{R}_{12}\mathfrak{R}_{23}$. The irreducible finite dimensional representations $\pi_z^{(m)}:\cA \rightarrow End(\cV_m)$ are labeled by a half-integer $m$ called spin, and depend on a spectral parameter $z$. The dimension of the representation is equal to $2m+1$. Taking finite dimensional representation of the element $\mathfrak{R}$ $$\label{eq:R_spin_quelconque}
(\pi_{z_1}^{(m)} \otimes \pi_{z_2}^{(l)})(\mathfrak{R}) := R^{(m,l)}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)$$ allows us to construct a finite dimensional matrix acting on $\cV_m \otimes \cV_l$ (*i.e* on two sites with spin $m$ and $j$ respectively) satisfying the Yang-Baxter equation $$R^{(m,l)}_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)R^{(m,k)}_{13}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_3}\right)R^{(l,k)}_{23}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_3}\right)=
R^{(l,k)}_{23}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_3}\right)R^{(m,k)}_{13}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_3}\right)R^{(m,l)}_{23}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)$$ Note that the R-matrix depends only on the ratio[^10] $z_1/z_2$. The R-matrix corresponds to the case $m=l=1/2$ and is equal to $R^{(1/2,1/2)}(z)$.
The fusion procedure consists in constructing the matrix $R^{(m,l)}(z)$, for general half-integers $m$ and $l$, from $R^{(1/2,1/2)}(z)$, without having to deal with the universal R-matrix $\mathfrak{R}$ which is a rather complicated object in practice.
For instance we would like to construct the representation $\pi_{z}^{(1)}$ from the tensor product of the fundamental representations $\pi_{z_1}^{(1/2)}$ and $\pi_{z_2}^{(1/2)}$ which is defined with the help of the coproduct by $(\pi_{z_1}^{(1/2)} \otimes \pi_{z_2}^{(1/2)}) \Delta:\cA \rightarrow End(\cV_{1/2} \otimes \cV_{1/2})$. The latter tensor product representation is irreducible for generic spectral parameters $z_1$ and $z_2$ but it becomes reducible when the ratio $z_2/z_1=\mu$, with $\mu$ such that $R^{(1/2,1/2)}(\mu)$ is a projector. The representation $\pi_{z}^{(1)}$ is then obtained by projecting onto the invariant subspace, which is achieved by acting with the projector $R^{(1/2,1/2)}(\mu)$. It yields for instance the formula $$\begin{aligned}
R^{(1/2,1)}(z) & = & R^{(1/2,1/2)}(\mu).\Big[(\pi_{z}^{(1/2)} \otimes \pi_{\mu^{1/2}}^{(1/2)} \otimes \pi_{\mu^{-1/2}}^{(1/2)})(1 \otimes \Delta)(\mathfrak{R})\Big] .R^{(1/2,1/2)}(\mu)\\
& = & R^{(1/2,1/2)}(\mu) R^{(1/2,1/2)}(z/\mu^{1/2}) R^{(1/2,1/2)}(z\mu^{1/2}) R^{(1/2,1/2)}(\mu).\end{aligned}$$ Such kind of construction can be applied recursively to obtain $R^{(m,l)}(z)$, see for instance formulas and below.
A similar fusion procedure also exists to deal with open boundary conditions and construct higher dimensional $K$-matrices [@MezincescuN; @FrappatNR].
We illustrate more precisely these procedures by applying it to the SSEP and ASEP.
#### The symmetric case.
We are first interested in the SSEP case. To start with the fusion procedure for this model, we need to identify a particular point $\mu$ at which the $R$-matrix defined in is a projector, *i.e* $R(\mu)^2=R(\mu)$. It is straightforward to check that $\mu=1$ is the only point that fulfills this condition. It is then easy to realize that $R(1)$ is closely related to the rectangular matrices $$Q^{(l)} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
Q^{(r)} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1/2 & 0 \\
0 & 1/2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$ through the following relations $$\label{eq:projectors_properties}
Q^{(l)}Q^{(r)} = 1, \qquad Q^{(r)}Q^{(l)} = R(1), \qquad Q^{(l)}R(1)=Q^{(l)}, \qquad R(1)Q^{(r)}=Q^{(r)}.$$ The rectangular matrices $Q^{(l)}$ and $Q^{(r)}$ will allow us to project on the invariant subspace of the tensor representation (going from a dimension $4$ space, obtained as the tensor product of two fundamental representations of dimension $2$, to a dimension $3$ irreducible subspace). More precisely we can fuse the second space of the $R$-matrix as follows $$\label{eq:GSSEP_half_fused_R}
R_{i,<jk>}(z)= Q^{(l)}_{jk} R_{ij}\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right) R_{ik}\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)Q^{(r)}_{jk}.$$ The resulting matrix $R_{i,<jk>}(z)$ acts on ${{\mathbb C}}^2 \otimes {{\mathbb C}}^3$ and satisfies some specific Yang-Baxter equation, see [@FrappatNR]. We are now left with the fusion of the first space $$\label{eq:GSSEP_R_definition}
\cR(z)=R_{<hi>,<jk>}(z)= Q^{(l)}_{hi} R_{h,<jk>}\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right) R_{i,<jk>}\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right)Q^{(r)}_{hi}.$$ The matrix $\cR(z)$ acts on ${{\mathbb C}}^3 \otimes {{\mathbb C}}^3$ and will correspond to a process with at most $2$ particles allowed on each site ( it corresponds to $s=2$). It has the following explicit expression, given in the basis ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$, ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|2\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|2\rangle}}$, ${{|2\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|2\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$, ${{|2\rangle}}\otimes{{|2\rangle}}$ (ordered this way) $$\label{eq:GSSEP_R}
\cR(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{z}{z+2} & 0 & \frac{2}{z+2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{z(z-1)}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & \frac{z}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & \frac{2}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{2}{z+2} & 0 & \frac{z}{z+2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{4z}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & \frac{z^2+z+2}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & \frac{4z}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{z}{z+2} & 0 & \frac{2}{z+2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{2}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & \frac{z}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & \frac{z(z-1)}{(z+1)(z+2)} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{2}{z+2} & 0 & \frac{z}{z+2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$ Using the fact that the matrix $R(z)$ satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation and also the properties , it is possible to show that $\cR(z)$ satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation[^11] $$\cR_{12}\left(z_1-z_2\right) \cR_{13}\left(z_1-z_3\right) \cR_{23}\left(z_2-z_3\right) =
\cR_{23}\left(z_2-z_3\right) \cR_{13}\left(z_1-z_3\right) \cR_{12}\left(z_1-z_2\right)$$ It is also straightforward to show, using either the definition or the explicit expression , that the matrix $\cR(z)$ satisfies the Markovian, regularity and unitarity properties. A similar fusion procedure can also be applied to the $K$-matrices [@FrappatNR], defining $$\cK(z) = K_{<ij>}(z) = Q^{(l)}_{ij} K_i\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right)R_{ji}(2z)K_j\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)Q^{(r)}_{ij}$$ and $$\overline{\cK}(z) = \overline{K}_{<ij>}(z) = Q^{(l)}_{ij} \overline{K}_i\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right)R_{ji}(2z)^{-1}\overline{K}_j\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)Q^{(l)}_{ij}.$$ The matrices $\cK(z)$ and $\overline{\cK}(z)$ both act on ${{\mathbb C}}^3$ and take the following explicit expressions, written in the basis ${{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}$ and ${{|2\rangle}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GSSEP_K}
& & \cK(z) = \\
& & \hspace{-5mm} \begin{pmatrix}
* & \frac{4cz\big[(2z-1)(c-a)+2\big]}{\big[(2z-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2z+1)(a+c)+2\big]} & \frac{8c^2z(2z-1)}{\big[(2z-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2z+1)(a+c)+2\big]} \\
\frac{8az\big[(2z-1)(c-a)+2\big]}{\big[(2z-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2z+1)(a+c)+2\big]} & * & \frac{8cz\big[(2z-1)(a-c)+2\big]}{\big[(2z-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2z+1)(a+c)+2\big]} \\
\frac{8a^2z(2z-1)}{\big[(2z-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2z+1)(a+c)+2\big]} & \frac{4az\big[(2z-1)(a-c)+2\big]}{\big[(2z-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2z+1)(a+c)+2\big]} & *
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GSSEP_Kb}
& & \overline{\cK}(z) = \\
& & \hspace{-5mm} \begin{pmatrix}
* & \frac{4bz\big[(2z+1)(b-d)-2\big]}{\big[(2z-1)(b+d)-2\big]\big[(2z+1)(b+d)-2\big]} & \frac{8b^2z(2z+1)}{\big[(2z-1)(b+d)-2\big]\big[(2z+1)(b+d)-2\big]} \\
\frac{8dz\big[(2z+1)(b-d)-2\big]}{\big[(2z-1)(b+d)-2\big]\big[(2z+1)(b+d)-2\big]} & * & \frac{8bz\big[(2z+1)(d-b)-2\big]}{\big[(2z-1)(b+d)-2\big]\big[(2z+1)(b+d)-2\big]} \\
\frac{8d^2z(2z+1)}{\big[(2z-1)(b+d)-2\big]\big[(2z+1)(b+d)-2\big]} & \frac{4dz\big[(2z+1)(d-b)-2\big]}{\big[(2z-1)(b+d)-2\big]\big[(2z+1)(b+d)-2\big]} & *
\end{pmatrix}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Note that in order to make these matrices easier to read we have replaced the diagonal entries (which do not enjoy a factorized form) by $*$. We also have used $[\cdot ]$ to denote usual brackets. The value of the diagonal entries can be easily deduced from the rest of the matrix using the Markovian property: the sum of the entries on each column is equal to one. The regularity and unitarity properties are also fulfilled. These matrices satisfy the reflection equations (it can be checked from the explicit expressions and ) $$\cR_{12}\left(z_1-z_2\right) \cK_1(z_1) \cR_{21}(z_1+z_2) \cK_2(z_2) =
\cK_2(z_2) \cR_{12}(z_1+z_2) \cK_1(z_1) \cR_{21} \left(z_1-z_2\right)$$ and $$\cR_{12}(z_1-z_2)^{-1} \overline{\cK}_1(z_1) R_{21}(z_1+z_2)^{-1} \overline{\cK}_2(z_2) =
\overline{\cK}_2(z_2) \cR_{12}(z_1+z_2)^{-1} \overline{\cK}_1(z_1) \cR_{21}(z_1-z_2)^{-1}.$$
We are now equipped to describe the dynamics of the model, *i.e* the transition probabilities between the different configurations. We recall that the local stochastic dynamics is encoded in the following matrices $$\cU = \check R (2\kappa), \qquad \cB = \cK(\kappa), \qquad \overline{\cB} = \overline{\cK}(-\kappa).$$ As explained in subsection \[subsec:parallel\_update\] the stochastic dynamics on the whole lattice is then defined by the Markov matrix $$M = {{\mathbb U}}^{e}{{\mathbb U}}^{o} = \left(\cB_1 \prod_{k=1}^{\frac{L-1}{2}} \cU_{2k,2k+1}\right) \left(\overline{\cB}_L \prod_{k=1}^{\frac{L-1}{2}} \cU_{2k-1,2k}\right).$$
We now give a precise description of the local stochastic rules. In the bulk the dynamics encoded by the matrix $\cU$ explicitly reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 01 \longrightarrow 10 \quad \frac{\kappa}{\kappa+1}; \qquad 01 \longrightarrow 01 \quad \frac{1}{\kappa+1}; \\
& 10 \longrightarrow 01 \quad \frac{\kappa}{\kappa+1}; \qquad 10 \longrightarrow 10 \quad \frac{1}{\kappa+1}; \\
& 12 \longrightarrow 21 \quad \frac{\kappa}{\kappa+1}; \qquad 12 \longrightarrow 12 \quad \frac{1}{\kappa+1}; \\
& 21 \longrightarrow 12 \quad \frac{\kappa}{\kappa+1}; \qquad 21 \longrightarrow 21 \quad \frac{1}{\kappa+1}; \\
& 02 \longrightarrow 11 \quad \frac{4\kappa}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)}; \qquad 02 \longrightarrow 20 \quad \frac{(2\kappa-1)\kappa}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)};
\qquad 02 \longrightarrow 02 \quad \frac{1}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)}; \\
& 20 \longrightarrow 11 \quad \frac{4\kappa}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)}; \qquad 20 \longrightarrow 02 \quad \frac{(2\kappa-1)\kappa}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)};
\qquad 20 \longrightarrow 20 \quad \frac{1}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)}; \\
& 11 \longrightarrow 02 \quad \frac{\kappa}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)}; \qquad 11 \longrightarrow 20 \quad \frac{\kappa}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)};
\qquad 11 \longrightarrow 11 \quad \frac{2\kappa^2+\kappa+1}{(2\kappa+1)(\kappa+1)};
\end{aligned}$$ Note that we can observe a left-right symmetry in the transition probabilities. It is explained by the fact that $\cU=\cP \cU \cP$, where $\cP$ is the permutation operator in ${{\mathbb C}}^3 \otimes {{\mathbb C}}^3$. We can also observe that the transition probabilities are not simply proportional to the number of particles lying on the departure site but depend in a non-trivial way on the composition of both departure and arrival sites. It thus describes non trivial interactions between the particles. On the left boundary the dynamics encoded by the matrix $\cB$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
& \hspace{-1cm} 0 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{8a\kappa\big[(2\kappa-1)(c-a)+2\big]}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(a+c)+2\big]}; \qquad
0 \longrightarrow 2 \quad \frac{8a^2\kappa(2\kappa-1)}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(a+c)+2\big]}; \\
& \hspace{-1cm} 1 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{4c\kappa\big[(2\kappa-1)(c-a)+2\big]}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(a+c)+2\big]}; \qquad
1 \longrightarrow 2 \quad \frac{4a\kappa\big[(2\kappa-1)(a-c)+2\big]}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(a+c)+2\big]}; \\
& \hspace{-1cm} 2 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{8c^2\kappa(2\kappa-1)}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(a+c)+2\big]}; \qquad
2 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{8c\kappa\big[(2\kappa-1)(a-c)+2\big]}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(a+c)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(a+c)+2\big]};
\end{aligned}$$ It describes a non-trivial interaction with a particle reservoir. On the right boundary the dynamics encoded by the matrix $\overline{\cB}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
& \hspace{-1cm} 0 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{8d\kappa\big[(2\kappa-1)(b-d)+2\big]}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(b+d)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(b+d)+2\big]}; \qquad
0 \longrightarrow 2 \quad \frac{8d^2\kappa(2\kappa-1)}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(b+d)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(b+d)+2\big]}; \\
& \hspace{-1cm} 1 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{4b\kappa\big[(2\kappa-1)(b-d)+2\big]}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(b+d)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(b+d)+2\big]}; \qquad
1 \longrightarrow 2 \quad \frac{4d\kappa\big[(2\kappa-1)(d-b)+2\big]}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(b+d)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(b+d)+2\big]}; \\
& \hspace{-1cm} 2 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{8b^2\kappa(2\kappa-1)}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(b+d)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(b+d)+2\big]}; \qquad
2 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{8b\kappa\big[(2\kappa-1)(d-b)+2\big]}{\big[(2\kappa-1)(b+d)+2\big]\big[(2\kappa+1)(b+d)+2\big]};
\end{aligned}$$
The dynamics of the model can be considerably simplified by considering the particular value $\kappa=1/2$. The transitions involving the simultaneous jumps of two particles have in this case a vanishing probability.
As far as we know, this model is the first example of integrable generalized exclusion process with open boundary conditions. It emphasizes the width of applications of the generic procedure presented in subsection \[subsec:parallel\_update\] to construct discrete time models.
#### The asymmetric case.
We are now interested in the ASEP case. To apply again the fusion procedure on this model, we need to identify the particular point $\mu$ at which the $R$-matrix defined in is a projector. It is possible to establish that $\mu=t^2$ is the only point that fulfills this condition. It is then easy to realize that $R(t^2)$ is closely related to the rectangular matrices
$$Q^{(l)} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
Q^{(r)} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & t^2/(1+t^2) & 0 \\
0 & 1/(1+t^2) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$
through similar relations as in the symmetric case $$\label{eq:projectors_properties_bis}
Q^{(l)}Q^{(r)} = 1_3, \qquad Q^{(r)}Q^{(l)} = R(t^2), \qquad Q^{(l)}R(t^2)=Q^{(l)}, \qquad R(t^2)Q^{(r)}=Q^{(r)}.$$ The rectangular matrices $Q^{(l)}$ and $Q^{(r)}$ will again allow us to project on the invariant subspace of the tensor representation. Similarly to the symmetric case, we can fuse the second space of the $R$-matrix as follows $$R_{i,<jk>}(z)= Q^{(l)}_{jk} R_{ij}\left(\frac{z}{t}\right) R_{ik}(zt)Q^{(r)}_{jk}.$$ The matrix $R_{i,<jk>}(z)$ acts on ${{\mathbb C}}^2 \otimes {{\mathbb C}}^3$ and satisfies also a Yang-Baxter equation. We are then left with the fusion of the first space $$\cR(z)=R_{<hi>,<jk>}(z)= Q^{(l)}_{hi} R_{h,<jk>}\left(zt\right) R_{i,<jk>}\left(\frac{z}{t}\right)Q^{(r)}_{hi}.$$ The matrix $\cR(z)$ acts on ${{\mathbb C}}^3 \otimes {{\mathbb C}}^3$ and will correspond again to a process with at most $2$ particles allowed on each site ( it corresponds to $s=2$). It has the following explicit expression, given in the basis ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$, ${{|0\rangle}}\otimes{{|2\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}\otimes{{|2\rangle}}$, ${{|2\rangle}}\otimes{{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|2\rangle}}\otimes{{|1\rangle}}$, ${{|2\rangle}}\otimes{{|2\rangle}}$ (ordered this way) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GASEP_R}
& & \cR(z) = \\
& & \hspace{-12mm} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{t^4(1-z)}{1-zt^4} & 0 & \frac{z(1-t^4)}{1-zt^4} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{t^6(t^2-z)(1-z)}{(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & \frac{zt^4(1-t^2)(1-z)}{(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & \frac{z^2(1-t^2)(1-t^4)}{(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1-t^4}{1-zt^4} & 0 & \frac{1-z}{1-zt^4} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{t^2(1+t^2)(1-t^4)(1-z)}{(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & \frac{zt^6+z^2t^4-2zt^4-2zt^2+t^2+z}{(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & \frac{z(1-z)(1+t^2)(1-t^4)}{t^2(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{t^4(1-z)}{1-zt^4} & 0 & \frac{z(1-t^4)}{1-zt^4} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{(1-t^2)(1-t^4)}{(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & \frac{(1-z)(1-t^2)}{(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & \frac{(t^2-z)(1-z)}{t^2(1-zt^2)(1-zt^4)} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1-t^4}{1-zt^4} & 0 & \frac{1-z}{1-zt^4} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that the matrix $R(z)$ satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation and also the properties , it is possible to show that $\cR(z)$ satisfies also the Yang-Baxter equation $$\cR_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right) \cR_{13}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_3}\right) \cR_{23}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_3}\right) =
\cR_{23}\left(\frac{z_2}{z_3}\right) \cR_{13}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_3}\right) \cR_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right).$$ A direct computation using for instance the explicit expression , shows that the matrix $\cR(z)$ satisfies the Markovian, regularity and unitarity properties. A similar fusion procedure can also be applied to the $K$-matrices [@FrappatNR], defining $$\cK(z) = K_{<ij>}(z) = Q^{(l)}_{ij} K_i\left(\frac{z}{t}\right)R_{ji}(z^2)K_j\left(zt\right) Q^{(r)}_{ij}$$ and $$\overline{\cK}(z) = \overline{K}_{<ij>}(z) = Q^{(l)}_{ij} \overline{K}_i\left(\frac{z}{t}\right)R_{ji}(z^2)^{-1}\overline{K}_j\left(zt\right)Q^{(r)}_{ij}.$$ The matrices $\cK(z)$ and $\overline{\cK}(z)$ both act on ${{\mathbb C}}^3$ and they take the following explicit expressions, written in the basis ${{|0\rangle}}$, ${{|1\rangle}}$ and ${{|2\rangle}}$ $$\label{eq:GASEP_K}
\cK(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
* & \frac{ct^2z(1-z^2)(az-cz-t)}{(at^2-cz^2-zt)(a-ct^2z^2-zt)} & \frac{c^2t^2(t^2-z^2)(1-z^2)}{(at^2-cz^2-zt)(a-ct^2z^2-zt)} \\
\frac{a(1+t^2)z(1-z^2)(az-cz-t)}{(at^2-cz^2-zt)(a-ct^2z^2-zt)} & * & \frac{ct(1+t^2)(1-z^2)(at-ct-z)}{(at^2-cz^2-zt)(a-ct^2z^2-zt)} \\
\frac{a^2(t^2-z^2)(1-z^2)}{(at^2-cz^2-zt)(a-ct^2z^2-zt)} & \frac{at(1-z^2)(at-ct-z)}{(at^2-cz^2-zt)(a-ct^2z^2-zt)} & *
\end{pmatrix}$$ and $$\label{eq:GASEP_Kb}
\overline{\cK}(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
* & \frac{btz(1-z^2)(1+dzt-bzt)}{(bz^2-dt^2-zt)(bt^2z^2-d-zt)} & \frac{b^2(1-z^2)(1-t^2z^2)}{(bz^2-dt^2-zt)(bt^2z^2-d-zt)} \\
\frac{dt(1+t^2)z(1-z^2)(1+dzt-bzt)}{(bz^2-dt^2-zt)(bt^2z^2-d-zt)} & * & \frac{b(1+t^2)(1-z^2)(d-b+zt)}{(bz^2-dt^2-zt)(bt^2z^2-d-zt)} \\
\frac{d^2t^2(1-z^2)(1-t^2z^2)}{(bz^2-dt^2-zt)(bt^2z^2-d-zt)} & \frac{dt^2(1-z^2)(d-b+zt)}{(bz^2-dt^2-zt)(bt^2z^2-d-zt)} & *
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Note that in order to make these matrices easier to read we have replaced the diagonal entries (which do not enjoy a factorized form) by $*$. The value of the diagonal entries can be easily deduced from the rest of the matrix using the Markovian property: the sum of the entries on each column is equal to one. The regularity and unitarity properties are also satisfied. From the explicit expressions and , it can be checked that the $K$-matrices fulfill the reflection equations $$\cR_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right) \cK_1(z_1) \cR_{21}(z_1 z_2) \cK_2(z_2) =
\cK_2(z_2) \cR_{12}(z_1 z_2) \cK_1(z_1) \cR_{21} \left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)$$ and $$\cR_{12}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)^{-1} \overline{\cK}_1(z_1) R_{21}(z_1 z_2)^{-1} \overline{\cK}_2(z_2) =
\overline{\cK}_2(z_2) \cR_{12}(z_1 z_2)^{-1} \overline{\cK}_1(z_1) \cR_{21}\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right)^{-1}.$$
We are now equipped to describe the dynamics of the model, *i.e* the transition probabilities between the different configurations. We recall that the local stochastic dynamics is encoded in the following matrices $$\cU = \check R (\kappa^2), \qquad \cB = \cK(\kappa), \qquad \overline{\cB} = \overline{\cK}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right).$$ We recall also that the stochastic dynamics on the whole lattice is then defined by the Markov matrix $$M = {{\mathbb U}}^{e}{{\mathbb U}}^{o} = \left(\cB_1 \prod_{k=1}^{\frac{L-1}{2}} \cU_{2k,2k+1}\right) \left(\overline{\cB}_L \prod_{k=1}^{\frac{L-1}{2}} \cU_{2k-1,2k}\right).$$
We now give a precise description of the local stochastic rules. In the bulk the dynamics encoded by the matrix $\cU$ explicitly reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 01 \longrightarrow 10 \quad \frac{t^4(1-\kappa^2)}{1-t^4\kappa^2}; \qquad 01 \longrightarrow 01 \quad \frac{1-t^4}{1-t^4\kappa^2}; \\
& 10 \longrightarrow 01 \quad \frac{1-\kappa^2}{1-t^4\kappa^2}; \qquad 10 \longrightarrow 10 \quad \frac{\kappa^2(1-t^2)}{1-t^4\kappa^2}; \\
& 12 \longrightarrow 21 \quad \frac{t^4(1-\kappa^2)}{1-t^4\kappa^2}; \qquad 12 \longrightarrow 12 \quad \frac{1-t^4}{1-t^4\kappa^2}; \\
& 21 \longrightarrow 12 \quad \frac{1-\kappa^2}{1-t^4\kappa^2}; \qquad 21 \longrightarrow 21 \quad \frac{\kappa^2(1-t^4)}{1-t^4\kappa^2}; \\
& 02 \longrightarrow 11 \quad \frac{t^2(1+t^2)(1-t^4)(1-\kappa^2)}{(1-t^2\kappa^2)(1-t^4\kappa^2)}; \qquad
02 \longrightarrow 20 \quad \frac{t^6(t^2-\kappa^2)(1-\kappa^2)}{(1-t^2\kappa^2)(1-t^4\kappa^2)};\\
& 20 \longrightarrow 11 \quad \frac{(1+t^2)(1-t^4)\kappa^2(1-\kappa^2)}{t^2(1-t^2\kappa^2)(1-t^4\kappa^2)}; \qquad
20 \longrightarrow 02 \quad \frac{(t^2-\kappa^2)(1-\kappa^2)}{t^2(1-t^2\kappa^2)(1-t^4\kappa^2)}; \\
& 11 \longrightarrow 02 \quad \frac{(1-t^2)(1-\kappa^2)}{(1-t^2\kappa^2)(1-t^4\kappa^2)}; \qquad
11 \longrightarrow 20 \quad \frac{t^4\kappa^2(1-t^2)(1-\kappa^2)}{(1-t^2\kappa^2)(1-t^4\kappa^2)};
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the left-right symmetry in the bulk dynamics is broken. It can describe the driving of an external force. Moreover the transition probabilities depend in a complex way on the number of particles on the departure and arrival sites, and suggest a non-trivial interaction between the particles. On the left boundary the dynamics encoded by the matrix $\cB$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 0 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{a(1+t^2)\kappa(1-\kappa^2)(a\kappa-c\kappa-t)}{(at^2-c\kappa^2-\kappa t)(a-ct^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \qquad
0 \longrightarrow 2 \quad \frac{a^2(t^2-\kappa^2)(1-\kappa^2)}{(at^2-c\kappa^2-\kappa t)(a-ct^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \\
& 1 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{ct^2\kappa(1-\kappa^2)(a\kappa-c\kappa-t)}{(at^2-c\kappa^2-\kappa t)(a-ct^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \qquad
1 \longrightarrow 2 \quad \frac{at(1-\kappa^2)(at-ct-\kappa)}{(at^2-c\kappa^2-\kappa t)(a-ct^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \\
& 2 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{c^2t^2(t^2-\kappa^2)(1-\kappa^2)}{(at^2-c\kappa^2-\kappa t)(a-ct^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \qquad
2 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{ct(1+t^2)(1-\kappa^2)(at-ct-\kappa)}{(at^2-c\kappa^2-\kappa t)(a-ct^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)};
\end{aligned}$$ It describes a non-trivial interaction with a particle reservoir. On the right boundary the dynamics encoded by the matrix $\overline{\cB}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
& 0 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{dt(1+t^2)(1-\kappa^2)(bt-dt-\kappa)}{(bt^2-d\kappa^2-\kappa t)(b-dt^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \qquad
0 \longrightarrow 2 \quad \frac{d^2t^2(t^2-\kappa^2)(1-\kappa^2)}{(bt^2-d\kappa^2-\kappa t)(b-dt^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \\
& 1 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{bt(1-\kappa^2)(bt-dt-\kappa)}{(bt^2-d\kappa^2-\kappa t)(b-dt^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \qquad
1 \longrightarrow 2 \quad \frac{dt^2\kappa(1-\kappa^2)(b\kappa-d\kappa-t)}{(bt^2-d\kappa^2-\kappa t)(b-dt^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \\
& 2 \longrightarrow 0 \quad \frac{b^2(t^2-\kappa^2)(1-\kappa^2)}{(bt^2-d\kappa^2-\kappa t)(b-dt^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)}; \qquad
2 \longrightarrow 1 \quad \frac{b(1+t^2)\kappa(1-\kappa^2)(b\kappa-d\kappa-t)}{(bt^2-d\kappa^2-\kappa t)(b-dt^2\kappa^2-\kappa t)};
\end{aligned}$$
The dynamics of the model can be considerably simplified by considering the particular value $\kappa=t$. The transitions involving the simultaneous jumps of two particles have in this case a vanishing probability.
Fused matrix ansatz. \[subsec:fused\_MA\]
-----------------------------------------
We introduce in this subsection a new method to construct explicitly the stationary state of the (symmetric and asymmetric) generalized exclusion processes in a matrix product form, using the matrices involved in the solution of the strict exclusion case (when there is at most one particle per site, *i.e* for $s=1$). We call this method, which is heavily inspired by the fusion procedure, “fused” matrix ansatz. We apply it to the generalized exclusion processes (where at most two particles are allowed on the same site, *i.e* where $s=2$) introduced in subsection \[subsec:fusion\]. We stress nevertheless that the fused matrix ansatz technique appears as quite general and may be adapted to solve also higher dimensional models (*i.e* for $s>2$).
#### The symmetric case.
Following the approach presented in subsection \[subsec:stationary\_state\], the goal is to construct a vector $\bm{\cA}(z)$ with algebraic entries such that the ZF and GZ relations are fulfilled. The stationary state is then easily constructed from this vector. For such a purpose we take advantage of the particular construction of the fused matrices $\cR$, $\cK$ and $\overline{\cK}$ and of the fact that we already know a vector that fulfill the ZF and GZ equations associated to the matrices $R$, $K$ and $\overline{K}$ for the SSEP (*i.e* for $s=1$). The idea is to mimic the fusion procedure by defining $$\label{eq:GSSEP_fused_matrix_ansatz}
\bm{\cA}(z) = Q^{(l)} \bm{A}\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right) \otimes \bm{A}\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$ where $\bm{A}(z)$ is the vector, defined in , used to construct the stationary state of the SSEP (with at most one particle per site, *i.e* for $s=1$). Writing it out explicitly it has the following expression $$\label{eq:GSSEP_A}
\bm{\cA}(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right)-2z\bm{E}+\bm{E}^2 \\
-2\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right)+2z(\bm{E}-\bm{D})+\bm{ED}+\bm{DE} \\
\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right)+2z\bm{D}+\bm{D}^2
\end{pmatrix}$$ From expression , a direct computation (using and ) shows that $$\cR(z_1-z_2) \bm{\cA}(z_1) \otimes \bm{\cA}(z_2) = \bm{\cA}(z_2) \otimes \bm{\cA}(z_1).$$ Using it is also possible to show that $${{\langle\!\langleW|}}\cK(z) \bm{\cA}(-z) = {{\langle\!\langleW|}}\bm{\cA}(z) \quad \mbox{and} \quad \overline{\cK}(z)\bm{\cA}(-z){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}} = \bm{\cA}(z){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$
Following the procedure explained in subsection \[subsec:stationary\_state\], we know that the stationary state of the symmetric generalized exclusion process is given by $${|{\cal S}\rangle}= \frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}} \bm{\cA}(\kappa) \otimes \bm{\cA}(-\kappa) \otimes \bm{\cA}(\kappa) \otimes \cdots \otimes \bm{\cA}(\kappa) {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$ We will see below how we can use this algebraic structure to compute physical quantities.
#### The asymmetric case.
Similarly to the symmetric case, we introduce the vector $$\label{eq:GASEP_fused_matrix_ansatz}
\bm{\cA}(z) = Q^{(l)} \bm{A}\left(\frac{z}{t}\right) \otimes \bm{A}\left(zt\right)$$ where $\bm{A}(z)$ is the vector, defined in , used to construct the stationary state of the ASEP (with at most one particle per site, *i.e* for $s=1$). Writing it out explicitly it has the following expression $$\label{eq:GASEP_A}
\bm{\cA}(z) = \begin{pmatrix}
z^2 + z\left(t+\frac{1}{t}\right)\bm{e} + \bm{e^2} \\
t^2 + \frac{1}{t^2} + \left(t+\frac{1}{t}\right)\left(z\bm{d}+\frac{1}{z}\bm{e}\right) + \bm{ed} + \bm{de} \\
\frac{1}{z^2} + \frac{1}{z}\left(t+\frac{1}{t}\right)\bm{d} + \bm{d^2}
\end{pmatrix}$$ From expression , a direct computation (using and ) shows that $$\cR\left(\frac{z_1}{z_2}\right) \bm{\cA}(z_1) \otimes \bm{\cA}(z_2) = \bm{\cA}(z_2) \otimes \bm{\cA}(z_1).$$ Using it is also possible to show that $${{\langle\!\langleW|}}\cK(z) \bm{\cA}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right) = {{\langle\!\langleW|}}\bm{\cA}(z) \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\overline{\cK}(z)\bm{\cA}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}} = \bm{\cA}(z){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$
Following the procedure explained in subsection \[subsec:stationary\_state\], we know that the stationary state of the asymmetric generalized exclusion process is given by $${|{\cal S}\rangle}= \frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}} \bm{\cA}(\kappa) \otimes \bm{\cA}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa}\right) \otimes \bm{\cA}(\kappa) \otimes \cdots \otimes \bm{\cA}(\kappa) {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$
Computation of physical quantities.
-----------------------------------
We stress that, despite the apparent complexity of the matrix product solution of the generalized exclusion processes which we introduced, it is possible to compute interesting physical quantities.
#### The symmetric case.
Once again the first quantity we would like to evaluate is the normalization $Z_L$, which is defined as $Z_L={{\langle\!\langleW|}}\bm{\cC}(\kappa)\bm{\cC}(-\kappa)\cdots \bm{\cC}(\kappa){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$, with $\bm{\cC}(z)={{\langle\sigma|}}\bm{\cA}(z)$. But looking at the expression and at the definition of $Q^{(l)}$, it is straightforward to realize that $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\cC}(z) & = & {{\langle\sigma|}}\bm{\cA}(z) \\
& = & (1,1,1).Q^{(l)} \bm{A}\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right) \otimes \bm{A}\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right) \\
& = & \bm{C}\left(z-\frac{1}{2}\right) \bm{C}\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right) \\
& = & (\bm{E}+\bm{D})^2.\end{aligned}$$ From that fact and the result we deduce directly the following expression of the normalization $$\label{eq:GSSEP_normalisation}
Z_L = \frac{(a+c)^{2L}(b+d)^{2L}}{(ab-cd)^{2L}} \frac{\Gamma\left(2L+\frac{1}{a+c}+\frac{1}{b+d}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{a+c}+\frac{1}{b+d}\right)}$$ which is identical to the normalization of the strict exclusion process (*i.e* with $s=1$) with a system size doubled.
The formula suggests a connexion with a model with twice the number of sites. The fusion procedure can indeed be interpreted as the ’projection’ of a two-lane process onto the generalized exclusion process (with $s=2$). Nevertheless the information about the precise content of the sites in the two-lane process is lost during this projection (we only know after the projection the sum of the number of particles of two parallel sites on the two-lane rather than their individual contents). Therefore there does not seem to exist a mapping between the generalized exclusion process and the two-lane process.
We can also compute the mean particle density at site $i$ (*i.e* the mean number of particles at site $i$). For such a purpose the first step is to evaluate, using the explicit expression , the quantity $$(0,1,2).\bm{\cA}(z) = 2z(\bm{E}+\bm{D})+(\bm{E}+\bm{D})\bm{D}+\bm{D}(\bm{E}+\bm{D}).$$ Taking into account the averaging over the two steps of the Floquet dynamics (similarly to what we did in the $s=1$ case), it follows that $$\langle \tau_i \rangle =
\frac{\frac{a}{a+c}\left(2L+\frac{1}{b+d}-2i+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{d}{b+d}\left(2i-\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{a+c}\right)}{2L+\frac{1}{a+c}+\frac{1}{b+d}-1}.$$ We can also compute the mean particle current. Analyzing carefully all the possible local transitions, we reach, after a long computation, the expression $$\langle J \rangle = 4 \kappa \frac{{{\langle\!\langleW|}}(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{2L-1}{{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}}{{{\langle\!\langleW|}}(\bm{E}+\bm{D})^{2L}{{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}}
= 4 \kappa \frac{\frac{a}{a+c}-\frac{d}{b+d}}{2L+\frac{1}{a+c}+\frac{1}{b+d}-1}.$$
#### The asymmetric case.
We mention briefly some computations that can be done in the asymmetric case. Similarly to the $s=1$ case, we will not enter the full details of the computations to avoid dealing with the explicit representation of the matrix ansatz algebra (which would require a separate study). We rather focus on showing that most of the computations are in fact very close to the $s=1$ case. The first quantity we would like to compute is the normalization $Z_L$, which is defined as $Z_L={{\langle\!\langleW|}}\bm{\cC}(\kappa)\bm{\cC}(1/\kappa)\cdots \bm{\cC}(\kappa){{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$, with $\bm{\cC}(z)={{\langle\sigma|}}\bm{\cA}(z)$. But looking at the expression and at the definition of $Q^{(l)}$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\cC}(z) & = & {{\langle\sigma|}}\bm{\cA}(z) \\
& = & (1,1,1).Q^{(l)} \bm{A}\left(\frac{z}{t}\right) \otimes \bm{A}\left(zt\right) \\
& = & \bm{C}\left(\frac{z}{t}\right) \bm{C}\left(zt\right) \\
& = & \left(\frac{z}{t}+\frac{t}{z}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)\left(zt+\frac{1}{zt}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We thus have $$Z_L = {{\langle\!\langleW|}}\left(\frac{\kappa}{t}+\frac{t}{\kappa}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^L\left(\kappa t+\frac{1}{\kappa t}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^L {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}.$$ We can also provide a partial computation for the mean particle current. Analyzing again all the possible local transitions, we end up after a long computation to $$\label{eq:GASEP_current}
\langle J \rangle = \left(\frac{1}{\kappa}-\kappa\right)
\frac{{{\langle\!\langleW|}}\left(\frac{\kappa}{t}+\frac{t}{\kappa}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^{L-1}
\left[2\left(\kappa+\frac{1}{\kappa}\right)+\left(t+\frac{1}{t}\right)(\bm{e}+\bm{d})\right]
\left(\kappa t+\frac{1}{\kappa t}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^{L-1} {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}}
{{{\langle\!\langleW|}}\left(\frac{\kappa}{t}+\frac{t}{\kappa}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^L\left(\kappa t+\frac{1}{\kappa t}+\bm{e}+\bm{d}\right)^L {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}}.$$ Once again, using the explicit representation of the matrix ansatz algebra, we should be able to compute the asymptotic behavior of the current and draw the exact phase diagram of the model. The matrices $\bm{e}$ and $\bm{d}$ are indeed the same as the ones appearing in the solution of the continuous time ASEP and the asymptotic behavior of should be derived through the study of contour integral expression similarly to the continuous time ASEP (see [@MartinRev] for a review). This will be the subject of a future work.
Conclusion. \[sec:conclusion\]
==============================
There remains a lot of questions to investigate, both from the physical and the mathematical point of view.
The most direct work is to analyse the physical behavior of the generalized exclusion processes which we introduced. We only gave a very brief flavor of the computation of physical quantities that could be performed using the matrix product solutions. As already mentioned, we need to perform the computation of the mean particle density and current in the asymmetric case, using the explicit representation of the matrices $\bm{e}$ and $\bm{d}$. The asymptotic behavior of the current would yield the phase diagram of the model. In particular it would be interesting to study more precisely what are the precise physical effect of i) the discrete time update in comparison to the continuous time update ii) the small relaxation of the exclusion principle (*i.e* having $s=2$) in comparison to the strict exclusion principle ($s=1$).
We are also interested in computing more involved physical quantities such as the large deviation functional of the density profile in the stationary state. The starting point would be to write an additivity formula for the stationary weights using the matrix product structure, similarly to what was done in the strict exclusion ($s=1$) case (see [@DerrReview] for a review). The large deviation functional of the density profile has only been computed for a few different models including the SSEP [@DLS1], the ASEP [@DLS3], and more recently for a multi-species SSEP [@Vanicat17]. The computation of this functional in the generalized exclusion case could give more insight on the general structure of such functionals.
It would also be interesting to give a hydrodynamic description of the symmetric generalized exclusion process (introduced in subsection \[subsec:fusion\]) in the Macroscopic Fluctuation Theory framework [@GianniRevue]. For such a purpose a challenging problem would be to compute the diffusion constant and the conductivity associated to the model. Some promising results have been already obtained in similar but different models [@AritaMK; @AritaMK2; @AritaMK3]. The exact expression of the large deviation functional of the density profile could also be of great help to guess or check the expression of the transport coefficients (using the predictions of the Macroscopic Theory for the large deviation of the density profile). All these aforementioned problems will be the object of future works.
On a longer term perspective, we should investigate the construction of higher dimensional generalized exclusion processes, where more than two particles are allowed on the same site (*i.e* where $s>2$). The fusion procedure can be again applied and interesting results have already been obtained concerning the exact expression of the fused R-matrix at a particular point [@KunibaMMO]. The difficult part of the work would be to handle the fusion of the K-matrices (*i.e* deriving closed formulas for the entries). It should be possible to express the stationary state of these models using a fused matrix ansatz.
From a more mathematical perspective it would be interesting to explore the connexion of these new models with the theory of multivariate orthogonal polynomials. Some recent progress has been made in this direction in the strict exclusion case [@CdGW]. Another challenging task would be to investigate duality relations for these generalized exclusion processes. The pioneering work [@Schutz] led to many promising developments [@ImamuraS; @GiardinaKRV; @BorodinCS; @Kuan; @ChenDW] which provide us with new tools for deriving duality relations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank N. Crampé, T. Prosen, E. Ragoucy and L. Zadnik for discussions and for their interest in this work. We are also grateful to C. Finn for his interest and a careful reading of this manuscript. We thank the LAPTh, where part of the work has been done, for hospitality and financial support. We acknowledge the financial support by the ERC under the Advanced Grant 694544 OMNES.
[99]{}
C. Appert-Rolland, J. Cividini and H.J. Hilhorst, *Frozen shuffle update for a deterministic totally asymmetric simple exclusion process with open boundaries,* J. Stat. Mech. (2011) P10013 and `arXiv:1107.3727`.
C. Arita, P.L. Krapivsky and K. Mallick, *Generalized exclusion processes: Transport coefficients,* Phys. Rev. **E 90** (2014) 052108 and `arXiv:1407.3228`.
C. Arita, P.L. Krapivsky and K. Mallick, *Variational calculation of transport coefficients in diffusive lattice gases,* Phys. Rev. **E 95** (2017) 032121 and `arXiv:1611.07719`.
C. Arita, P.L. Krapivsky and K. Mallick, *Bulk diffusion in a kinetically constrained lattice gas,* `arXiv:1711.10616`.
R.J. Baxter, *Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics,* Academic Press (1982)
L. Bertini, A. De Sole, D. Gabrielli, G. Jona-Lasinio and C. Landim, *Macroscopic Fluctuation Theory*, Rev. Mod. Phys. **87** (2015) 593 and `arXiv:1404.6466`.
R. A. Blythe and M.R. Evans, *Nonequilibrium steady states of matrix-product form: a solver’s guide*, J. Phys. [**A 40**]{} (2007) R333 and `arXiv:0706.1678`.
A. Borodin, I. Corwin, and T. Sasamoto, *From duality to determinants for q-TASEP and ASEP,* Ann. Probab. **42** (2014) 2314 and `arXiv:1207.5035`.
L. Cantini, J. de Gier and M. Wheeler, *Matrix product formula for Macdonald polynomials*, J. Phys. **A 48** (2015) 384001 and `arXiv:1505.00287`.
Z. Chen, J. de Gier and M. Wheeler, *Integrable stochastic dualities and the deformed Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov equation,* `arXiv:1709.06227`.
T. Chou, K. Mallick and R. K. P. Zia, *Non-equilibrium statistical mechanics: From a paradigmatic model to biological transport,* Rep. Prog. Phys. **74** (2011) 116601 and `arXiv:1110.1783`.
N. Crampe, K. Mallick, E. Ragoucy, and M. Vanicat, *Inhomogeneous discrete-time exclusion processes,* J. Phys. **A 48** (2015) 484002 and `arXiv:1506.04874`.
N. Crampe, E. Ragoucy and M. Vanicat, *Integrable approach to simple exclusion processes with boundaries. Review and progress*, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P11032 and `arXiv:1408.5357`.
B. Derrida, *Non-equilibrium steady states: fluctuations and large deviations of the density and of the current*, J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P07023 and `arXiv:cond-mat/0703762`.
B. Derrida, M.R. Evans, V. Hakim and V. Pasquier, *Exact solution of a 1d asymmetric exclusion model using a matrix formulation*, J. Phys. **A 26** (1993) 1493.
B. Derrida, J. Lebowitz and E. Speer, *Free energy functional for nonequilibrium systems: an exactly solvable case*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 150601 and `arXiv:cond-mat/0105110`.
B. Derrida, J. Lebowitz and E. Speer, *Exact free energy functional for a driven diffusive open stationary nonequilibrium system*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89** (2002) 030601 and `arXiv:cond-mat/0203161`.
M.R. Evans, N. Rajewsky and E.R. Speer, *Exact Solution of a Cellular Automaton for Traffic,* J. Stat. Phys. **95** (1999) 45 and `arXiv:9810306`.
L.D. Faddeev and A.Y. Volkov, *Hirota equation as an example of integrable symplectic map,* Lett. Math. Phys. **32** (1994) 125 and `arXiv:9405087`.
L. Frappat, R.I. Nepomechie and E. Ragoucy, *A complete Bethe ansatz solution for the open spin-s XXZ chain with general integrable boundary terms,* J. Stat. Mech. (2007) P09009 and `arXiv:0707.0653`.
C. Giardinà, J. Kurchan, F. Redig and K. Vafayi, *Duality and Hidden Symmetries in Interacting Particle Systems,* J. Stat. Phys. **135** (2009) 25 and `arXiv:0810.1202`.
J. de Gier and B. Nienhuis, *Exact stationary state for an asymmetric exclusion process with fully parallel dynamics,* Phys. Rev. **E 59** (1999) 4899 and `arXiv:9812223`.
O. Golinelli and K. Mallick, *Family of Commuting Operators for the Totally Asymmetric Exclusion Process,* J. Phys. **A 40** (2007) 5795.
V. Gritsev and A. Polkovnikov, *Integrable Floquet dynamics,* `arXiv:1701.05276`.
H. Hinrichsen, *Matrix product ground states for exclusion processes with parallel dynamics,* J. Phys. **A 29** (1996) 3659 and `arXiv:9512172`.
A. Honecker and I. Peschel, *Matrix-product states for a one-dimensional lattice gas with parallel dynamics,* J. Stat. Phys. **88** (1997) 319 and `arXiv:9606053`.
T. Imamura, T. Sasamoto, *Current Moments of 1D ASEP by Duality,* J. Stat. Phys. **142** (2011) 919 and `arXiv:1011.4588`.
M. Jimbo, *A q-difference analogue of U(g) and the Yang-Baxter equation,* Lett. Math. Phys. **10** (1985) 63.
D. Kandel, E. Domany and B. Nienhuis, *A six-vertex model as a diffusion problem: derivation of correlation functions,* J. Phys. **A 23** (1990) L755.
M. Karowski, *On the bound state problem in 1+1 dimensional field theories,* Nucl. Phys. **B 153** (1979) 244.
J. Kuan, *An algebraic construction of duality functions for the stochastic $U_q(A_n^{(1)})$ vertex model and its degenerations,* `arXiv:1701.04468`.
P.P. Kulish, N.Yu. Reshetikhin and E.K. Sklyanin, *Yang-Baxter equation and representation theory. I,* Lett. Math. Phys. **5** (1981) 393.
P.P. Kulish and E.K. Sklyanin, *Quantum spectral transform method, recent developments,* Lecture Notes in Physics **151** (1982) 61.
A. Kuniba, V.V. Mangazeev, S. Maruyama and M. Okado, *Stochastic R matrix for $U_q(A_n^{(1)})$*, Nucl. Phys. **B 913** (2016) 248 and `arXiv:1604.08304`.
M. Medenjak, K. Klobas and T. Prosen, *Diffusion in deterministic interacting lattice systems,* Phys. Rev. Lett. **119** (2017) 110603 and `arXiv:1705.04636`.
L. Mezincescu and R.I. Nepomechie, *Fusion procedure for open chains* J. Phys. **A 25** (1992) 2533.
T. Prosen and B. Buca, *Exact matrix product decay modes of a boundary driven cellular automaton,* `arXiv:1705.06645`.
M. Vanicat, L. Zadnik and T. Prosen, *Integrable Trotterization: Local Conservation Laws and Boundary Driving*. `arXiv:1712.00431`.
N. Rajewsky, L. Santen, A. Schadschneider and M. Schreckenberg, *The Asymmetric Exclusion Process: Comparison of Update Procedures,* J. Stat. Phys. **92** (1998) 151 and `arXiv:9710316`.
N. Rajewsky, A. Schadschneider and M. Schreckenberg, *The asymmetric exclusion model with sequential update,* J. Phys. **A 29** (1996) L305 and `arXiv:9603172`.
S. Sandow, *Partially asymmetric exclusion process with open boundaries,* Phys. Rev. **E 50** (1994) 2660.
T. Sasamoto and M. Wadati, *Stationary states of integrable systems in matrix product form*, J. Phys. Soc. Japan **66** (1997) 2618.
G. Schütz, *Time-dependent correlation functions in a one-dimensional asymmetric exclusion process,* Phys. Rev. **E 47** (1993) 4265 and `arXiv:9303011`.
G. Schütz, *Duality relations for asymmetric exclusion processes,* J. Stat. Phys. **86** (1997) 1265.
G. Schütz and S. Sandow, *Non-Abelian symmetries of stochastic processes: Derivation of correlation functions for random-vertex models and disordered-interacting-particle systems,* Phys. Rev. E **49** (1994) 2726.
E. K. Sklyanin, *Boundary conditions for integrable quantum systems,* J. Phys. **A 21** (1988) 2375.
M. Vanicat, *Exact solution to integrable open multi-species SSEP and macroscopic fluctuation theory,* J. Stat. Phys. **166** (2017) 1129 and `arXiv:1610.08388`.
M. Vanicat, *An integrabilist approach of out-of-equilibrium statistical physics models*, Ph.D Thesis, University Grenoble Alpes, `arXiv:1708.02440`.
M. Woelki and M. Schreckenberg, *Exact matrix-product states for parallel dynamics: open boundaries and excess mass on the ring,* J. Stat. Mech. (2009) P05014 and `arXiv:0903.5447`.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: The Perron-Frobenius theorem states that this stationary state exists and is unique if the Markov matrix $M$ is irreducible.
[^3]: The stationary equation is written in the context of discrete-time models. In the continuous-time context it takes the form $M{|{\cal S}\rangle}=0$.
[^4]: From this perspective it is not necessary to require unitarity, the $R$-matrix only needs to be invertible.
[^5]: We recall that $\cdot^{t_i}$ denotes the usual matrix transposition in the $i$-th tensor space component
[^6]: We use essentially the regularity and the unitarity properties of the $R$-matrix.
[^7]: The indices in the formula have to be understood modulo $L$, for instance $0\equiv L$ and $L+1\equiv 1$.
[^8]: The stationary state of the continuous time SSEP would be rather given by ${|{\cal S}\rangle}= \frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}} \bm{A}(0) \otimes \cdots \otimes \bm{A}(0) {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$
[^9]: The stationary state of the continuous time ASEP is given by (with appropriate change of parameters) ${|{\cal S}\rangle}= \frac{1}{Z_L}{{\langle\!\langleW|}} \bm{A}(1) \otimes \cdots \otimes \bm{A}(1) {{|V\rangle\!\rangle}}$
[^10]: This holds for $\cA=\cU_q(\hat{sl}_2)$. In the case $\cA = \cY(\hat{sl}_2)$ it instead depends on the difference.
[^11]: It can also be checked directly using the explicit expression .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Given a task $\T$, a set of experts $V$ with multiple skills and a social network $G(V, W)$ reflecting the compatibility among the experts, [*team formation*]{} is the problem of identifying a team $C \subseteq V$ that is both competent in performing the task $\T$ and compatible in working together. Existing methods for this problem make too restrictive assumptions and thus cannot model practical scenarios. The goal of this paper is to consider the team formation problem in a realistic setting and present a novel formulation based on densest subgraphs. Our formulation allows modeling of many natural requirements such as (i) inclusion of a designated team leader and/or a group of given experts, (ii) restriction of the size or more generally cost of the team (iii) enforcing *locality* of the team, e.g., in a geographical sense or social sense, etc. The proposed formulation leads to a generalized version of the classical densest subgraph problem with cardinality constraints (DSP), which is an NP hard problem and has many applications in social network analysis. In this paper, we present a new method for (approximately) solving the generalized DSP (GDSP). Our method, , is based on solving an *equivalent* continuous relaxation of GDSP. The solution found by our method has a quality guarantee and always satisfies the constraints of GDSP. Experiments show that the proposed formulation (GDSP) is useful in modeling a broader range of team formation problems and that our method produces more coherent and compact teams of high quality. We also show, with the help of an LP relaxation of GDSP, that our method gives close to optimal solutions to GDSP.'
author:
- |
Syama Rangapuram\
\
\
Thomas Bühler\
\
\
\
- |
Matthias Hein\
\
\
\
title: Towards Realistic Team Formation in Social Networks based on Densest Subgraphs
---
\[Data mining\] \[Graph algorithms\]
Introduction
============
Given a set of skill requirements (called task $\T$), a set of experts who have expertise in one or more skill, along with a social or professional network of the experts, the team formation problem is to identify a competent and highly collaborative team. This problem in the context of a social network was first introduced by [@LapLiuTer09] and has attracted recent interest in the data mining community [@KarAn11; @AnaBecCasGioLeo12; @GajSar12]. A closely related and well-studied problem in operations research is the assignment problem. Here, given a set of agents and a set of tasks, the goal is to find an agent-task assignment minimizing the cost of the assignment such that exactly one agent is assigned to a task and every task is assigned to some agent. This problem can be modeled as a maximum weight matching problem in a weighted bipartite graph. In contrast to the assignment problem, the team formation problem considers the underlying social network, which for example models the previous collaborations among the experts, while forming teams. The advantage of using such a social network is that the teams that have worked together previously are expected to have less communication overhead and work more effectively as a team.
The criteria explored in the literature so far for measuring the effectiveness of teams are based on the shortest path distances, density, and the cost of the minimum spanning tree of the subgraph induced by the team. Here the density of a subgraph is defined as the ratio of the total weight of the edges within the subgraph over the size of the subgraph. Teams that are well connected have high density values. Methods based on minimizing diameter (largest shortest path between any two vertices) or cost of the spanning tree have the main advantage that the teams they yield are always connected (provided the underlying social network is connected). However, diameter or spanning tree based objectives are not robust to the changes (addition/deletion of edges) in the social network. As demonstrated in [@GajSar12] using various performance measures, the density based objective performs better in identifying well connected teams. On the other hand, maximizing density may give a team whose subgraph is disconnected. This happens especially when there are small groups of people who are highly connected with each other but are sparsely connected to the rest of the graph.
Existing methods make either strong assumptions on the problem that do not hold in practice or are not capable of incorporating more intuitive constraints such as bounding the total size of the team. The goal of this paper is to consider the team formation problem in a more realistic setting and present a novel formulation based on a generalization of the densest subgraph problem. Our formulation allows modeling of many realistic requirements such as (i) inclusion of a designated team leader and/or a group of given experts, (ii) restriction on the size or more generally cost of the team (iii) enforcing *locality* of the team, e.g., in a geographical sense or social sense, etc. In fact most of the future directions pointed out by [@GajSar12] are covered in our formulation.
Related Work
============
The first work [@LapLiuTer09] in the team formation problem in the presence of a social network presents greedy algorithms for minimizing the diameter and the cost of the minimum spanning tree (MST) induced by the team. While the greedy algorithm for minimizing the diameter has an approximation guarantee of two, no guarantee is proven for the MST algorithm. However, [@LapLiuTer09] impose the strong assumption that a skill requirement of a task can be fulfilled by a single person; thus a more natural requirement such as “at least $k$ experts of skill $s$ are needed for the task” cannot be handled by their method. This shortcoming has been addressed in [@GajSar12], which presents a 2-approximation algorithm for a slightly more general problem that can accommodate the above requirement. However, both algorithms cannot handle an upper bound constraint on the team size. On the other hand, the solutions obtained by all these algorithms (including the MST algorithm) can be shown to be connected subgraphs if the underlying social graph is connected.
Two new formulations are proposed in [@KarAn11] based on the shortest path distances between the nodes of the graph. The first formulation assumes that experts from each skill have to communicate with every expert from the other skill and thus minimizes the sum of the pairwise shortest path distances between experts belonging to different skills. They prove that this problem is NP-hard and provide a greedy algorithm with an approximation guarantee of two. The second formulation, solvable optimally in polynomial time, assumes that there is a designated team leader who has to communicate with every expert in the team and minimizes the sum of the distances only to the leader. The main shortcoming of this work is its restrictive assumption that [*exactly*]{} one expert is sufficient for each skill, which implies that the size of the found teams is always upper bounded by the number of skills in the given task, noting that an expert is allowed to have multiple skills. They exploit this assumption and (are the first to) produce top-$k$ teams that can perform the given task. However, although based on the shortest path distances, neither of the two formulations does guarantee that the solution obtained is connected.
In contrast to the distance or diameter based cost functions, [@GajSar12] explore the usefulness of the density based objective in finding strongly connected teams. Using various performance measures, the superiority of the density based objective function over the diameter objective is demonstrated. The setting considered in [@GajSar12] is the most general one until now but the resulting problem is shown to be NP hard. The greedy algorithms that they propose have approximation guarantees (of factor 3) for two special cases. The teams found by their algorithms are often quite large and it is not straightforward to modify their algorithms to integrate an additional upper bound constraint on the team size. Another disadvantage is that subgraphs that maximize the density under the given constraints need not necessarily be connected. Recently [@AnaBecCasGioLeo12] considered an [*online*]{} team formation problem where tasks arrive in a sequential manner and teams have to be formed minimizing the (maximum) load on any expert across the tasks while bounding the coordination cost (a free parameter) within a team for any given task. Approximation algorithms are provided for two variants of coordinate costs: diameter cost and Steiner cost (cost of the minimum Steiner tree where the team members are the terminal nodes). While this work focusses more on the load balancing aspect, it also makes the strong assumption that a skill is covered by the team if there exists at least one expert having that skill.
All of the above methods allow only binary skill level, i.e., an expert has a skill level of either one or zero. We point out that many methods have been developed in the operations research community for the team formation problem, [@BayDerDas07; @CheLin04; @ZzkKus04; @WiOhMunJun09], but none of them explicitly considers the underlying social or professional connections among the experts. There is also literature discussing the social aspects of the team formation [@Contractor2013] and their influence on the evolution of communities, e.g., [@BacHutKleXia06].
Realistic Team Formation in Social Networks
===========================================
Now we formally define the [*Team Formation*]{} problem that we address in this paper. Let $V$ be the set of $n$ experts and $G(V,W)$ be the weighted, undirected graph reflecting the relationship or previous collaboration of the experts $V$. Then non-negative, symmetric weight $w_{ij} \in W$ connecting two experts $i$ and $j$ reflects the level of compatibility between them. The set of skills is given by $\A = \{a_{1}, \ldots, a_{p}\}$. Each expert is assumed to possess one or more skills. The non-negative matrix $M \in \R^{n \times p}$ specifies the skill levels of all experts in each skill. Note that we define the skill level on a continuous scale. If an expert $i$ does not have skill $j$, then $M_{ij} = 0$. Moreover, we use the notation $M_j \in \R^ {n \times 1}$ for the $j-$th column of $M$, i.e. the vector of skill levels corresponding to skill $j$. A task $\T$ is given by the set of triples $\{(a_{j}, \kappa_{j}, \iota_{j})\}_{j=1}^{p}$, where $a_{j} \in \A$, specifying that at least $\kappa_{j}$ and at most $\iota_{j}$ of skill $a_{j}$ is required to finish the given task.\
**Generalized team formation problem.** Given a task $\T$, the generalized team formation problem is defined as finding a team $C \subseteq V$ of experts maximizing the [*collaborative compatibility*]{} and satisfying the following constraints:
- **Inclusion of a specified group:** a predetermined group of experts $S \subset V$ should be in $C$.
- **Skill requirement:** at least $\kappa_{j}$ and at most $\iota_{j}$ of skill $a_{j}$ is required to finish the task $\T$.
- **Bound on the team size:** the size of the team should be smaller than or equal to $b$, i.e., ${\left|C\right|} \le b$.
- **Budget constraint:** total budget for finishing the task is bounded by $B$, i.e., $\sum_{i \in C} c_{i} \le B$, where $c_{i} \in \R_+$ is the cost incurred on expert $i$.
- **Distance based constraint:** the distance (measured according to some non-negative, symmetric function, $\dist$) between any pair of experts in $C$ should not be larger than $d_{0}$, i.e., $\dist(u, v) \le d_{0}, \forall u, v \in C$.
**Discussion of our generalized constraints.** In contrast to existing methods, we also allow an upper bound on each skill and on the total team size. If the skill matrix is only allowed to be binary as in previous work, this translates into upper and lower bounds on the number of experts required for each skill. Using vertex weights, we can in fact encode more generic constraints, e.g., having a limit on the total budget of the team. It is not straightforward to extend existing methods to include any upper bound constraints. Up to our knowledge we are the first to integrate upper bound constraints, in particular on the size of the team, into the team formation problem. We think that the latter constraint is essential for realistic team formation.
Our general setting also allows a group of experts around whom the team has to be formed. This constraint often applies as the team leader is usually fixed before forming the team. Another important generalization is the inclusion of [*distance*]{} constraints for any general distance function[^1]. Such a constraint can be used to enforce locality of the team e.g. in a geographical sense (the distance could be travel time) or social sense (distance in the network). Another potential application are mutual incompatibilities of team members e.g.on a personal level, which can be addressed by assigning a high distance to experts who are mutually incompatible and thus should not be put together in the same team.
We emphasize that all constraints considered in the literature are special instances of the above constraint set.\
**Measure of collaborative compatiblity.** In this paper we use as a measure of collaborative compatibility a generalized form of the density of subgraphs, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gen_density}
\density(C) := \frac{ \assoc(C) } { \vol_{g}(C)} = \frac{ \sum_{i,j \in C} w_{ij} } {\sum _{i \in C} g_{i}}, \end{aligned}$$ where $w_{ij}$ is the non-negative weight of the edge between $i$ and $j$ and $\vol_{g}(C)$ is defined as $\sum_{i \in C} g_{i}$, with $g_{i}$ being the positive weight of the vertex $i$. We recover the original density formulation, via $g_i=1, \forall i \in V$. We use the relation, $\assoc(C) = \vol_{d}(C) - \cut(C, V \backslash C)$, where $d_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^n w_{ij}$ is the degree of vertex $i$ and $\cut(A, B) := \sum_{i \in A, j \in B} w_{ij}$.\
**Discussion of density based objective.** As pointed out in [@GajSar12], the density based objective possesses useful properties like strict monotonicity and robustness. In case of the density based objective, if an edge gets added (because of a new collaboration) or deleted (because of newly found incompatibility) the density of the subgraphs involving this edge necessarily increases resp.decreases, which is not true for the diameter based objective. In contrast to density based objective, the impact of small changes in graph structure is more severe in the case of diameter objective [@GajSar12]. The generalized density that we use here leads to further modeling freedom as it enables to give weights to the experts according to their expertise. By giving smaller weight to those with high expertise, one can obtain solutions that not only satisfy the given skill requirements but also give preference to the more competent team members (i.e.the ones having smaller weights).\
**Problem Formulation.** Using the notation introduced above, an instance of the team formation problem based on the generalized density can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:teamProb}
\underset{C \subseteq V} \max &\; \frac{ \assoc(C)} {\vol_{g}(C)} \\ \subj: &\; S \subseteq C \nonumber \\
&\; \kappa_{j} \leq \vol_{M_{j}}(C) \leq \iota_{j},\quad \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, p\} \nonumber \\
&\; {\left|C\right|} \le b \nonumber \\
&\; \vol_{c} (C) \le B \nonumber \\
&\; \dist(u, v) \le d_{0}, \quad \forall u, v \in C, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the upper bound constraints on the team size and the budget can be rewritten as skill constraints and can be incorporated into the skill matrix $M$ accordingly. Thus, without loss of generality, we omit the budget and size constraints from now on, for the sake of brevity. Moreover, since $S$ is required to be part of the solution, we can assume that $dist(u, v) \le d_{0}, \forall u, v \in S$, otherwise the above problem is infeasible. The distance constraint also implies that any $u \in V$ for which $\dist(u, s) > d_{0}$, for some $s \in S$, cannot be a part of the solution. Thus, we again assume wlog that there is no such $u \in V$; otherwise such vertices can be eliminated without changing the solution of problem .\
Our formulation is a generalized version of the classical densest subgraph problem (DSP), which has many applications in graph analysis, e.g., see [@Sah2010]. The simplest version of DSP is the problem of finding a densest subgraph (without any constraints on the solution), which can be solved optimally in polynomial time [@Gol84]. The densest-$k$-subgraph problem, which requires the solution to contain exactly $k$ vertices, is a notoriously hard problem in this class and has been shown not to admit a polynomial time approximation scheme [@Kho06]. Recently, it has been shown that the densest subgraph problem with an upper bound on the size is as hard as the densest-$k$-subgraph problem [@KhuSah09]. However, the densest subgraph problem with a lower bound constraint has a 2-approximation algorithm [@KhuSah09]. It is based on solving a sequence of unconstrained densest subgraph problems. They also show that there exists a linear programming relaxation for this problem achieving the same approximation guarantee.
Recently [@GajSar12] considered the following generalized version of the densest subgraph problem with lower bound constraints in the context of team formation problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:teamProbLb}
\underset{C \subseteq V} \max &\; \frac{ \assoc(C)} {\vol_{g}(C)} \\ \subj:
&\; \vol_{M_{j}}(C) \geq \kappa_{j},\quad \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, p\} \nonumber
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the *binary* skill matrix. They extend the greedy method of [@KhuSah09] and show that it achieves a 3-approximation guarantee for some special cases of this problem. [@Venk12] recently improved the approximation guarantee of the greedy algorithm of [@GajSar12] for problem (\[eq:teamProbLb\]) to a factor 2. The time complexity of this greedy algorithm is $O(kn^{3})$, where $n$ is the number of experts and $k := \sum_{j=1}^{m}{k_{j}}$ is the minimum number of experts required.\
**Direct integration of subset constraint.** The subset constraint can be integrated into the objective by directly working on the subgraph $\Gp$ induced by the vertex set $\Vp = V \backslash S$. Note that any $C \subset V$ that contains $S$ can be written as $C = A \cup S$, for $A \subset \Vp$. We now reformulate the team formation problem on the subgraph $\Gp$. We introduce the notation $m={\left|\Vp\right|}$, and we assume wlog that the first $m$ entries of $V$ are the ones in $\Vp$. The terms in problem (\[eq:teamProb\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\assoc(C) &= \assoc(A) + \assoc(S) + 2\ \cut(A,S), \\
& = \vol_d(A) -\cut(A,V \backslash A) + \assoc(S) + 2\ \cut(A,S) \\
& = \vol_d(A) -\cut(A,\Vc^{\prime} \backslash A) + \assoc(S) + \cut(A,S)\\
\vol_{g}(C) &= \vol_{g}(A) + \vol_{g}(S) \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, note that we can write: $\cut(A,S) = \vol_{d^{S}} (A)$, where $d^{S}_{i} = \sum_{j \in S} w_{ij}$ denotes the degree of vertex $i$ restricted to the subset $S$ in the original graph. Using the abbreviations, $\mu_{S} = \assoc(S)$, $\nu_{S} = \vol_{g}(S)$, $\assoc_{S}(A) = \vol_{d}(A) - \cut(A,\Vp \backslash A) + \mu_{S} + \vol_{d^{S}} (A)$, we rewrite the team formation problem as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:teamProbSim}
\underset{A \subseteq \Vc^{\prime}, \ A \neq \emptyset} \max &\;
\frac{ \assoc_{S}(A) } {\vol_{g}(A) + \nu_{S}} \tag{GDSP} \\ \subj: &\; k_{j} \leq \vol_{M_{j}}(A) \leq l_{j},\quad \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, p\} \nonumber \\
&\; \dist(u, v) \le d_{0},\quad \forall u, v \in A, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where for all $j=1,\dots,p$, the bounds were updated as $k_j = \kappa_j-\vol_{M_j}(S),\ l_j = \iota_j-\vol_{M_j}(S)$. Note that here we already used the assumption: $\dist(u, s) \le d_{0}, \forall u \in V, \forall s \in S$. The constraint, $A \neq \emptyset$, has been introduced for technical reasons required for the formulation of the continuous problem in Section \[sec:equiv\_cont\_prob\]. The equivalence of problem to follows by considering either $S$ (if feasible) or the set $A^{*} \cup S$, where $A^{*}$ is an optimal solution of , depending on whichever has higher density.
To the best of our knowledge there is no greedy algorithm with an approximation guarantee to solve problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]). Instead of designing a greedy approximation algorithm for this discrete optimization problem, we derive an *equivalent* continuous optimization problem in Section \[sec:FORTE\]. That is, we reformulate the discrete problem in continuous space while preserving the optimality of the solutions of the discrete problem. The rationale behind this approach is that the continuous formulation is more flexible and allows us to choose from a larger set of methods for its solution than for the discrete one. Although the resulting continuous problem is as hard as the original discrete problem, recent progress in continuous optimization [@HeiSet11] allow us to find a locally optimal solution very efficiently.
Derivation of FORTE {#sec:FORTE}
===================
In this section we present our method, *Formation Of Realistic Teams* (, for short) to solve the team formation problem, which is rewritten as , using the continuous relaxation. We derive in three steps:
1. Derive an equivalent unconstrained discrete problem (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]) of the team formation problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) via an *exact penalty* approach.
2. Derive an equivalent continuous relaxation (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) of the unconstrained problem by using the concept of *Lovasz extensions*.
3. Compute the solution of the continuous problem (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) using the recent method RatioDCA from *fractional programming*.
Equivalent Unconstrained Problem
--------------------------------
A general technique in constrained optimization is to transform the constrained problem into an equivalent unconstrained problem by adding to the objective a penalty term, which is controlled by a parameter $\gamma \geq 0$. The penalty term is zero if the constraints are satisfied at the given input and strictly positive otherwise. The choice of the regularization parameter $\gamma$ influences the tradeoff between satisfying the constraints and having a low objective value. Large values of $\gamma$ tend to enforce the satisfaction of constraints. In the following we show that for the team formation problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) there exists a value of $\gamma$ that guarantees the satisfaction of all constraints.\
Let us define the penalty term for constraints of the team formation problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
{\pen}(A) &:= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sum_{j=1}^{p}\max\{0, \vol_{M_{j}}(A) - l_{j} \}\\ + \sum_{j=1}^{p}\max\{0, k_j- \vol_{M_{j}}(A) \} \\
+ \sum_{u, v \in A}\max\{0,\ \dist(u, v) - d_{0} \}
& A \neq \emptyset\\
0 & A = \emptyset. \end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above penalty function is zero only when $A$ satisfies the constraints; otherwise it is strictly positive and increases with increasing infeasibility. The special treatment of the empty set is again a technicality required later for the Lovasz extensions, see Section \[sec:equiv\_cont\_prob\]. For the same reason, we also replace the constant terms $\mu_{S}$ and $\nu_{S}$ in (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) by $\mu_{S}\unit(A)$ and $\nu_{S}\unit(A)$ respectively, where $\unit(A) := 1, A \neq \emptyset$ and $\unit(\emptyset) = 0$.\
The following theorem shows that there exists an unconstrained problem equivalent to the constrained optimization problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]).
\[thm:teamProbUncstr\] The constrained problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) is equivalent to the unconstrained problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:teamProbUncstr}
\underset{\emptyset \neq A \subseteq V} \min &\;
\frac
{\vol_{g}(A) + \nu_{S} \unit(A) + \gamma \pen(A)}
{ \assoc_{S}(A) }
\end{aligned}$$ for $\gamma > \frac{\vol_{d}(V)}{\theta}\; \frac {\vol_{g}(A_{0}) + \nu_{S} } { \assoc_{S}(A_{0})}$, where $A_{0}$ is any feasible set of problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) such that $\assoc_{S}(A_{0}) > 0$ and $\theta$ is the minimum value of infeasibility, i.e., ${\pen} (A) \ge \theta$, if $A$ is infeasible.
We define $\spvol(A) := \frac {\vol_{g}(A) + \nu_{S} \unit(A)} { \assoc_{S}(A) }$. Note that maximizing (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) is the same as minimizing $\spvol(A)$ subject to the constraints of (\[eq:teamProbSim\]). For any feasible subset $A$, the objective of (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]) is equal to $\spvol(A)$, since the penalty term is zero. Thus, if we show that *all* minimizers of (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]) satisfy the constraints then the equivalence follows. Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that $A^{*} (\neq \emptyset$, if $S = \emptyset$) is a minimizer of (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]) and that $A^*$ is infeasible for problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]). Since $\nu_{S} \ge 0$ and $g_{i} > 0, \forall i$, we have under the given condition on $\gamma$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac {\vol_{g}(A^{*}) + \nu_{S} + \gamma\ \pen(A^{*}) } { \assoc_{S}(A^{*})}
> \frac{ \gamma\ {\pen}(A^{*})} { \assoc_{S}(A^{*})}\\
&\ge \frac{ \gamma\ \theta} {\max_{A \subseteq V} \assoc_{S}(A)}
\ge \frac{ \gamma\ \theta} {\vol_{d}(V)} > \frac {\vol_{g}(A_{0}) + \nu_{S}} { \assoc_{S}(A_{0}) },
\end{aligned}$$ which leads to a contradiction because the last term is the objective value of (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]) at $A_{0}$.
Equivalent Continuous Problem {#sec:equiv_cont_prob}
-----------------------------
We will now derive a tight continuous relaxation of problem (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]). This will lead us to a minimization problem over $\R^m$, which then can be handled more easily than the original discrete problem. The connection between the discrete and the continuous space is achieved via thresholding. Given a vector $f\in \R^m$, one can define the sets $$\label{eq:sets}
A_i:= \left\{ j \in V | f_j \geq f_i\right\},$$ by thresholding $f$ at the value $f_{i}$. In order to go from functions on sets to functions on continuous space, we make use of the concept of Lovasz extensions.
[(Lovasz extension)]{}\[def:lovasz\] Let $R:2^{V} \rightarrow \R$ be a set function with ${R}(\emptyset)=0$, and let $f \in \R^m$ be ordered in ascending order $f_1\leq f_2\leq\cdots\leq f_m$. The Lovasz extension $R^{L}:\R^m \rightarrow \R$ of ${R}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
R^{L}(f) = \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} {R}(A_{i+1}) \left(f_{i+1}-f_i\right) + {R}(V) f_1.\end{aligned}$$
Note that $R^{L}(\ones_A)={R}(A)$ for all $A \subset V$, i.e.$R^{L}$ is indeed an extension of ${R}$ from $2^{V}$ to $\R^V$ ($|V|=m$). In the following, given a set function $R$, we will denote its Lovasz extension by $R^{L}$. The explicit forms of the Lovasz extensions used in the derivation will be dealt with in Section \[sec:algo\].
In the following theorem we show the equivalence for \[eq:teamProbSim\]. A more general result showing equivalence for fractional set programs can be found in [@BueRanHeiSet13].
\[thm:teamProbCont\] The unconstrained discrete problem (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]) is equivalent to the continuous problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:teamProbCont}
\underset{f \in \R_{+}^{\Vp}} \min &\;
\frac
{ \vol_{g}^{L}(f) + \nu_{S} \unit^L(A) + \gamma \pen^{L}(f)}
{ \assoc_{S}^{L}(f) }
\end{aligned}$$ for any $\gamma \ge 0$. Moreover, optimal thresholding of a minimizer $f^{*} \in \R_{+}^{m}$, $$A^* := \min_{A_i = \left\{ j \in \Vp | f^*_j \geq f^*_i\right\}, \, i=1,\ldots,m} \frac
{\vol_{g}(A_i) + \nu_{S} + \gamma \pen(A_i)}
{ \assoc_{S}(A_i) },$$ yields a set $A^{*}$ that is optimal for problem (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]).
Let $R(A) = \vol_{g}(A) + \nu_{S} \unit(A) + \gamma \pen(A)$. Then we have $$\min_{A \subset \Vp} \frac{R(A)}{\assoc_{S}(A)}
= \min_{A \subset \Vp} \frac{R^L(\ones_{A})}{ \assoc^{L}_{S}(\ones_{A})}
\ge \min_{f \in \R_{+}^{\Vp}} \frac{R^{L}(f)}{\assoc^{L}_{S}(f)} ,$$ where in the first step we used the fact that $R^{L}(f)$ and $\assoc^{L}(f)$ are extensions of $R(A)$ and $\assoc(A)$, respectively. Below we first show that the above inequality also holds in the other direction, which then establishes that the optimum values of both problems are the same. The proof of the reverse direction will also imply that a set minimizer of the problem (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]) can be obtained from any minimizer $f^{*}$ of (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) via optimal thresholding.\
We first show that the optimal thresholding of any $f \in \R^{m}_{+}$ yields a set $A$ such that $\ones_{A}$ has an objective value at least as good as the one of $f$. This holds because $$\begin{aligned}
R^{L}(f)
&= \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} R(A_{i+1}) (f_{i+1} - f_{i}) + f_{1} R(\Vp)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \frac{R(A_{i+1}) } {\assoc_{S}(A_{i+1})} \assoc_{S}(A_{i+1}) (f_{i+1} - f_{i})\\
& \hspace{10mm} + \frac{R(\Vp)}{\assoc_{S}(\Vp)} \assoc_{S}(\Vp) f_{1}\\
& \ge \min_{j=1, \ldots m} \frac{ R(A_{j}) } {\assoc_{S}(A_{j})} \\
& \hspace{10mm} \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \assoc_{S}(A_{i+1}) (f_{i+1} - f_{i})
+ \assoc_{S}(\Vp) f_{1}\Big)\\
&= \min_{j=1, \ldots m} \frac{ R(A_{j}) } {\assoc_{S}(A_{j})} \assoc_{S}^{L}(f)
\end{aligned}$$ The third step follows from the fact that $f$ is non-negative ($f_{1} \ge 0$) and ordered in ascending order, i.e., $f_{i+1} - f_{i} \ge 0, \forall i=1,\dots,m-1$. Since $\assoc_{S}^{L}(f)$ is non-negative, the final step implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:optThres}
\frac{R^{L}(f)} {\assoc^{L}_{S}(f)} \ge \min_{j=1, \ldots m} \frac{ R(A_{j}) } {\assoc_{S}(A_{j})} .
\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{f \in \R_{+}^{\Vp}} \min
\frac
{R^{L}(f)}
{ \assoc_{S}^{L}(f) }
&\ge
\min_{A \subset \Vp} \frac{R(A)}
{ \assoc_{S}(A) } .
\end{aligned}$$
From inequality (\[eq:optThres\]), it follows that optimal thresholding of $f^{*}$ yields a set that is a minimizer of problem (\[eq:teamProbUncstr\]).
The team formation problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) is equivalent to the problem (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) if $\gamma$ is chosen according to the condition given in Theorem \[thm:teamProbUncstr\].
This directly follows from Theorems \[thm:teamProbUncstr\] and \[thm:teamProbCont\].
While the continuous problem is as hard as the original discrete problem, recent ideas from continuous optimization [@HeiSet11] allow us to derive in the next section an algorithm for obtaining locally optimal solutions very efficiently.
Algorithm for the Continuous Problem {#sec:algo}
------------------------------------
We now describe an algorithm for (approximately) solving the continuous optimization problem (\[eq:teamProbCont\]). The idea is to make use of the fact that the fractional optimization problem (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) has a special structure: as we will show in this section, it can be written as a special ratio of difference of convex (d.c.) functions, i.e. it has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fracSet}
\min_{f \in \R_{+}^{V}} \frac {R_{1}(f) - R_{2} (f)}{S_{1}(f) -S_{2}(f)} := Q(f),
\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $R_{1}, R_{2}, S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ are positively one-homogeneous convex functions[^2] and numerator and denominator are nonnegative. This reformulation then allows us to use a recent first order method called RatioDCA [@HeiSet11; @BueRanHeiSet13].
In order to find the explicit form of the convex functions, we first need to rewrite the penalty term as $\pen(A)=\pen_1(A)-\pen_2(A)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\pen_1\hskip-0.04cm(A) & = \textstyle{\sum_{j=1}^p} \hskip-0.1cm \vol_{M_j} (A) + \textstyle{\sum_{j=1}^p} k_j \unit(A),\\
\pen_2\hskip-0.04cm(A) & = \textstyle{\sum_{j=1}^p} \hskip-0.1cm \min\{l_j, \hskip-0.05cm\vol_{M_{j}}\hskip-0.05cm(A) \}
\hskip-0.1cm + \hskip-0.1cm\sum_{j=1}^p \hskip-0.1cm\min\{k_j,\hskip-0.05cm \vol_{M_{j}}\hskip-0.05cm(A) \}
\hskip-0.1cm \\
& - \textstyle{\sum_{u,v \in A}} \hskip-0.08cm \max\{0,\ \dist(u, v) - d_{0} \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Using this decomposition of $\pen(A)$, we can now write down the functions $R_{1}, R_{2}, S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
R_{1}(f) & = \vol_{\rho}^{L}(f) + \sigma \max_i\{f_i\}\\
R_{2}(f) &= \gamma \pen_2^{L}(f) \\
S_{1}(f) &= \vol_{d}^{L}(f) + \vol_{d^{S}}^{L} (f) + \mu_{S} \max_{i}\{ f_i \} \\
S_{2}(f) &= \cut^{L}(f).
\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho:= g + \gamma \sum_{j=1}^p M_j$, $\sigma:= \nu_S + \gamma \sum_{j=1}^p k_j$, $\pen_2^L(f)$ denotes the Lovasz extension of $\pen_2(A)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\vol^{L}_{h}(f) &= {\left\langle(h_i)_{i=1}^m, f\right\rangle}, \text{where } h\in \R^n,\\ \cut^{L}(f) & = \textstyle{\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, j =1}^{m} w_{ij} {\left|f_{i} - f_{j}\right|}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Using the functions $R_{1}, R_{2}, S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ defined above, the problem (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) can be rewritten in the form . The functions $R_{1}, R_{2}, S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ are convex and positively one-homogeneous, and $R_{1}-R_{2}$ and $S_{1}-S_{2}$ are nonnegative.
The denominator of is given as $
\assoc^{L}_{S}(f)= \vol^{L}_{d}(f) - \cut^{L}(f)+ \vol^{L}_{d^S}(f) + \mu_{S} \unit^L(f),
$ and the numerator is given as $
\vol_{g}^{L}(f) + \nu_{S} \unit^L(A) + \gamma \pen^{L}(f) .
$ Using Prop.2.1 in [@Bach11] and the decomposition of $\pen(A)$ introduced earlier in this section, we can decompose $\pen^{L}(f) = \pen_1^{L}(f) - \pen_2^{L}(f)$. The Lovasz extension of $\pen_1(A)$ is given as $
\pen_1^L(f) = \sum_{j=1}^p \vol_{M_j}^{L}(f) + \sum_{j=1}^p k_j \max_i\{f_i\},
$ and let $\pen_2^L(f)$ denote the Lovasz extension of $\pen_2(A)$ (an explicit form is not necessary, as shown later in this section). The equality between and then follows by simple rearranging of the terms.
The nonnegativity of the functions $R_{1}- R_{2}$ and $S_{1} -S_{2}$ follows from the nonnegativity of denominator and numerator of and the definition of the Lovasz extension. Moreover, the Lovasz extensions of any set function is positively one-homogeneous [@Bach11].
Finally, the convexity of $R_1$ and $S_1$ follows as they are a non-negative combination of the convex functions $\max_i\{f_i\}$ and ${\left\langle(h_i)_{i=1}^m,f\right\rangle}$ for some $h\in \R^n$. The function $S_{2}(f)=\cut^L(f)$ is well-known to be convex [@Bach11]. To show the convexity of $R_{2}$, we will show that the function $\pen_2(A)$ is submodular[^3]. The convexity then follows from the fact that a set function is submodular if and only if its Lovasz extension is convex [@Bach11]. For the proof of the submodularity of the first two sums one uses the fact that the pointwise minimum of a constant and a increasing submodular function is again submodular. Writing $D_{uv}:= \max\{0,\ \dist(u, v) - d_{0} \}$, the last sum can be written as $
- \sum_{u,v\in A} D_{uv} = - \sum_{u\in A,v\in \Vp} D_{uv}
+ \sum_{u\in A,v\in \Vp \backslash A} D_{uv}
$. Using $(d_D)_i=\sum_j D_{ij}$, we can write its Lovasz extension as $
- \vol_{d_D}(f) +
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j\in \Vp} D_{ij}{\left|f_i-f_j\right|},
$ which is a sum of a linear term and a convex term.
The reformulation of the problem in the form enables us to apply a modification of the recently proposed RatioDCA [@HeiSet11; @BueRanHeiSet13], a method for the *local* minimization of objectives of the form on the whole $\R^m$.
$f^0 \in \R^m_+$, $\lambda^0 = Q(f^0)$ $f^{l+1} =\hspace{-4mm}
\argmin_{u \in \R^{m}_{+},\, {\left\|u\right\|}_2 \leq 1}\hspace{-3.5mm} R_1(u) +\lambda^l S_2(u)- {\left\langleu, r_2(f^l)+ \lambda^l s_1(f^l)\right\rangle}$\
$r_2(f^l) \in \partial R_2(f^l)$, $s_1(f^l) \in \partial S_1(f ^l)$ $\lambda^{l+1}= Q(f^{l+1})$ $\frac{{\left|\lambda^{l+1}-\lambda^l\right|}}{\lambda^l}< \epsilon$
Given an initialization $f_{0}$, the above algorithm solves a sequence of convex optimization problems (line 3). Note that we do not need an explicit description of the terms $S_1(f)$ and $R_2(f)$, but only elements of their sudifferential $s_1(f) \in \partial S_1(f)$ resp. $r_2(f) \in \partial R_2(f)$. The explicit forms of the subgradients are given in the appendix. The convex problem (line 3) then has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inner}
\min_{f \in \R^{m}_{+}} \frac{\lambda^{l}}{2} \sum_{i, j =1}^{m} w_{ij} {\left|f_{i} - f_{j}\right|} +
{\left\langlef, c\right\rangle}
+ \sigma\ \max_{i} \{f_{i} \},\end{aligned}$$ where $c = \rho - r_{2}(f^{l}) - \lambda^{l} s_{1}(f^{l})$. Note that is a *non-smooth* problem. However, there exists an equivalent smooth dual problem, which we give below.
\[lem:inner\_problem\] The problem is equivalent to
$$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\substack{{\left\|\alpha\right\|}_\infty\leq 1\\ \alpha_{ij}=-\alpha_{ji}}}
\min_{v \in S_m}
\frac{1}{2}{\left\|P_{\R_+^m}
\left(\hskip-0.1cm -c -\frac{\lambda^l}{2} A \alpha - \sigma v \hskip-0.1cm \right)\right\|}_2^2 \hskip-0.1cm , $$
where $A:\R^E \mapsto \R^V$ with $(A\alpha)_i := \sum_{j} w_{ij} (\alpha_{ij}-\alpha_{ji})$, $P_{\R_+^m}$ denotes the projection on the positive orthant and $S_m$ is the simplex $S_m=\{v \in \R^m \,|\, v_i\geq 0, \sum_{i=1}^m v_i=1\}$.
First we use the homogenity of the objective in the inner problem to eliminate the norm constraint. This yields the equivalent problem $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{u\in \R^n_+}\sigma \max_i u_i +\frac{1}{2}{\left\|u\right\|}_2^2 + {\left\langleu,c\right\rangle} + \frac{\lambda^l}{2}\hspace*{-0.1cm}\sum_{i,j=1}^n w_{ij}|u_i-u_j|.\end{aligned}$$ We derive the dual problem as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& \min_{u\in \R_+^n}\hspace*{-0.1cm}\frac{\lambda^l}{2}\hspace*{-0.1cm}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} w_{ij} {\left|u_{i} - u_{j}\right|} + \sigma \max u_i + \frac{1}{2} {\left\|u\right\|}_2^2+ {\left\langleu,c\right\rangle} \\
& = \min_{u\in \R_+^n} \Big\{\max_{\substack{{\left\|\alpha\right\|}_\infty\leq 1\\ \alpha_{ij}=-\alpha_{ji}}}\frac{\lambda^l}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n} w_{ij} \left(u_{i} - u_{j}\right) \alpha_{ij} \\
& \hspace{1.5cm}
+ \max_{v \in S_n} \sigma {\left\langleu,v\right\rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\left\|u\right\|}_2^2 + {\left\langleu,c\right\rangle} \Big\} \\
& = \max_{\substack{{\left\|\alpha\right\|}_\infty\leq 1 \\ \alpha_{ij}=-\alpha_{ji} \\ v \in S_n}}
\min_{u\in \R_+^n} \frac{1}{2} {\left\|u\right\|}_2^2 + {\left\langleu, c + \frac{ \lambda^l}{2} A\alpha + \sigma v\right\rangle}, \end{aligned}$$ where $(A\alpha)_i := \sum_{j} w_{ij} (\alpha_{ij}-\alpha_{ji})$. The optimization over $u$ has the solution $
u= P_{\R_+^n} ( -c - \frac{\lambda^l}{2} A \alpha - \sigma v).
$ Plugging $u$ into the objective and using that $\langle P_{\R_+^n}(x),x \rangle = \|P_{\R_+^n}(x)\|_2^2$, we obtain the result.
The smooth dual problem can be solved very efficiently using recent scalable first order methods like FISTA [@BT09], which has a guaranteed convergence rate of $O(\frac{1}{k^{2}})$, where $k$ is the number of steps done in FISTA. The main part in the calculation of FISTA consists of a matrix-vector multiplication. As the social network is typically sparse, this operation costs $O(m)$, where $m$ is the number of non-zeros of $W$.
RatioDCA [@HeiSet11], produces a strictly decreasing sequence $f^{l}$, i.e., $Q(f^{l+1}) < Q(f^{l})$, or terminates. This is a typical property of fast local methods in non-convex optimization. Moreover, the convex problem need not be solved to full accuracy; we can terminate the convex problem early, if the current $f^{l}$ produces already sufficent descent in $Q$. As the number of required steps in the RatioDCA typically ranges between 5-20, the full method scales to large networks. Note that convergence to the global optimum of (\[eq:fracSet\]) cannot be guaranteed due to the non-convex nature of the problem. However, we have the following quality guarantee for the team formation problem.
\[th:quality-guarantee\] Let $A_{0}$ be a feasible set for the problem and $\gamma$ is chosen as in Theorem \[thm:teamProbUncstr\]. Let $f^*$ denote the result of RatioDCA after initializing with the vector $\ones_{A_{0}}$, and let $A_{f^*}$ denote the set found by optimal thresholding of $f^*$. Either RatioDCA terminates after one iteration, or produces $A_{f^*}$ which satisfies all the constraints of the team formation problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) and $$ \frac{ \assoc_{S}(A_{f^{*}}) } {\vol_{g}(A_{f^{*}}) + \nu_{S} } > \frac{ \assoc_{S}(A_{0}) } {\vol_{g}(A_{0}) + \nu_{S} } .$$
RatioDCA generates a decreasing sequence $\{f^{l}\}$ such that $Q(f^{l+1}) < Q(f^{l})$ until it terminates [@HeiSet11]. We have $Q(f^{1}) < Q(\ones_{A_{0}})$, if the algorithm does not stop in one step. As shown in Theorem (\[thm:teamProbCont\]) optimal thresholding of $f^{1}$ yields a set $A_{f}$ that achieves smaller objective on the corresponding set function. Since the chosen value of $\gamma$ guarantees the satisfaction of the constraints, $A_f$ has to be feasible.
LP relaxation of GDSP {#sec:LPrel}
=====================
Recall that our team formation problem based on the density objective is rewritten as the following GDSP after integrating the subset constraint: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:teamProbSim2}
\underset{A \subseteq \Vc^{\prime}} \max &\;
\frac{ \assoc_{S}(A) } {\vol_{g}(A) + \nu_{S}} \\ \subj: &\; k_{j} \leq \vol_{M_{j}}(A) \leq l_{j},\quad \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, p\} \nonumber \\
&\; \dist(u, v) \le d_{0},\quad \forall u, v \in A \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Note that here we do not require the additional constraint, $A \neq \emptyset$, that we added to . In this section we show that there exists a Linear programming (LP) relaxation for this problem. The LP relaxation can be solved optimally in polynomial time and provides an upper bound on the optimum value of GDSP. In practice such an upper bound is useful to check the quality of the solutions found by approximation algorithms.\
The following LP is a relaxation of the Generalized Densest Subgraph Problem (\[eq:teamProbSim2\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LP}
\underset{t \in \R,\ f \in \R^{V^{\prime}},\ \alpha \in \R^{E^{\prime}}} \max &\;
\sum_{i,j=1}^{m} w_{ij} \alpha_{ij} + 2\ {\left\langled^{S}, f\right\rangle} + t \mu_{S}\\ \nonumber
\subj: &\; tk_{j} \leq {\left\langleM_{j}, f\right\rangle} \leq tl_{j},\quad \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, p\} \\ \nonumber
&\; f_{u} + f_{v} \le t,\quad \forall u, v : \dist(u, v) > d_{0}\\ \nonumber
&\; t \ge 0, \quad \alpha_{ij} \le f_{i},\ \alpha_{ij} \le f_{j}, \ \forall (i,j) \in E^{\prime}\\ \nonumber
&\; 0 \le f_{i} \le t, \ \forall i \in \Vc^{\prime},\
\alpha_{ij} \ge 0, \ \forall (i, j) \in E^{\prime}\\ \nonumber
&\; {{\left\langleg, f\right\rangle} + t\nu_{S}} = 1. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $V^{\prime} = V \backslash S$, $E^{\prime}$ is the set of edges induced by $V^{\prime}$.
The following problem is equivalent to (\[eq:teamProbSim2\]), because (i) for every feasible set $A$ of , there exist corresponding feasible $y,\ X$ given by $y= \ones_{A}$, $ X_{ij} = \min\{ y_{i}, y_{j}\}$, with the same objective value and (ii) an optimal solution of the following problem always satisfies $X^{*}_{ij} = \min \{y^{*}_{i}, y^{*}_{j}\}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{y \in \{0,\ 1\}^{V^{\prime}},\ X \in \{0,\ 1\}^{E^{\prime}}} \max &\;
\frac{ 2\sum_{i<j} w_{ij} X_{ij} + 2\ {\left\langled^{S}, y\right\rangle} + \mu_{S}}
{{\left\langleg, y\right\rangle} + \nu_{S}} \\ \subj: &\; k_{j} \leq {\left\langleM_{j}, y\right\rangle} \leq l_{j},\quad \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, p\} \\
&\; y_{u} + y_{v} \le 1,\quad \forall u, v : \dist(u, v) > d_{0}\\ \nonumber
&\; X_{ij} \le y_{i},\quad X_{ij} \le y_{j}, \quad \forall (i,j) \in E^{\prime}
\end{aligned}$$
Relaxing the integrality constraints and using the substitution, $ X_{ij} = \frac{\alpha_{ij} }{t}$ and $y_{i} = \frac{f_{i}}{t}$, we obtain the relaxation: $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{t\in \R,\ f \in \R^{V^{\prime}},\ \alpha \in \R^{E^{\prime}}} \max &\;
\frac{ 2 \sum_{i<j} w_{ij} \alpha_{ij} + 2\ {\left\langled^{S}, f\right\rangle} + t \mu_{S}}
{{\left\langleg, f\right\rangle} + t\nu_{S}} \\ \subj: &\; tk_{j} \leq {\left\langleM_{j}, f\right\rangle} \leq tl_{j},\quad \forall j \in \{1, \ldots, p\} \\
&\; f_{u} + f_{v} \le t,\quad \forall u, v : \dist(u, v) > d_{0}\\ \nonumber
&\; t \ge 0, \quad \alpha_{ij} \le f_{i},\ \alpha_{ij} \le f_{j}, \ \forall (i,j) \in E^{\prime}\\
&\; 0 \le f_{i} \le t, \ \forall i \in \Vc^{\prime},\
\alpha_{ij} \ge 0, \ \forall (i, j) \in E^{\prime}
\end{aligned}$$
Since this problem is invariant under scaling, we can fix the scale by setting the denominator to 1, which yields the equivalent LP stated in the theorem.
Note that the solution $f^{*}$ of the LP (\[eq:LP\]) is, in general, not integral, i.e., $f^{*} \notin \{0, 1\}^{V^{\prime}}$. One can use standard techniques of randomized rounding or optimal thresholding to derive an integral solution from $f^{*}$. However, the resulting integral solution may not necessarily give a subset that satisfies the constraints of . In the special case when there are only lower bound constraints, i.e., problem (\[eq:teamProbLb\]), one can obtain a feasible set $A$ for problem (\[eq:teamProbLb\]) by thresholding $f^{*}$ (see ) according to the objective of . This is possible in this special case because there is always a threshold $f^{*}_{i}$ which yields a non-empty subset $A_{i}$ (in the worst case the full set $V^{\prime}$) satisfying all the lower bound constraints. In our experiments on problem , we derived a feasible set from the solution of LP in this fashion by choosing the threshold that yields a subset that satisfies the constraints and has the highest objective value.
Note that the LP relaxation (\[eq:LP\]) is vacuous with respect to upper bound constraints in the sense that given $f \in \R^{m}$ that does not satisfy the upper bound constraints of the LP (\[eq:LP\]) one can construct $\tilde{f}$, feasible for the LP by rescaling $f$ without changing the objective of the LP. This implies that one can always transform the solution of the unconstrained problem into a feasible solution when there are $only$ upper bound constraints. However, in the presence of lower bound or subset constraints, such a rescaling does not yield a feasible solution and hence the LP relaxation is useful on the instances of with at least one lower bound or a subset constraint (i.e., $\nu_{S} > 0$).
Experiments
===========
We now empirically show that consistently produces high quality compact teams. We also show that the quality guarantee given by Theorem \[th:quality-guarantee\] is useful in practice as our method often improves a given sub-optimal solution.
Experimental Setup
------------------
Since we are not aware of any publicly available real world datasets for the team formation problem, we use, as in [@GajSar12], a scientific collaboration network extracted from the DBLP database. Similar to [@GajSar12], we restrict ourselves to four fields of computer science: Databases (), Theory (), Data Mining (), Artificial Intelligence (). Conferences that we consider for each field are given as follows: [DB = {SIGMOD, VLDB, ICDE, ICDT, PODS}, T = {SODA, FOCS, STOC, STACS, ICALP, ESA}, DM = {WWW, KDD, SDM, PKDD, ICDM, WSDM}, AI = {IJCAI, NIPS, ICML, COLT, UAI, CVPR}]{}.
For our team formation problem, the skill set is given by $\A = ${, , , }. Any author who has at least three publications in any of the above 23 conferences is considered to be an expert. In our DBLP co-author graph, a vertex corresponds to an expert and an edge between two experts indicates prior collaboration between them. The weight of the edge is the number of shared publications. Since the resulting co-author graph is disconnected, we take its largest connected component (of size 9264) for our experiments. Directly solving the non-convex problem (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) for the value of $\gamma$ given in Theorem \[thm:teamProbUncstr\] often yields poor results. Hence in our implementation of we adopt the following strategy. We first solve the unconstrained version of problem (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) (i.e., $\gamma=0$) and then iteratively solve (\[eq:teamProbCont\]) for increasing values of $\gamma$ until all constraints are satisfied. In each iteration, we increase $\gamma$ only for those constraints which were infeasible in the previous iteration; in this way, each penalty term is regulated by different value of $\gamma$. Moreover, the solution obtained in the previous iteration of $\gamma$ is used as the starting point for the current iteration.
Quantitative Evaluation
-----------------------
   \[fig:times\] -0.2cm
In this section we perform a quantitative evaluation of our method in the special case of the team formation problem with lower bound constraints and $g_i=1 \, \forall i$ (problem ). We evaluate the performance of our method against the greedy method proposed in [@GajSar12], refered to as . Similar to the experiments of [@GajSar12], an expert is defined to have a skill level of 1 in skill $j$, if he/she has a publication in any of the conferences corresponding to the skill $j$. As done in [@GajSar12], we create random tasks for different values of skill size, $k = \{3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28 \}$. For each value of $k$ we sample $k$ skills with replacement from the skill set $\A$ = {, , , }. For example if $k=3$, a sample might contain {, , }, which means that the random task requires at least two experts from the skill and one expert from the skill . In Figure 1, we show for each method the densities, sizes and runtimes for the different skill sizes $k$, averaged over 10 random runs. In the first plot, we also show the optimal values of the LP relaxation in . Note that this provides an upper bound on the optimal value of . We can obtain feasible solutions from the LP relaxation of via thresholding (see Section \[sec:LPrel\]), which are shown in the plot as . Furthermore, the plots contain the results obtained when the solutions of and are used as the initializations for (in each of the $\gamma$ iteration). The plots show that always produces teams of higher densities and smaller sizes compared to and . Furthermore, produces better results than the greedy method in several cases in terms of densities and sizes of the obtained teams. The results of + and + further show that our method is able improve the sub-optimal solutions of and significantly and achieves almost similar results as that of which was started with the unconstrained solution of . Under the worst-case assumption that the upper bound on computed using the LP is the optimal value, the solution of is $94\%-99\%$ optimal (depending on $k$).
Qualitative Evaluation
----------------------
\[tb:qualTeams\]
---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
**Task** **[FORTE]{}& **[mdAlk]{} & **[LPfeas]{}\
Task 1: Unconstrained (LP bound: 32.7)& \#Comps: 1 (2) Density: 32.7 AIR: 11.1 Jiawei Han (54), Philip S. Yu (279) & \#Comps: 1 (2) Density: 32.7 AIR: 11.1 Jiawei Han (54), Philip S. Yu (279) & \#Comps: 1 (2) Density: 32.7 AIR: 11.1 Jiawei Han (54), Philip S. Yu (279)\
Task 2: $\geq$3 (LP bound: 29.8)& \#Comps: 1 (3) Density: 29.8 AIR: 7.56 Jiawei Han (54), Philip S. Yu (279) **(+1)** & \#Comps: 1 (3) Density: 29.8 AIR: 7.56 Jiawei Han (54), Philip S. Yu (279) **(+1)** & \#Comps: 1 (3) Density: 29.8 AIR: 7.56 Jiawei Han (54), Philip S. Yu (279) **(+1)**\
Task 3: $\geq$4 (LP bound: 16.6)& \#Comps: 3 (1,3,3) Density: 16.6 AIR: 10.3 Michael I. Jordan (28), *Jiawei Han (54)*, Daphne Koller (127), *Philip S. Yu (279)*, Andrew Y. Ng (345), Bernhard Schoelkopf (364) **(+1)** & \#Comps: 3 (1,3,3) Density: 16.6 AIR: 10.3 Michael I. Jordan (28), *Jiawei Han (54)*, Daphne Koller (127), *Philip S. Yu (279)*, Andrew Y. Ng (345), Bernhard Schoelkopf (364) **(+1)** & \#Comps: 3 (1,3,3) Density: 16.6 AIR: 10.3 Michael I. Jordan (28), *Jiawei Han (54)*, Daphne Koller (127), *Philip S. Yu (279)*, Andrew Y. Ng (345), Bernhard Schoelkopf (364) **(+1)**\
Task 4: $\geq$4, , (LP bound: 3.91)& & \#Comps: 1 (6) Density: 3.5 AIR: 12.5 Michael I. Jordan (28), Geoffrey E. Hinton (61), Sebastian Thrun (97), Daphne Koller (127), Andrew Y. Ng (345), Zoubin Ghahramani (577)\
Task 5: $\geq$4, , (LP bound: 6.11)&\
Task 6: $\geq$4, , , $\sum_i c_i \leq$255 (LP bound: 2.06)&\
Task 7: 3$\leq$$\leq$6, $\geq$10, (LP bound: 11.3)&\
Task 8: 2$\leq$$\leq$5, 10$\leq$$\leq$15, 5$\leq$$\leq$10 (LP bound: 10.7)&\
Task 9: $\leq$2, $\geq$2, |C|$\leq$6 (LP bound: 19)&\
******
---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
\[table:Teams\] -0.2cm
In this experiment, we assess the quality of the teams obtained for several tasks with different skill requirements. Here we consider the team formation problem (\[eq:teamProbSim\]) in its more general setting. We use the generalized density objective of where each vertex is given a rank $r_i$, which we define based on the number of publications of the corresponding expert. For each skill, we rank the experts according to the number of his/her publications in the conferences corresponding to the skill. In this way each expert gets four different rankings; the total rank of an expert is then the minimum of these four ranks. The main advantage of such a ranking is that the experts that have higher skill are given preference, thus producing more competent teams. Note that we choose a relative measure like rank as the vertex weights instead of an absolute quantity like number of publications, since the distribution of the number of publications varies between different fields. In practice such a ranking is always available and hence, in our opinion, should be incorporated. Furthermore, in order to identify the main area of expertise of each expert, we consider his/her relative number of publications. Each expert is defined to have a skill level of 1 in skill $j$ if he has more than 25% of his/her publications in the conferences corresponding to skill $j$. As a distance function between authors, we use the shortest path on the *unweighted version* of the DBLP graph, i.e. two experts are at a distance of two, if the shortest path between the corresponding vertices in the unweighted DBLP graph contains two edges. Note that in general the distance function can come from other general sources beyond the input graph, but here we had to rely on the graph distance because of lack of other information.
In order to assess the *competence* of the found teams, we use the list of the 10000 most cited authors of Citeseer [@Citeseer]. Note that in contrast to the skill-based ranking discussed above, this list is only used in the evaluation and *not* in the construction of the graph. We compute the average inverse rank as in [@GajSar12] as $AIR:= 1000\cdot\sum_{i=1}^k \frac{1}{R_i}$, where $k$ is the size of the team and $R_i$ is the rank of expert $i$ on the Citeseer list of 10000 most cited authors. For authors not contained on the list we set $R_i=10001$. We also report the densities of the teams found in order to assess their [*compatibility*]{}.
We create several tasks with various constraints and compare the teams produced by , and (feasible solution derived from the LP relaxation). Note that in our implementation we extended the algorithm of $\cite{GajSar12}$ to incorporate general vertex weights, using Dinkelbach’s method from fractional programming [@Din1967]. The results for these tasks are shown in Table 1. We report the upper bound given by the LP relaxation, density value, $AIR$ as well as number and sizes of the connected components. Furthermore, we give the names and the Citeseer ranks of the team members who have rank at most 1000. Note that could only be applied to some of the tasks and failed to find a feasible team in several cases.
As a first task we show the unconstrained solution where we maximize density without any constraints. Note that this problem is optimally solvable in polynomial time and all methods find the optimal solution. The second task asks for at least three experts with skill . Here again all methods return the same team, which is indeed optimal since the LP bound agrees with the density of the obtained team.
Next we illustrate the usefulness of the additional modeling freedom of our formulation by giving an example task where obtaining meaningful, connected teams is not possible with the lower bound constraints alone. Consider a task where we need at least four experts having skill (Task 3). For this, all methods return the same disconnected team of size seven where only four members have the skill . The other three experts possess skills and and are densely connected among themselves. One can see from the LP bound that this team is again optimal. This example illustrates the major drawback of the density based objective which while preferring higher density subgraphs compromises on the connectivity of the solution. Our further experiments revealed that the subgraph corresponding to the skill is less densely connected (relative to the other skills) and forming coherent teams in this case is difficult without specifying additional requirements. With the help of subset and distance based constraints supported by , we can now impose the team requirements more precisely and obtain meaningful teams. In Task 4, we require that Andrew Y. Ng is the team leader and that all experts of the team should be within a distance of two from each other in terms of the underlying co-author graph. The result of our method is a densely connected and highly ranked team of size four with a density of 3.89. Note that this is very close to the LP bound of 3.91. The feasible solution obtained by is worse than our result both in terms of density and $AIR$. The greedy method cannot be applied to this task because of the distance constraint. In Task 5 we choose Bernhard Schoelkopf as the team leader while keeping the constraints from the previous task. Out of the three methods, only can solve this problem. It produces a large disconnected team, many members of which are highly skilled experts from the skill and have strong connections among themselves. To filter these densely connected members of high expertise, we introduce a budget constraint in Task 6, where we define the cost of the team as the total number of publications of its members. Again this task can be solved only by which produces a compact team of four well-known experts. A slightly better solution is obtained when is initialized with the infeasible solution of the LP relaxation as shown (only in this task). This is an indication that on more difficult instances of , it pays off to run with more than one starting point to get the best results. The solution of the LP, possibly infeasible, is a good starting point apart from the unconstrained solution of .
Tasks 7, 8 and 9 provide some additional teams found by for other tasks involving upper and lower bound constraints on different skills. As noted in Section \[sec:LPrel\] the LP bound is loose in the presence of upper bound constraints and this is also the reason why it was not possible to derive a feasible solution from the LP relaxation in these cases. In fact the LP bounds for these tasks remain the same even if the upper bound constraints are dropped from these tasks.
Conclusions
===========
By incorporating various realistic constraints we have made a step forward towards a realistic formulation of the team formation problem. Our method finds qualitatively better teams that are more compact and have higher densities than those found by the greedy method [@GajSar12]. Our linear programming relaxation not only allows us to check the solution quality but also provides a good starting point for our non-convex method. However, arguably, a potential downside of a density-based approach is that it does not guarantee connected components. A further extension of our approach could aim at incorporating “connectedness” or a relaxed version of it as an additional constraint.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Excellence Cluster MMCI at Saarland University funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the project NOLEPRO funded by the European Research Council (ERC).
The subgradient of $S_{1}(f)$ is given by $s_{1}(f) = d + d^{S} + \mu_{S} I_{max}(f)$, where $I_{max}(f)$ is the indicator function of the largest entry of $f$. For the subgradient of $R_2$, using Prop. 2.2. in [@Bach11], we obtain for the subgradient $t_{(l_j,M_j)}$ of the terms of the form $\min\{l_j, \vol_{M_{j}}(A)\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\big(t_{(l_j,M_j)}(f)\big)_i \hskip-0.1cm &= \hskip-0.1cm \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \hskip-0.1cm 0 & \vol_{M_j}(A_{i+1}) >l_j\\
\hskip-0.1cm l_j - \vol_{M_j}(A_{i+1}) & \vol_{M_j}(A_{i}) \geq l_j, \\ &\vol_{M_j}(A_{i+1}) \leq l_j\\
\hskip-0.1cm M_{ij} & \vol_{M_j}(A_i)<l_j
\end{array} \right. \ .\end{aligned}$$ Defining $D_{uv} := \max\{0,\ \dist(u, v) - d_{0} \}$, an element of the subgradient of the second term of $R_2$ is given as $d_D-p(f)$, where $(d_D)_i=\sum_j D_{ij}$ and $p(f)_i \in \Big\{ \textstyle{\sum_{j=1}^m} D_{ij} u_{ij} \, |\, u_{ij}=-u_{ji}, u_{ij} \in \mathrm{sign}(f_i-f_j)\Big\},$ where $\sgn(x) := +1$, if $x >0$; -1 if $x < 0$; $[-1,1]$, if $x=0$. In total, we obtain for the subgradient $r_2(f)$ of $R_2(f)$, $$r_{2}(f) = \gamma \textstyle{\sum_{j=1}^{p}} t_{(l_j,M_j)}(f) + \gamma \textstyle{\sum_{j=1}^{p}} t_{(k_j,M_j)}(f) +\gamma (p(f) -d_D).$$
[10]{}
Citeseer statistics – [M]{}ost cited authors in computer science. .
A. Anagnostopoulos, L. Becchetti, C. Castillo, A. Gionis, and S. Leonardi. Online team formation in social networks. In [*WWW*]{}, pages 839–848, 2012.
F. Bach. Learning with submodular functions: A convex optimization perspective. , abs/1111.6453, 2011.
L. Backstrom, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg, and X. Lan. Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution. In [*KDD*]{}, pages 44–54, 2006.
A. Baykasoglu, T. Dereli, and S. Das. Project team selection using fuzzy optimization approach. , 38(2):155–185, 2007.
A. Beck and M. Teboulle. Fast gradient-based algorithms for constrained total variation image denoising and deblurring problems. , 18(11):2419–2434, 2009.
T. B[ü]{}hler, S. Rangapuram, M. Hein, and S. Setzer. Constrained fractional set programs and their application in local clustering and community detection. In [*ICML*]{}, pages 624–632, 2013.
V. T. Chakaravarthy, N. Modani, S. R. Natarajan, S. Roy, and Y. Sabharwal. Density functions subject to a co-matroid constraint. In [*FSTTCS*]{}, pages 236–248, 2012.
S. J. Chen and L. Lin. Modeling team member characteristics for the formation of a multifunctional team in concurrent engineering. , 51(2):111–124, 2004.
N. Contractor. Some assembly required: leveraging web science to understand and enable team assembly. , 371(1987), 2013.
W. Dinkelbach. On nonlinear fractional programming. , 13(7):492–498, 1967.
A. Gajewar and A. D. Sarma. Multi-skill collaborative teams based on densest subgraphs. In [*SDM*]{}, pages 165–176, 2012.
A. V. Goldberg. Finding a maximum density subgraph. Technical Report UCB/CSD-84-171, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, 1984.
M. Hein and S. Setzer. Beyond spectral clustering - tight relaxations of balanced graph cuts. In [*NIPS*]{}, pages 2366–2374, 2011.
M. Kargar and A. An. Discovering top-k teams of experts with/without a leader in social networks. In [*CIKM*]{}, pages 985–994, 2011.
S. Khot. Ruling out ptas for graph min-bisection, dense k-subgraph, and bipartite clique. , 36(4), 2006.
S. Khuller and B. Saha. On finding dense subgraphs. In [*ICALP*]{}, pages 597–608, 2009.
T. Lappas, K. Liu, and E. Terzi. Finding a team of experts in social networks. In [*KDD*]{}, pages 467–476, 2009.
B. Saha, A. Hoch, S. Khuller, L. Raschid, and X.-N. Zhang. Dense subgraphs with restrictions and applications to gene annotation graphs. In [*RECOMB*]{}, pages 456–472, 2010.
H. Wi, S. Oh, J. Mun, and M. Jung. A team formation model based on knowledge and collaboration. , 36(5):9121–9134, 2009.
A. Zzkarian and A. Kusiak. Forming teams: an analytic approach. , 31(1):85–97, 2004.
[^1]: The distance function need not satisfy the triangle inequality.
[^2]: A function $f$ is said to be positively one-homogeneous if $f(\alpha x) = \alpha f(x), \alpha \ge 0$.
[^3]: A set function $R:2^V \rightarrow \R$ is submodular if for all $A,B \subset V$, $R(A\cup B) + R(A \cap B) \leq R(A) + R(B).$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that nonradiative interactions between atomic dipoles placed in a waveguide can give rise to deterministic entanglement at ranges much larger than their resonant wavelength. The range increases as the dipole-resonance approaches the waveguide’s cutoff frequency, caused by the giant density of photon modes near cutoff, a regime where the standard (perturbative) Markov approximation fails. We provide analytical theories for both the Markovian and non-Markovian regimes, supported by numerical simulations, and discuss possible experimental realizations.'
author:
- Ephraim Shahmoon
- Gershon Kurizki
title: '**Nonradiative interaction and entanglement between distant atoms**'
---
*Introduction.—* Dipoles can interact via photon exchange, resulting in excitation transfer and mutual entanglement [@SCU]. When the interaction is mediated by radiation, i.e. real photons, it constitutes a dissipative and hence quantum-mechanically incoherent process, whereby the generation of entanglement is generally probabilistic [@DLCZ; @POL], although certain entangled states are deterministically obtainable by engineering/control of the bath [@4]. In this study, we are concerned with the nonradiative interaction that stems from the collective coupling of atomic dipoles to a common “bath” of photonic modes [@5]. Such nonradiative (dispersive) interactions are possible via their near or evanescent fields [@RON]. Quantum mechanically they are described as exchange of *virtual*, i.e. non-resonant, *photons* between the atoms, known as resonant dipole-dipole interaction (RDDI) [@MQED; @LEH; @MEY]. In free space RDDI is dominant over radiation only at distances shorter than the resonant wavelength. Here we predict modified RDDI along with suppressed radiation in confined geometries, giving rise to *coherent* interaction at distances much longer than the resonant wavelength. This constitutes a novel route towards *high-fidelity long-range deterministic entanglement*. The principle that allows to appropriately modify the radiative and dispersive interactions is that they are mediated by the geometry-dependent field modes, populated by either real or virtual photons, respectively. Hence, the distance-dependence of the interactions is determined by the geometry. For example, when mediated by surface-plasmon-polariton modes in one dimension, both interactions appear to have long-range character, yet they are hindered by dissipation mechanisms [@SPA; @FLE1; @FLE2]. E.g., in [@SPA], the radiative interaction sets the bound of the concurrence (entanglement) at $C=0.5$. This bound is circumvented by a promising approach to a coherent phase-gate based on the difference between super- and sub-radiant decay rates [@FLE1]. Still, ohmic losses and radiation to free-space modes may practically limit the phase-gate operation to distances smaller than a wavelength. Radiation, however, can be suppressed in geometries that create cutoffs or bandgaps in the photonic mode spectrum. In such geometries RDDI can be drastically modified [@KUR; @SEK; @LAW].
In our approach, photonic cutoffs or bandgaps are used not only to suppress radiation but also to enhance RDDI so as to make it the dominant effect. Our main result, obtained by essentially exact (nonperturbative) calculations, is the possibility of extremely long-distance RDDI almost without radiation, and correspondingly high concurrence (nearly-perfect entanglement). This effect is predicted in waveguides for pairs of atoms whose dipolar transition frequency is just below the cutoff or bandedge of the waveguide. We thereby reveal the key principle that enables coherent long-range interaction, potentially much stronger than possible decoherence effects, namely, the very large density of photon states near the cutoff. Thus, the enhancement of density of states due to the cutoff is reminiscent of that obtained using a cavity. However, unlike a cavity, the waveguide geometry is open along the propagation axis and does not restrict the separation of the atoms. In the Markov approximation, the RDDI diminishes with the interatomic distance $z$ as $e^{-z/\xi}$, where $\xi$ increases as the atomic frequency approaches the cutoff (bandedge), allowing for entanglement at long distances. Yet, the standard Markov approximation fails close to cutoff, which requires a nonperturbative analysis, supported by numerical calculations.
*The model.—* We consider a pair of atoms, modeled by identical two-level-systems (TLS) with energy levels $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ and transition frequency $\omega_a$. These are coupled to the vacuum field of a non-leaky waveguide, i.e. we neglect the TLS coupling to modes outside the waveguide – a relevant assumption in the situation considered below. The TLS-field dipole couplings are $g_{k\alpha}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_k}{2\epsilon_0\hbar}}\mathbf{d}\cdot\mathbf{u}_k(\mathbf{r}_{\alpha})$, $\mathbf{r}_{\alpha}$ being the location of atom $\alpha=1,2$, $\mathbf{d}$ the dipole matrix element of the $|g\rangle\leftrightarrow|e\rangle$ transition (taken to be real), and $\omega_k$ and $\mathbf{u}_k(\mathbf{r})$ the $k$’th mode frequency and spatial function. The corresponding Hamiltonian in the dipole approximation [@CCT; @MQED] reads, in the interaction picture, $$H_{AF}=\hbar\sum_{\alpha=1}^2\sum_k\left[i g_{k\alpha} \hat{a}_k e^{-i\omega_k t} +h.c.\right]\left[\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha}^{-}e^{-i\omega_a t}+h.c.\right],
\label{H_AF}$$ $\hat{a}_k$, $\hat{\sigma}^{-}_{\alpha}$ being the mode and the TLS lowering operators, respectively. In what follows, we analyze the atomic dynamics under the perturbative Markov approximation and without it.
*Markovian theory.—* Adopting an open-system approach for the problem [@CAR], we identify the two atoms as the system and the continuum of EM vacuum modes as a bath, and consider the effects of the bath on the system (Fig. 1(a)). These are dissipative and dispersive effects that are related by the Kramers-Kronig relation and determined by the bath’s two-point (autocorrelation) spectrum $G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)$, defined via $$\sum_k g_{k\alpha}g_{k\alpha'}^{\ast}\longrightarrow \int d \omega G_{\alpha \alpha'}(\omega).
\label{G}$$
![[]{data-label="fig1"}](system2.jpg "fig:") ![[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1a.jpg "fig:")
From Fermi’s Golden rule we obtain the rate of dissipation by radiation $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}=2\pi G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega_a)$, which for $\alpha=\alpha'$ represents the single-atom spontaneous emission rate to the guided modes and for $\alpha\neq\alpha'$ describes the two-atom, distance-dependent, cooperative emission [@15]. The dispersive effect is obtained by second-order perturbation theory for the energy correction (cooperative Lamb shift [@16]) of the two-atom states, associated with the bath-induced dipole-dipole Hamiltonian term, $$H_{DD}=-\hbar\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\alpha'}\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}\left(\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha}^{+}\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha'}^{-}+
\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha}^{-}\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha'}^{+}\right),
\label{H_DD}$$ where $\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}=\Delta_{\alpha\alpha',-}+\Delta_{\alpha\alpha',+}$ and $$\Delta_{\alpha\alpha',\mp}=\mathrm{P}\int_0^{\infty} d\omega\frac{ G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)}{\omega\mp\omega_a},
\label{D}$$ P denoting the principal value. The dissipative, incoherent effect of $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}$ gives rise to probabilistic interaction between the atoms. Hence, in order to achieve non-radiative, deterministic interaction we need a vanishing $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}$, leaving intact the coherent dynamics governed by $H_{DD}$ in Eq. (\[H\_DD\]). Then, if initially only atom 1 is excited, we get a periodic exchange of the excitation between the atoms, at a rate $\Delta_{12}$, in the two-atom state $$|\psi_{12}(t)\rangle=\cos(\Delta_{12} t)|e_1,g_2\rangle + i\sin(\Delta_{12} t)|g_1,e_2\rangle,
\label{psi12}$$ that superposes singly-excited product states of atoms 1 and 2. A maximally entangled state is then achieved at odd multiples of the time $t=\pi/(4\Delta_{12})$.
In order to illustrate how the radiative effects $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}$ can be suppressed we first consider the case of atoms placed inside a rectangular hollow metallic waveguide (MWG), with longitudinal axis $z$ and transverse dimensions $a$ and $b$ (see Fig. 1a). Nonideal MWG and optical fiber realizations will be addressed below. The atom interacts only with the MWG field modes $TE_{mn}$ (transverse electric) and $TM_{mn}$ (transverse magnetic) labeled by non-negative integers $m,n$ [@KONG] (see Appendix). Each $TE/TM_{mn}$ transverse mode has its own cutoff frequency $\omega_{mn}$ and dispersion relation $\omega^{mn}_{k_z}$, $k_z$ being the longitudinal wavenumber, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{mn}&=&c\sqrt{(m\pi/a)^2+(n\pi/b)^2}
\nonumber \\
\omega^{mn}_{k_z}&=&\sqrt{(c k_z)^2+\omega_{mn}^2},
\label{DR}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_k=\omega^{mn}_{k_z}$ is the frequency of the $k=TE/TM_{mn,k_z}$ mode, and $c$ is the speed of light. The contribution of a specific transverse mode $\lambda_{mn}$ ($\lambda=TE,TM$) to the bath spectrum in Eq. (\[G\]) is obtained from the dispersion relation $k_z(\omega)$ (Eq. (\[DR\])) upon identifying $\omega^{mn}_{k_z}=\omega$, $$\begin{aligned}
G^{\lambda}_{mn,\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)&=&\frac{\partial k_z}{\partial \omega} g^{\lambda}_{mn, \alpha}(\omega) g^{\lambda \ast}_{mn, \alpha'}(\omega)\Theta(\omega-\omega_{mn})
\\ \label{Gmn}
\frac{\partial k_z}{\partial \omega}&=&\frac{1}{c}\frac{\omega}{\omega_{mn}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\omega/\omega_{mn})^2-1}},
\label{DOS}\end{aligned}$$ $\Theta(x)$ being the Heaviside step function. At this stage two key features of the waveguide structure must be noted: *(1)* below the cutoff $\omega_{mn}$ no $\lambda_{mn}$ guided photon modes exist, and *(2)* the density of states $\frac{\partial k_z}{\partial \omega}$ diverges near the cutoff. In what follows, we use feature *(1)* to suppress radiation and feature *(2)* to obtain long-distance and strong RDDI.
In order to facilitate the analysis it is sufficient to consider the case where the atoms are polarizable only in the $z$ direction, $\mathbf{d}=d_z \mathbf{e}_z$ (for other polarizations see the Appendix or Ref. [@LAW]). Since $TE$ modes have a vanishing $z$ component of the electric field, only $TM$ modes contribute to the bath spectrum, $$G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)=\sum_{mn}\frac{\Gamma_{mn}}{2\pi}\frac{\cos\left[k_z(z_{\alpha}-z_{\alpha'})\right]}{\sqrt{(\omega/\omega_{mn})^2-1}}\Theta(\omega-\omega_{mn}).
\label{G_TM}$$ Here $\Gamma_{mn}\equiv\frac{4 \omega_{mn}\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,\alpha}\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,\alpha'}}{\pi\epsilon_0\hbar c a b}$ is introduced, where $\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,\alpha}=d_z\sin\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x_{\alpha}\right)\sin\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y_{\alpha}\right)$ and $x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}$ is the transverse position of atom $\alpha$. Also note that $k_z$ is a function of $\omega$ by virtue of Eq. (\[DR\]).
Now, consider the case where the atomic resonance is below the lowest cutoff frequency, $\omega_a<\omega_{11}$ for $TM$ modes. Then, the atomic dipoles are not resonant with any of the field modes and radiation is suppressed, $\gamma_{\alpha \alpha'}=2 \pi G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega_a)=0$, from Eq. (\[G\_TM\]). We are thus left only with the nonradiative RDDI Eq. (\[D\]), $$\Delta_{12}=\sum_{mn}\frac{\Gamma_{mn}}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\omega_a/\omega_{mn})^2}}e^{-\frac{z_{12}}{\xi_{mn}}},
\label{D12}$$ where $z_{12}\equiv |z_1-z_2|$ and the effective interaction range is $$\xi_{mn}=\frac{c}{\omega_{mn}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\omega_a/\omega_{mn})^2}}.
\label{xi}$$ These Markovian-theory results [@LAW] predict that radiative dissipation is absent, while the RDDI decays exponentially with interatomic distance, typical of interaction mediated by evanescent waves. Yet, remarkably, Eqs. (\[D12\]) and (\[xi\]) imply that as the atomic resonance $\omega_a$ approaches the lowest cutoff $\omega_{11}$ from below, the RDDI diverges owing to the contribution of the $TM_{11}$ mode, and so does its range, determined by $\xi_{11}$. This potentially enables deterministic generation of entanglement at very large distances.
In order to test the above results we performed direct numerical simulations of the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian (\[H\_AF\]), taking only the dominant $m=1,n=1$ mode into account (see Appendix). Fig. 1(b) portraits typical dynamics of the atoms’ populations, along with their entanglement, quantified by the concurrence [@WOO], for $z_{12}=0.5\lambda_a$ with $\lambda_a$ the atomic transition wavelength. As expected from Eq. (\[psi12\]), the maximally entangled state is generated at half the oscillation period of the population exchange. It is also apparent that when $\omega_a$ is not too close to the cutoff $\omega_{11}$, the simulation results agree with those of the Markovian analysis, Eqs. (\[psi12\]) and (\[D12\]), within numerical accuracy.
*Validity of the Markovian theory.—* The Markov approximation used above breaks down as $\omega_a$ approaches the cutoff. The general conditions for the validity of the Markov approximation reduce in our case to (see Appendix) $$\Delta_{12}(\omega_a)\Delta''_{12}(\omega_a)\ll 1,
\label{MAR}$$ where $\Delta_{12}(\omega_a)$ is given by Eq. (\[D12\]) and $\Delta''_{12}(\omega_a)$ is its second derivative w.r.t $\omega_a$. In the limit $\omega_a\rightarrow\omega_{mn}$, $\Delta_{12}(\omega_a)$ and $\Delta''_{12}(\omega_a)$ become singular and condition (\[MAR\]) is not satisfied, as seen from Eq. (\[D12\]) and Fig. 1(c). Thus, a non-Markovian theory is required in order to fully analyze the possibility of long-distance RDDI and entanglement. Non-Markovian analysis has been performed before for a single atom coupled to a continuum with a cutoff [@KOF; @KNG], yielding the possibility of incomplete decay: decay of the excited state population to a steady-state value different from zero, as a result of the formation of atom-photon bound-states. Nevertheless, the Markovian analysis is very useful for RDDI in cases where nearly-complete entanglement (e.g. $C>0.95$) is to be achieved, as seen below.
*Non-Markovian theory.—* In order to account for the situation where $\omega_a$ approaches the cutoff, we develop a nonperturbative and non-Markovian theory for RDDI, in the spirit of [@KOF]. From Hamiltonian (\[H\_AF\]), assuming that only atom 1 is initially excited, the state of the combined (atoms+modes) system can be written within the rotating-wave-approximation [@CCT] as $$|\psi(t)\rangle=a_1(t)|e_1,g_2,0\rangle+a_2(t)|g_1,e_2,0\rangle+\sum_k b_k(t)|g_1,g_2,1_k\rangle.
%\label{psi}
\nonumber$$ Inserting this state into the Schrödinger equation, we obtain dynamical equations for $a_1(t)$, $a_2(t)$ and $b_k(t)$. As before, we consider only the MWG transverse mode $m=1,n=1$, this time for $\omega_a$ close to the cutoff $\omega_{11}$, such that the denominator of the spectrum (\[G\_TM\]) is well approximated by $\sqrt{(\omega/\omega_{11})^2-1}\approx\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\omega/\omega_{11}-1}$. Using the Laplace transform in order to solve the dynamical equations, we then obtain the dynamics of the first atom (more details can be found in the Appendix), $$a_1(t)=\sqrt{i}e^{-i\omega_{11}t}\sum_{j=1}^5c_j\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi t}}+\sqrt{i}u_je^{iu_j^2t}\mathrm{erfc}(-\sqrt{i}u_j\sqrt{t})\right].
\label{a1}$$ Here $u_j$ are the roots of $d(u)=u^5+2W_au^3-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Gamma_{11}\sqrt{\omega_{11}}u^2+W_a^2u-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Gamma_{11}\sqrt{\omega_{11}}W_a-\frac{1}{8}\Gamma_{11}^2\omega_{11}\frac{1}{u}F(u)$, where $W_a=\omega_a-\omega_{11}$, $c_j=n(u_j)/d'(u_j)$ with $n(u)=-i(u^3+W_au-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\Gamma_{11}\sqrt{\omega_{11}})$, and $F(u)=\left(e^{-2z_{12}(\sqrt{\omega_{11}}/c) u}-1\right)$, where $F(u)$ is expanded in Taylor series up to 5th order in $u$ (Appendix). The conditions of validity for this theory are thus given by the approximation of the spectrum and the expansion of $F(u)$, yielding $\frac{\omega_a-\omega_{11}}{4\omega_{11}}\ll 1$ and $z_{12}\ll(\frac{45}{4})^{1/6}\frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{\omega_a}{\omega_{11}}\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{11}}{2|\omega_{11}-\omega_a|}}$, respectively. However, in practice, another limitation on the precision of the theory comes from the numerical calculation of the roots of $d(u)$.
Fig. 2(a) presents the dynamics of the atomic populations and interatomic entanglement in the non-Markovian regime. Very good agreement between the above theory and numerical simulations is observed. The main feature of the dynamics are Rabi-like oscillations similar to those of the Markovian case. Nevertheless, their amplitude is decreased as a result of excitation loss to the field modes by incomplete decay, setting the upper bound on the achievable entanglement. Hence, as $\omega_a$ approaches the cutoff, while the inter-atomic distance $z$ is kept fixed, we get a tradeoff between increased RDDI strength and decreased maximum entanglement. This is shown in Fig. 2(b), where $\omega_a$ is varied from very far from cutoff, where Markovian theory predictions $\Delta_{12,M}$ and $C_{max}=1$ apply, to very close to the cutoff, where $\Delta_{12}$ increases on the expense of $C_{max}$.
![[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2_1.jpg "fig:") ![[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2_2.jpg "fig:")
*Long-distance entanglement and possible realizations.—* Using the analytical theory above, we shall now illustrate the possibility of long-distance entanglement by two examples. First, consider Rydberg atoms that pass through a cold metallic waveguide (MWG), similar to the setup in [@HAR1; @HAR2] where the MWG replaces the superconducting cavity. The states $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ are the two circular states with principal quantum numbers $51$ and $50$, with transition frequency and dipole moment $\omega_a=2\pi\times51.1$GHz and $d\sim1250 e a_0$ respectively, with $e$ the charge of an electron and $a_0$ the Bohr radius [@HAR2]. Near the cutoff, $\Gamma_{11}$ is similar to the free-space $|e\rangle\rightarrow|g\rangle$ decay rate, estimated to be $\frac{\omega_a^3d^2}{3\pi\epsilon_0 \hbar c^3}\approx 14.7$Hz. The corresponding dynamics for $z=100\lambda_a$ are plotted in Fig. 2(c), where $\lambda_a\sim6$mm is the atomic wavelength, such that we obtain entanglement with concurrence $C=0.983$, at a distance $z\sim 0.6$m and for interaction time $t\approx0.2$ms \[Fig. 2(c)\]. Considering possible imperfections we derived the dissipation rate due to ohmic losses of the atom-induced evanescent fields in a square waveguide ($a=b$), $\gamma_{loss}\leq \frac{2R_s}{\mu_0 a}$, with $\mu_0$ the vacuum permeability and $R_s$ the surface resistance (see Appendix). Normal metals may limit the achievable entanglement distance and fidelity as in [@FLE1]. However, for niobium superconducting plates at temperature $T<1$K, we take, as in [@HAR1], $R_s=75$n$\Omega$, yielding, for $a\approx6$mm, $\gamma_{loss}=19.89$Hz, much slower than the $0.2$ms required for entanglement. Such a temperature also ensures that the thermal photon occupancy at $\omega_a$ is negligible. In addition, as analyzed in [@CHEN], surface roughness of the metal plate may slightly change the mode structure and the location of the cutoff frequency, and correspondingly the calculated RDDI rate. Nevertheless, a cutoff below which the modes become evanescent with diverging density of states persists, hence the principle of our scheme still applies. Regarding our initial assumption of isolated waveguide modes, we recall that $\omega_a$ is much smaller than the typical plasma frequency in metals ($\sim 10^{16}$Hz), so that the isolated modes of a perfect-conductor used here, are indeed adequate.
Another option is that of optical fiber modes coupled to the atoms [@RAU; @LUK]. Although the fiber’s guided modes also possess cutoffs, they lack the two important features that we have highlighted for the MWG: *(1)* below cutoff the atoms are coupled to outside modes, hence spontaneous emission exists at a rate comparable to that in free space; *(2)* the group velocity $\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial k_z}$ does not vanish at the fiber cutoff so that the density of states $\frac{\partial k_z}{\partial \omega}$ does not diverge. We can restore the second feature by considering a fiber-Bragg-grating [@FBG]: then, for a transverse fiber mode with dispersion $\omega(k_z)$, the group velocity does vanish at the bandedge of the $\omega$ spectrum corresponding to $k_z=\pi/(\Lambda \bar{n})$, with $\Lambda$ the period of the grating and $\bar{n}$ the average refractive index \[Fig. 2(d)\]. The dispersion near the upper boundary of the gap, $\omega_u$, can be approximately written as $\omega\approx \omega_u+B(k_z-\pi/(\Lambda\bar{n}))^2$ with constant $B$, so that $\frac{\partial k_z}{\partial \omega}\propto 1/\sqrt{\omega-\omega_u}$ diverges at $\omega_u$ in the same way assumed in our non-Markovian theory (see Appendix for more details). Then, the atom can still emit to outside modes, but just below the bandedge $\omega_u$, RDDI, which is mediated by evanescent waves in the gap, can become much stronger and more long-distance, due to the divergence. We consider optical atomic transitions, e.g. the D2 line of $^{87}Rb$ atoms with $\lambda_a\approx780$nm and natural linewidth $2\pi \times6.07$MHz. The results for $z=20\lambda_a\sim16\mu$m are plotted in Fig. 2(c), yielding concurrence $C=0.9605$ after $t\approx3.55$ns of interaction.
*Conclusions.—* To conclude, the main result of this study is the demonstration of the possibility of long-distance interaction between dipoles by a nonradiative, deterministic and coherent process (RDDI) that is crucially dependent on the waveguide geometry. The proposed scheme relies mostly on the possibility of vanishing group velocity, i.e. diverging density of states, for the guided modes, at a frequency cutoff (or bandgap) of the waveguide. An important innovation of this work is the derivation of a non-perturbative analytic theory for RDDI near a cutoff of the photonic spectrum. The theory exhibits non-Markovian features, particulary population loss of the atoms by incomplete decay and the resulting reduction of entanglement, in agreement with numerical simulations.
Possible manifestations of the predicted effect include high-concurrence entanglement as well as energy transfer between dipoles at giant separations. The analysis and the potential realizations discussed above suggest that the effect is significant for a wide range of atomic and waveguide parameters, constrained only by the tradeoff between interaction strength and the maximal achievable entanglement.
We acknowledge the support of DIP, ISF and the Wolfgang Pauli Institute (E.S.).
APPENDIX {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Dipole-dipole interaction for arbitrary oriented dipoles
--------------------------------------------------------
In the main text we considered the case where the dipoles are oriented in the $z$ direction. For a general orientation, we need to consider all the $TE/TM_{mn,k_z}$ modes with their normalized spatial functions [@KONG],
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbf{u}^{TM}_{mn,k_z}(x,y,z)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{AL}}e^{ik_zz}\left(\frac{\omega_{mn}}{\omega^{mn}_{k_z}}\sin\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x\right)\sin\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y\right)\mathbf{e}_z
\right. \nonumber \\ &&\left.
+\frac{i k_z c}{\omega_{mn} \omega^{mn}_{k_z}}\left[c\frac{\pi}{a}m\cos\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x\right)\sin\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y\right)\mathbf{e}_x
+c\frac{\pi}{b} n \sin\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x\right)\cos\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y\right)\mathbf{e}_y \right]\right)
\nonumber \\
&&\mathbf{u}^{TE}_{mn,k_z}(x,y,z)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{AL}}e^{ik_zz} \left[-c\frac{\pi}{b}n\cos\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x\right)\sin\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y\right)\mathbf{e}_x
+c\frac{\pi}{a} m \sin\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x\right)\cos\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y\right)\mathbf{e}_y \right],
\nonumber \\
\label{Auk}\end{aligned}$$
where $A=ab$ is the transverse area of the waveguide. Inserting these mode functions into Eq. (\[DR\]), we obtain the bath spectrum, $$\begin{aligned}
&&G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)=G^{TM}_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)+G^{TE}_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)
\nonumber \\
&&G^{TM}_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi\epsilon_0\hbar c A}\sum_{mn}\frac{\omega_{mn}}{\sqrt{(\omega/\omega_{mn})^2-1}}\left\{\cos\left[k_z(z_{\alpha}-z_{\alpha'})\right]2\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,\alpha}\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,\alpha'}
\right.\nonumber \\ &&\left.
+ \cos\left[k_z(z_{\alpha}-z_{\alpha'})\right]2\tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,\alpha}\tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,\alpha'} \left[\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega_{mn}}\right)^2-1\right]
\right.\nonumber \\ &&\left.
+ \sin\left[k_z(z_{\alpha}-z_{\alpha'})\right]2\left[\tilde{d}^{z}_{mn,\alpha}\tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,\alpha'}- \tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,\alpha}\tilde{d}^{z}_{mn,\alpha'}\right]\sqrt{\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega_{mn}}\right)^2-1}\right\}\Theta(\omega-\omega_{mn})
\nonumber \\
&&G^{TE}_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi\epsilon_0\hbar c A}\sum_{mn}\frac{\omega^2}{\sqrt{\omega^2-\omega_{mn}^2}}\cos\left[k_z(z_{\alpha}-z_{\alpha'})\right]2\tilde{d}^{TE}_{mn,\alpha}\tilde{d}^{TE}_{mn,\alpha'}\Theta(\omega-\omega_{mn}),
\nonumber \\
\label{AG_MWG}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. The effective dipole moments read $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,\alpha}&=&d_z\sin\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x_{\alpha}\right)\sin\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y_{\alpha}\right)
\nonumber \\
\tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,\alpha}&=&d_x \frac{c\frac{\pi}{a} m}{\omega_{mn}} \cos\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x_{\alpha}\right)\sin\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y_{\alpha}\right)
+d_y \frac{c\frac{\pi}{b} n}{\omega_{mn}} \sin\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x_{\alpha}\right)\cos\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y_{\alpha}\right)
\nonumber \\
\tilde{d}^{TE}_{mn,\alpha}&=&-d_x \frac{c\frac{\pi}{b} n}{\omega_{mn}} \cos\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x_{\alpha}\right)\sin\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y_{\alpha}\right)
+d_y \frac{c\frac{\pi}{a} m}{\omega_{mn}} \sin\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}x_{\alpha}\right)\cos\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}y_{\alpha}\right),
\nonumber \\
\label{Ad}\end{aligned}$$ with $d_j=\mathbf{d}\cdot\mathbf{e}_j$ and $x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}$ the transverse position of atom $\alpha$. In order to find the RDDI $\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}=\Delta_{\alpha\alpha',-}+\Delta_{\alpha\alpha',+}$, we recall Eq. (\[D\]), and find by contour integration methods, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta_{12}=\Delta_{12}^{TM}+\Delta_{12}^{TE}
\nonumber \\
&&\Delta_{12}^{TM}=\sum_{mn}\frac{2\omega_{mn}}{\epsilon_0 \hbar c A}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega_a^2}{\omega_{mn}^2}}}\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,1}\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,2}
-\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega_a^2}{\omega_{mn}^2}}\tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,1}\tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,2}
\right. \nonumber \\ &&\left.
+\mathrm{sign}(z_1-z_2)\left(\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,1}\tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,2}-\tilde{d}^{TM}_{mn,1}\tilde{d}^{(z)}_{mn,2}\right)\right]e^{-\frac{|z_1-z_2|}{\xi_{mn}}}
\nonumber \\
&&\Delta_{12}^{TE}=\sum_{mn}\frac{2\omega_{mn}}{\epsilon_0 \hbar c A}\frac{\omega_a^2}{\omega_{mn}^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\omega_a^2}{\omega_{mn}^2}}}\tilde{d}^{TE}_{mn,1}\tilde{d}^{TE}_{mn,2}e^{-\frac{|z_1-z_2|}{\xi_{mn}}},
\label{AD12}\end{aligned}$$ with $\xi_{mn}=\frac{c}{\omega_{mn}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\omega_a/\omega_{mn})^2}}$.
Numerical simulations
---------------------
We performed direct numerical simulations of the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian from Eq. (1), taking only the dominant $TM_{11}$ mode into account. The dipole couplings $g_{k}$ relate to the 1d spectrum, from Eq. (7), by $g_{\omega,\alpha}=\sqrt{G_{\alpha\alpha}(\omega)d\omega}e^{ik_z z_{\alpha}}$, where $d\omega$ is the sampling resolution used to discretize the frequency space $\omega$. The initial atomic state is $|e_1,g_2\rangle$ where the modes are in the vacuum $|0\rangle$. By taking the rotating wave approximation [@CCT], i.e. neglecting non-energy-conserving Hamiltonian terms of the form $\hat{\sigma}^{+}\hat{a}_{\omega}^{\dag},\hat{\sigma}^{-}\hat{a}_{\omega}$, we restrict ourselves to the single-excitation Hilbert space, $|e_1,g_2,0\rangle$, $|g_1,e_2,0\rangle$ and $\{|g_1,g_2,1_{\omega}\rangle,\forall \omega\}$, which is solved numerically.
Validity of the Markov approximation
------------------------------------
The dissipative and dispersive coefficients, $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}$ and $\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}$, can be obtained by deriving the master equation [@CCT; @CAR] for the atoms’ density matrix. Equivalently, here we will use instead the latter, second order perturbation theory for the transition amplitude. We begin with Eq. (23) on page 28 of Ref. [@CCT],
$$U_{\alpha\alpha'}^{(2)}=
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}dt_1\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}dt_2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega e^{i(\omega_a-\omega)(t_2-t_1)}W_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega),$$
where $U^{(2)}_{\alpha\alpha'}$ is the second order contribution to the transition amplitude from the state where only atom $\alpha$ is excited to the state where only atom $\alpha'$ is excited, $T$ is the interaction time, and $$W_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)=
\mathrm{lim}_{\eta\rightarrow0^+}\left[\sum_k\frac{g_{k\alpha}g^{\ast}_{k\alpha'}}{\omega-\omega_k-i\eta}+\sum_k\frac{g_{k\alpha'}g^{\ast}_{k\alpha}}{\omega-2\omega_a-\omega_k-i\eta}\right].$$ Recalling the definition of the bath spectrum in Eq. (\[G\]), we can rewrite $W_{\alpha\alpha'}$ as $$W_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)=\mathrm{lim}_{\eta\rightarrow0^+}\left[\int d\omega'\frac{G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega')}{\omega-\omega'-i\eta}+\int d\omega'\frac{G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega')}{\omega-2\omega_a-\omega'-i\eta}\right].$$ Using the relation $\mathrm{lim}_{\eta\rightarrow0^+}\frac{1}{x+i\eta}=i\pi\delta(x)+\mathrm{P}\frac{1}{x}$ under integration, we obtain $$U_{\alpha\alpha'}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega \delta_T^2(\omega-\omega_a)\left[-i\frac{1}{2}\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)-i\frac{1}{2}\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega-2\omega_a)-\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)-\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega-2\omega_a)\right],
\label{AU}$$ with $\delta_T(\omega)=\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}dt e^{-i\omega t}$ being a sinc function of width $1/T$ and amplitude $T$, and $$\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)=2 \pi G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)
\:\: ; \:\:
\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)=\mathrm{P}\int d\omega'\frac{G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega')}{\omega'-\omega}.$$ In the limit $T\rightarrow\infty$, i.e. $\delta_T(\omega)\sim\delta(\omega)$, we recover the Markovian results $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}=\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega_a)$ and $\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}=\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega_a)+\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(-\omega_a)$ \[noting that $G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega<0)=0$\]. Let us specify when such a limit is reasonable. Consider $T$ as the time-resolution we are interested in, i.e. $T$ is much smaller than the typical time-scale of the atomic dynamics. Nevertheless, we assume that $T$ is sufficiently large, such that in a width $1/T$ of $\delta_T^2(\omega-\omega_a)$ around $\omega_a$, $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega),\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)$ do not change appreciably. Then, we can expand $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega),\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)$ around $\omega_a$ (and also around $-\omega_a$ for $\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}$) and get $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega \delta_T^2(\omega-\omega_a)\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega)\propto \Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega_a)+O\left( \frac {\Delta''_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega_a)}{T^2}\right),$$
where a similar result is obtained for $\gamma_{\alpha\alpha'}$. For the Markovian approximation to be valid, we demand that the lowest order relative correction for the Markovian result is small, $$\frac{\Delta''_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega_a)}{\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}(\omega_a)}\frac{1}{T^2}\ll 1.
\label{Ac3}$$ As a typical atomic dynamics time-scale, for the case of RDDI, we may take $\Delta_{\alpha\alpha'}$. Then, using it in (\[Ac3\]), we obtain the condition of validity in Eq. (\[MAR\]).
Non-Markovian theory
--------------------
Taking the Laplace transform of the dynamical equations for $a_1(t)$, $a_2(t)$ and $b_k(t)$ with the initial conditions $a_1(0)=1, \: a_2(0)=b_k(0)=0$, we find $$\tilde{a}_1(s)=\left[s+J_{11}(s)+i\omega_a-\frac{J_{12}(s)J_{21}(s)}{s+J_{22}(s)+i\omega_a}\right]^{-1},
\label{Aas}$$ Here $\tilde{a}_1(s)$ is the Laplace transform of $a_1(t)$ and $J_{\alpha \alpha'}(s)=\sum_k\frac{g^{\ast}_{k,\alpha}g_{k,\alpha'}}{s+i\omega_k}$. We note that by virtue of Eq. (\[D\]), $J_{\alpha \alpha'}(-i\omega_a)=-i\Delta_{\alpha \alpha',-}$. As before, we consider the spectrum in Eq. (\[G\_TM\]) for $m=1,n=1$. Since $\omega_a$ is close to the cutoff $\omega_{11}$, the main contribution to RDDI comes from frequencies near $\omega_{11}$ so that we approximate the denominator of the spectrum by $\sqrt{(\omega/\omega_{11})^2-1}\approx\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\omega/\omega_{11}-1}$. After performing the integrals in $J_{\alpha\alpha'}(s)$, using the approximated spectrum, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{a}_1(s)&=&\tilde{a}_1(u)=\frac{n(u)}{d(u)}
\nonumber \\
n(u)&=&-i\left(u^3+W_a u-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\Gamma_{11}\sqrt{\omega_{11}}\right)
\nonumber \\
d(u)&=&u^5+2W_a u^3-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Gamma_{11}\sqrt{\omega_{11}}u^2
W_a^2u-
\nonumber \\
&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Gamma_{11}\sqrt{\omega_{11}}W_a-\frac{1}{8}\Gamma_{11}^2\omega_{11}\frac{1}{u}F(u),
\nonumber \\
\label{Aau}\end{aligned}$$ with $u=\sqrt{-i}\sqrt{s+i\omega_{11}}$, $W_a=\omega_a-\omega_{11}$ and $
F(u)=\left(e^{-2(z_1-z_2)(\sqrt{\omega_{11}}/c) u}-1\right)
$. In order to perform the inverse Laplace transform we first expand $F(u)$ in a Taylor series: in order to still satisfy the Laplace initial value theorem, $\alpha_1(t=0^+)=\lim_{s\rightarrow \infty}s\tilde{\alpha}_1(s)$, the expansion is taken up to 5th order. Then, expanding $\tilde{a}_1(u)$ in partial fractions [@KOF], $$\tilde{a}_1(u)=\sum_{j=1}^5\frac{c_j}{u-u_j}
\:\: ; \:\:
c_j=c(u_j) \:\: ; \:\: c(u)=\frac{n(u)}{d'(u)},
\label{APF}$$ where $u_j$ are the roots of $d(u)$, and using the inverse transform of $1/(\sqrt{s}+a)$ [@ABR], we finally obtain $$a_1(t)=\sqrt{i}e^{-i\omega_{11}t}\sum_{j=1}^5c_j\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi t}}+\sqrt{i}u_je^{iu_j^2t}\mathrm{erfc}(-\sqrt{i}u_j\sqrt{t})\right].
\label{Aa1}$$
Metal waveguide realization: ohmic losses
-----------------------------------------
We consider ohmic losses on the four conducting plates that make up the waveguide. The dissipated power per unit area of a plate is given by $$dP_{loss}/dS=0.5|J_s|^2R_s,
\label{APs}$$ where $S$ is the area, $R_s$ its surface resistance [@ORF]. In order to find the surface current $J_s$ we should first find the electric field of the dipole inside the waveguide. Assuming, as before, that the dipole is oriented to the $z$ direction, its field is a superposition of evanescent $TM_{mn}$ modes of a single $\omega_a<\omega_{mn}$ photon, $$\mathbf{E}_{mn}(\mathbf{r})=i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar \omega_a}{2\epsilon_0}}\mathbf{u}^{TM}_{mn,\omega_a}(\mathbf{r}),
\label{AE}$$ where $\mathbf{u}^{TM}_{mn,\omega_a}(\mathbf{r})$ is given by Eq. (\[Auk\]) with $\kappa=(1/c)\sqrt{\omega_{mn}^2-\omega_a^2}$ replacing $-ik_z$ and $2\kappa$ replacing $1/L$. We then find the corresponding magnetic field using the Maxwell equations for TM modes [@KONG; @ORF], $$\mathbf{H}_{mn}(\mathbf{r})=-\frac{c^2}{\omega_{mn}^2}i\omega_a\epsilon_0\mathbf{\nabla}_{\perp}\times(\mathbf{E}_{mn}\cdot\mathbf{e}_z),
\label{H}$$ $\mathbf{\nabla}_{\perp}=\partial_x\mathbf{e}_x+\partial_y\mathbf{e}_y$ being the curl operator in the $xy$ plane. The surface currents on the plates are found from the surface boundary conditions for the magnetic fields, $\mathbf{J}_s=\mathbf{e}_n\times\mathbf{H}$, with $\mathbf{e}_n$ the normal to the surface. Finally we integrate Eq. (\[APs\]) over the plate area, e.g., for the plate at $y=b$, $P_{loss}=2\int_0^{\infty}dz\int_0^a dx 0.5|J_s|^2R_s$. By defining the dissipation rate per $TM_{mn}$ mode as $\gamma^{mn}_{loss}=P_{loss}/(\hbar\omega_a)$, we find for all four plates, $$\gamma^{mn}_{loss}=\left[\frac{2}{\left(\frac{m}{n}\frac{b}{a}\right)^2+1}\right]\frac{R_s}{\mu_0b}+
\left[\frac{2}{\left(\frac{n}{m}\frac{a}{b}\right)^2+1}\right]\frac{R_s}{\mu_0 a}.
\label{Aloss}$$ Then, for the case $a=b$, the total dissipation of a single photon field from the atom is bounded by $2\frac{R_s}{\mu_0 a}$.
Fiber-Bragg-grating realization
-------------------------------
We briefly show how we can relate the fiber-Bragg-grating case to the theory derived for the MWG in the main text. The dispersion of a transverse fiber-mode with a Bragg-grating is [@FBG], $$\omega(k_z)-\omega_B=\pm \frac{1}{2}\frac{\Delta n}{\bar{n}}\omega_B\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{2}{\Delta n}\right)^2\left(\frac{k_z}{k_ B}-1\right)^2},$$ where $k_B=\omega_B/c=\pi/(\Lambda \bar{n})$ is the Bragg wavevector, $\Lambda$ the grating period, $\bar{n}$ the average refractive index and $\Delta n$ the index difference of the grating. Near the upper cutoff of the bandgap, $k_z$ is close to $k_B$ and we approximate the dispersion as $$\omega(k_z)\approx\omega_u+B(k_z-k_B)^2,$$ where $\omega_u=\omega_B(1+0.5\Delta n/\bar{n})$ is the upper bandedge and $B=\left(\frac{c}{\bar{n}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\bar{n}}{\Delta n}\right)\frac{1}{\omega_B}$. Then, the density of states is $$\frac{\partial k_z}{\partial \omega}\approx\frac{\bar{n}}{c}\sqrt{\frac{\bar{n}}{4\Delta n}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\omega/\omega_u)-1}},
\label{ADP}$$ where $\omega_B\approx\omega_u$ was taken. There are three terms on the right-hand-side of Eq. (\[ADP\]): the first is a linear dispersion contribution of a mode with group velocity $c/\bar{n}$, while the second increases the usual density of states by a constant factor. The third term is the divergence due to the bandedge. The spectrum of the fiber mode will then have the form \[see Eq. (7)\] $$G_{\alpha\alpha}(\omega)\sim\frac{\Gamma_u}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\omega/\omega_u)-1}},$$ where $\Gamma_u$ is similar to the free space spontaneous emission rate. This is the spectrum assumed in our non-Markovian theory for the MWG, with $\omega_u,\Gamma_u$ replacing $\omega_{11},\Gamma_{11}$.
M.O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, *Quantum Optics* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997); L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, *Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms* (Courier Dover Publications, 1987). L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature **414**, 413 (2001); N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83**, 33 (2011). B. Julsgaard and K. M[ø]{}lmer, Phys. Rev. A **85**, 032327 (2012); B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin, and E. S. Polzik, Nature (London) **413**, 400 (2001). B.M. Garraway, P. L. Knight, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Scr. **T76**, 152 (1998); F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Nature Phys. **5**, 633 (2009); K. G. H. Vollbrecht, C. A. Muschik, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 120502 (2011); G. S. Agarwal, R. R. Puri, and R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. A **56**, 2249 (1997); S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Buchler. and P. Zoller, Nature Phys. **4**, 878 (2008); G. Gordon and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 110503 (2006); G. Gordon and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. A **83**, 032321 (2011); G. Gordon, N. Erez and G. Kurizki, J. Phys. B **40**, S75 (2007). D. D. Bhaktavatsala Rao, N. Bar-Gill, and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 010404 (2011); D. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 277901 (2002); G. Kurizki, A. G. Kofman, and V. Yudson, Phys. Rev. A **53**, R35 (1996); D. Petrosyan and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 207902 (2002). R. Schmitt, EDN, March 2, 2000. D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran, *Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics* (Academic, London, 1984). R. H. Lehmberg, Phys. Rev. A **2**, 883 (1970). G. Lenz and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A **48**, 3365 (1993). A. Gonzalez-Tudela, D. Martin-Cano, E. Moreno, L. Martin-Moreno, C. Tejedor and F. J. Garcia-Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett **106**, 020501 (2011). D. Dzsotjan, A. S. S[ø]{}rensen and M. Fleischhauer, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 075427 (2010). D. Dzsotjan, J. Kästel, and M. Fleischhauer, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 075419 (2011). G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. A **42**, 2915 (1990); G. Kurizki and J. W. Haus, J. Mod. Opt. **41**, 171 (1994). T. Kobayashi, Q. Zheng and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. A **52**, 2835 (1995). G. I. Kweon and N. M. Lawandy, J. Mod. Opt. **41**, 311 (1994). C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, *Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applications*, (WILEY-VCH, 2004). H. J. Carmichael, *Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1* , (Springer, 1998). R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. **93**, 99 (1954); E. A. Sete, A. A. Svidzinsky, H. Eleuch, Z. Yang, R. D. Nevels and M O. Scully , J. Mod. Opt. **57**, 1311 (2010); A. A. Svidzinsky, J. -T. Chang, and M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 160504 (2008); J.H. Eberly, J. Phys. B **39**, s599 (2006); I. Mazets and G. Kurizki, J. Phys. B **40**, F105 (2007); H. Zoubi and H. Ritsch, Europhys. Lett. **90**, 23001 (2010); R. Friedberg, S. R. Hartmann, and J. T. Manassah, Phys. Rep. **7**, 101 (1973); M. O. Scully and A. A. Svidzinsky, Science **328**, 1239 (2010); J. Keaveney, A. Sargsyan, U. Krohn, I. G. Hughes, D. Sarkisyan, and C. S. Adams, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 173601 (2012) J. A. Kong, *Electromagnetic Wave Theory*, (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1986). W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 2245 (1998). A.G. Kofman, G. Kurizki and B. Sherman, J. Mod. Opt. **41**, 353 (1994). B. Piraux, R. Bhatt, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A **41**, 6296 (1990). S. Kuhr *et al.*, Appl. Phys. Lett. **90**, 164101 (2007). J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. **73**, 565 (2001). J. Chen, B. Huang and W. Jiang, Int. J. Numer. Model. **23**, 522 (2012). M. Bajcsy, S. Hofferberth, V. Balic, T. Peyronel, M. Hafezi, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 203902 (2009). E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagué, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 203603 (2010). C. M. de Sterke, N. G. R. Broderick, B. J. Eggleton and M. J. Steel, Optical Fiber Technology **2**, 253 (1996). M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun, *Handbook of Mathematical Functions* (Washington DC: National Bureau of Standards, 1964). S. J. Orfanidis, *Electromagnetic Waves and Antennas*, www.ece.rutgers.edu/\~orfanidi/ewa (2010).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this work we derive a simple argument which shows that Gabor systems consisting of odd functions of $d$ variables and symplectic lattices of density $2^d$ cannot constitute a Gabor frame. In the 1–dimensional, separable case, this is a special case of a result proved by Lyubarskii and Nes, however, we use a different approach in this work exploiting the algebraic relation between the ambiguity function and the Wigner distribution as well as their relation given by the (symplectic) Fourier transform. Also, we do not need the assumption that the lattice is separable and, hence, new restrictions are added to the full frame set of odd functions.'
address: |
Analysis Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, NTNU Trondheim\
Sentralbygg 2, Gløshaugen, Trondheim, Norway
author:
- Markus Faulhuber
title: A Short Note on the Frame Set of Odd Functions
---
[^1]
Introduction and Main Result {#sec_Intro}
============================
In this short note we show that the full frame set of any odd function of $d$ variables in Feichtinger’s algebra cannot contain symplectic lattices of density $2^d$. In the 1–dimensional, separable case, this is a special case of a more general result derived by Lyubarskii and Nes [@LyubarskiiNes_Rational_2013] who could show that no odd window function $g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}})$ can produce a separable Gabor frame of redundancy $\frac{n+1}{n}$, $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ by studying the vector–valued Zak transform and Zebulski–Zeevi matrices. For an alternative proof of this result see the survey article by Gröchenig [@Gro14].
However, our arguments are somewhat simpler and hold for symplectic lattices in arbitrary dimension $d$, which makes up for the drawback that we do not derive more general results. The key argument is that the Wigner distribution is the symplectic Fourier transform of the ambiguity function and that they also fulfill a simple algebraic relation. Moreover, our arguments show that, after a proper scaling, the cross Wigner distribution of any function in Feichtinger’s algebra and any even function in Feichtinger’s algebra is an eigenfunction of the symplectic Fourier transform with eigenvalue 1 and the pairing with any odd function in Feichtinger’s algebra is an eigenfunction with eigenvalue -1. This work concerns the fine structure of Gabor frames as described in [@Gro14], i.e., relations between the properties of a fixed window and its frame set. For a (window) function $g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ and an index set ${\Lambda}\subset {\mathbb{R}^{2d}}$, we denote the resulting Gabor system by ${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda})$. The (full) frame set of the window $g$ is given by $$\mathfrak{F}_{full}(g) = \{ {\Lambda}\subset {\mathbb{R}^{2d}}, {\Lambda}\text{ a lattice} \mid {\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda}) \text{ is a frame} \}.$$ Inspired by the work of Lemvig [@Lemvig_Hermite_2016], the original intention of this short note was to show up simple restrictions for the full frame set of odd (1–dimensional) Hermite functions by showing that certain sums vanish, but the restriction to this very special class of functions turned out to be unnecessary. Unfortunately, we do not get any new insights into the frame set of even (Hermite) functions. Among other counterexamples, Lemvig showed that the square lattice of density 2 does not generate a Gabor frame for the second Hermite function (the Gaussian being indexed as 0–th Hermite function), which was the first known obstruction to the frame set of the second Hermite function. Numerical inspections suggest that, for the second Hermite function, among all separable lattices of density 2 the square lattice is the only lattice which does not yield a Gabor frame, in particular, in case of the square lattice the lower frame bound is zero and it yields the global minimum of the lower frame bound seen as a function of the lattice parameters. This example stands in sharp contrast to the results given in [@FaulhuberSteinerberger_Theta_2017], where it is shown that under the same assumptions, but using the Gaussian instead of the second Hermite function, the square lattice gives the global maximum of the lower frame bound seen as a function of the lattice parameters. The common theme, however, is that in both cases the highest possible symmetry of the lattice leads to extremal frame bounds. It was proven in [@Faulhuber_Hexagonal_2018] that, for a Gabor frame of even redundancy with standard Gaussian window, the hexagonal lattice yields the smallest upper frame bound among all lattices. We conjecture that the hexagonal lattice should also give the largest lower frame bound in this case. So, we pose the following question: For the second Hermite function, does the Gabor system generated by the hexagonal lattice of density 2 have a positive lower frame bound? The results by Lemvig tempt us to think that this might not the be case, but numerical inspections say that we actually have a Gabor frame with approximate lower frame bound $0.29 \dots$ .
Our main result, however, concerns odd windows in Feichtinger’s algebra which we denote by $S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ (another common notation is $M^1({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$).
\[thm\_main\] Let $g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ be an odd function, i.e., $g(t) = -g(-t)$ and let ${\Lambda}\subset {\mathbb{R}^{2d}}$ be a symplectic lattice in the time–frequency plane. If ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda}) = 2^{-d}$ then ${\mathcal{G}}(g, {\Lambda})$ cannot be a Gabor frame, or, in shorter notation: $$\text{If } g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}}), \, g(t) = -g(-t) \text{ and } {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda}) = 2^{-d}, \, {\Lambda}\text{ symplectic} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad {\Lambda}\notin \mathfrak{F}_{full}(g).$$
Theorem \[thm\_main\] particularly implies that for $d=1$ no lattice of density 2 can be contained in the frame set of an odd function from Feichtinger’s algebra.
This work is structured as follows:
- In Section \[sec\_TFA\] we recall the basic properties of Gabor frames for the Hilbert space ${L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$. After that, we introduce quadratic representations of a function $f \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ with respect to a (fixed) window $g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, namely the short–time Fourier transform, the ambiguity function and the Wigner distribution. We show their algebraic relations as well as their relation under the symplectic Fourier transform and introduce the symplectic version of Poisson’s summation formula. Also, we will see that Feichtinger’s algebra is a convenient setting for our purposes.
- In Section \[sec\_sharp\_bounds\] we show how sharp frame bounds can be calculated, using the results established by Janssen in the 1990s. These results finally lead to the proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\].
Gabor Frames and Time–Frequency Analysis in a nutshell {#sec_TFA}
======================================================
We consider Gabor frames for the Hilbert space of square integrable functions in $d$–dimensional Euclidean space ${L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$. Concerning the notation we follow mainly the textbook of Gröchenig [@Gro01]. A more recent introduction to the topic is the $2^{nd}$ edition of Christensen’s textbook [@Christensen_2016].
As our functions will be defined pointwise and at least continuous in the remainder of this work the following notation for the inner product in ${L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ is justified; $$\langle f, g \rangle = \int_{{\mathbb{R}^{d}}} f(t) \overline{g(t)} \, dt.$$ For two vectors $t$ and $t'$ in ${\mathbb{R}^{d}}$ we denote the Euclidean scalar product by $t \cdot t'$.
The key elements in time-frequency analysis are the translation operator $T_x$ (time shift) and the modulation operator $M_\omega$ (frequency shift) which are defined as $$T_x f(t) = f(t-x) \qquad \text{ and } \qquad M_\omega f(t) = e^{2 \pi i \omega \cdot t} f(t).$$ For a function in the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ we define the Fourier transform by $${\mathcal{F}}f(\omega) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(t) e^{-2 \pi i \omega \cdot t} \, dt,$$ which extends to a unitary operator on ${L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ by the usual density argument. The Fourier transform has the well–known properties of interchanging translation and modulation, i.e., $${\mathcal{F}}(T_xf) = M_{-x} \, {\mathcal{F}}f \qquad \text{ and } \qquad {\mathcal{F}}(M_\omega f) = T_\omega \, {\mathcal{F}}f.$$ The translation (time shift) and modulation (freuqency shift) operator do not commute in general, but they fulfill the following commutation relation $$\label{eq_comm_rel}
M_\omega T_x = e^{2 \pi i \omega \cdot x} T_x M_\omega.$$ Hence, the combination of the two operators is called a time–frequency shift and usually denoted by $$\pi ({\lambda}) = M_\omega T_x, \qquad {\lambda}= (x,\omega) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2,$$ where ${\lambda}$ is a point in the time–frequency plane or phase space. The composition of two time–frequency shifts is given by $$\pi({\lambda})\pi({\lambda}') = e^{-2 \pi i x \cdot \omega'} \pi({\lambda}+ {\lambda}').$$
A Gabor system is a collection of time–frequency shifted copies of a so–called window function $g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{})}$ with respect to an index set ${\Lambda}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and it is denoted by $${\mathcal{G}}(g, {\Lambda}) = \{\pi({\lambda}) g \mid {\lambda}\in {\Lambda}\}.$$ Throughout this work, ${\Lambda}$ will be a lattice, i.e., a discrete subgroup of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$. A lattice can be represented by an invertible matrix $M \in GL(2d,{\mathbb{R}})$ and is then given by ${\Lambda}= M {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$. The matrix $M$ is not unique since we can choose from countably many possible bases for ${\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$. For example, if $d=1$, then any matrix $\mathcal{B}$ with integer entries and determinant 1, i.e., $\mathcal{B} \in SL(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$, satisfies $\mathcal{B} {\mathbb{Z}}^2 = {\mathbb{Z}}^2$. Although the representing matrix is not unique its determinant is. We define the volume of a lattice ${\Lambda}= M {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$ by $${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda}) = |\det(M)|.$$ The density of a lattice is given by the reciprocal of the volume, i.e., $\delta({\Lambda}) = {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1}$. Usually, a lattice is called separable if it can be written as $\alpha {\mathbb{Z}}^d \times \beta {\mathbb{Z}}^d$, $\alpha, \beta \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$. Alternative definitions of a separable lattice are that the generating matrix is a diagonal matrix, or, in the most general case, that the lattice separates as $M_1 {\mathbb{Z}}^d \times M_2 {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ with $M_1$, $M_2 \in GL(d,{\mathbb{R}})$. For $d=1$ all definitions coincide.
A Gabor system ${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda})$ is called a Gabor frame if and only if the frame inequality is fulfilled, i.e., $$\label{eq_frame}
A {\big\lVertf\big\rVert}^2 \leq \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} \left| \langle f , \pi({\lambda}) g \rangle \right|^2 \leq B {\big\lVertf\big\rVert}^2, \quad \forall f \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})},$$ with positive constants $0 < A \leq B < \infty$ called frame bounds. In general, a Gabor frame is a redundant system and the redundancy of a Gabor system is given by the density of the underlying lattice. If all elements of the Gabor system ${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda})$ have unit norm, the redundancy also reflects itself in the frame bounds. We note that in the case of an orthonormal basis we have $ A = B = 1$.
Symmetric Time–Frequency Shifts {#subsec_symmetric}
-------------------------------
It will be advantageous to consider symmetric time–frequency shifts instead of usual time–frequency shifts. The symmetric time–frequency shift is given by $$\label{eq_TF_shift_symmetric}
\rho({\lambda}) = M_{\tfrac{\omega}{2}} T_x M_{\tfrac{\omega}{2}} = T_{\tfrac{x}{2}} M_\omega T_{\tfrac{x}{2}} = e^{-\pi i x \cdot \omega} \, \pi({\lambda}).$$ We note that $$\rho({\lambda}) \rho({\lambda}') = e^{-\pi i (x \cdot \omega' - x' \cdot \omega)} \rho({\lambda}+{\lambda}').$$ The Gabor system under consideration is then $$\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}(g, {\Lambda}) = \{ \rho({\lambda}) g \mid {\lambda}\in {\Lambda}\}.$$ This system is a frame if and only if there exist positive constants $0 < A \leq B < \infty$ such that $$\label{eq_frame_symmetric}
A {\big\lVertf\big\rVert}^2 \leq \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} \left| \langle f , \rho({\lambda}) g \rangle \right|^2 \leq B {\big\lVertf\big\rVert}^2, \quad \forall f \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})},$$ It follows from that the optimal constants $A,B$ in equations and are the same. In particular, ${\mathcal{G}}(g, {\Lambda})$ is a frame if and only if $\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}(g, {\Lambda})$ is a frame. In the rest of this work we will work with the Gabor system $\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}(g, {\Lambda})$ as the phase factors are easier to handle in this case.
Phase–Space Methods
-------------------
The short–time Fourier transform (STFT) and the ambiguity function are often used to measure time frequency concentration. They are defined in similar ways and, in fact, they only differ by a phase factor, i.e., a complex exponential of modulus 1. We will now introduce the necessary tools to prove Theorem \[thm\_main\]. For more details we refer to the textbooks of Folland [@Fol89], de Gosson [@Gos11; @Gosson_Wigner_2017] or Gröchenig [@Gro01].
For $f \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, the short–time Fourier transform with respect to the window $g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{})}$ is defined as $${\mathcal{V}}_g f(x, \omega) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}^{d}}} f(t) \overline{g(t-x)} e^{-2 \pi i \omega \cdot t} \, dt = \langle f, \pi({\lambda}) g \rangle, \qquad {\lambda}= (x,\omega) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2d}.$$
Before we continue, we introduce the function space which will be most suitable for our intentions, namely Feichtinger’s algebra $S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$, introduced by Feichtinger in the early 1980s [@Fei81]. There are several equivalent definitions of $S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ and we prefer to use the following definition.
Feichtinger’s algebra $S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ consists of all elements $g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ such that $${\big\lVert{\mathcal{V}}_g g\big\rVert}_{L^1({\mathbb{R}}^{2d})} = \iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^{2d}} \left| V_g g({\lambda}) \right| \, d{\lambda}< \infty, \qquad {\lambda}= (x,\omega) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2d} .$$
We note the following properties of $S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$. It is a Banach space, invariant under the Fourier transform and time–frequency shifts. It contains the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ and it is dense in ${L^p}({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$, $p \in [1,\infty [$. It is for these properties that it is a quite popular function space in time–frequency analysis and the literature on the subject is huge. For more details on $S_0$ we refer to the survey by Jakobsen [@Jakobsen_S0_2018] and the references therein.
We turn to another time–frequency representation, which is defined similarly to the STFT.
For $f, \, g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, the (cross) ambiguity function is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}_g f(x, \omega) & = \int_{{\mathbb{R}^{d}}} f(t+\tfrac{x}{2}) \overline{g(t-\tfrac{x}{2})} e^{-2 \pi i \omega \cdot t} \, dt\\
& = \langle \pi(-\tfrac{{\lambda}}{2}) f, \pi(\tfrac{{\lambda}}{2}) g \rangle = \langle f, \rho({\lambda}) g \rangle, \qquad {\lambda}= (x,\omega) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2d}.
\end{aligned}$$
Both, ${\mathcal{V}}_g f$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_g f$ are uniformly continuous on ${\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$. Due to relation , which is a consequence of the commutation relation , we have that $${\mathcal{A}}_g f(x,\omega) = e^{\pi i \omega \cdot x} {\mathcal{V}}_g f(x,\omega).$$ In particular this means that $|{\mathcal{V}}_gf| \equiv |A_gf|$. We will now introduce a quadratic representation of a function $f \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ which is usually used in quantum mechanics, the Wigner distribution.
For $f, \, g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, the (cross) Wigner distribution is defined as $${\mathcal{W}}_g f(x, \omega) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x+\tfrac{t}{2}) \overline{g(x-\tfrac{t}{2})} e^{-2 \pi i \omega \cdot t} \, dt, \qquad x,\omega \in {\mathbb{R}^{d}}.$$
For the rest of this work, we will drop the index in all of the above definitions if $f = g$. The Wigner distribution is related to the ambiguity function (and, hence, in a similar way to the STFT) by the symplectic Fourier transform. In order to define the symplectic Fourier transform, we first equip our phase space with a symplectic structure. In what follows the vectors ${\lambda}= (x,\omega)$ and ${\lambda}' = (x', \omega')$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$ are always seen as column vectors and the scalar product of two vectors in the phase space is again denoted by ${\lambda}\cdot {\lambda}'$. We define the symplectic form $$\sigma({\lambda},{\lambda}') = x \cdot \omega' - \omega \cdot x' = {\lambda}\cdot J {\lambda}' = {\lambda}^T J {\lambda},$$ where $J = {
\left(
\begin{array}{rc}
0 & I\\
-I & 0
\end{array}
\right)
}$ is the standard symplectic matrix and $I$ the $d \times d$ identity matrix. A matrix $S$ is called symplectic if and only if it preserves the symplectic form, i.e., $$\sigma(S {\lambda}, S {\lambda}') = \sigma({\lambda}, {\lambda}'),$$ or, equivalently, $$S^T J S = J.$$
As mentioned, it will turn out to be convenient to use a slightly different version of the Fourier transform in phase space, the symplectic Fourier transform.
For $F \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}}^{2d})$ the symplectic Fourier transform is given by $${\mathcal{F}}_\sigma F (x, \omega) = \iint_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} F({\lambda}') e^{-2 \pi i \, \sigma({\lambda},{\lambda}')} \, d{\lambda}', \quad {\lambda}= (x,\omega), \, {\lambda}' = (x', \omega') \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2d}.$$
Of course, the symplectic Fourier transform extends to all of ${L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{2d})}$ by the usual density argument (just as the Fourier transform). A tool which is heavily exploited in time-frequency analysis is the Poisson summation formula which we will use for $2d$–dimensional lattices. The technical details for the Poisson summation formula to hold pointwise have been worked by Gröchenig in [@Gro_Poisson_1996]. Since our functions under consideration are in $S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$, their Wigner distributions as well as their ambiguity functions will be elements of Feichtinger’s algebra in phase space, i.e., elements of $S_0({\mathbb{R}}^{2d})$ (see [@Jakobsen_S0_2018 chap. 5]). This assumption is sufficient for Poisson’s summation formula to hold pointwise.
For $F \in S_0({\mathbb{R}}^{2d})$ and a lattice ${\Lambda}= M {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$ with dual lattice ${\Lambda}^\bot = M^{-T} {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$ we have $$\sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} F({\lambda}+z) = {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\bot \in {\Lambda}^\bot} {\mathcal{F}}F({\lambda}^\bot) e^{2 \pi i {\lambda}^\bot \cdot z}, \quad {\lambda}, {\lambda}^\bot, z \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2d}.$$
Instead of using the $2d$–dimensional Fourier transform we can adjust this result by using the symplectic Fourier transform and the adjoint lattice instead of the dual lattice. The adjoint of a lattice ${\Lambda}= M {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$ is given by ${\Lambda}^\circ = J M^{-T} {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$. Under the assumptions of Poisson’s summation formula we get $$\sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} F({\lambda}+z) = {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{F}}_\sigma F({\lambda}^\circ) e^{2 \pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ, z)}, \quad {\lambda}, {\lambda}^\circ, z \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$$
We say that a lattice is symplectic if its generating matrix is a multiple of a symplectic matrix, i.e., ${\Lambda}= c \, S {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$ with $c > 0$ and $S \in Sp(d)$, with $Sp(d)$ being the set of all symplectic $2d \times 2d$ matrices. We note that symplectic matrices actually form a group under matrix multiplication and that any symplectic matrix has determinant 1 and, hence, $Sp(d) \subset SL(2d,{\mathbb{R}})$. In general $Sp(d)$ is a proper subgroup of the special linear group $SL(2d,{\mathbb{R}})$, only for $d = 1$ we have that $Sp(1) = SL(2,{\mathbb{R}})$. In particular, it follows that any 2–dimensional lattice is symplectic. In general, it follows from the definition of a symplectic matrix that $${\Lambda}^\circ = {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1/d} {\Lambda}, \quad {\Lambda}\text{ symplectic},$$ because, by definition, $S \in Sp(d) \Leftrightarrow S = J S^{-T} J^{-1}$ and for ${\Lambda}= c \, S {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, $c > 0$ we have ${\Lambda}^\circ = c^{-1} J S^{-T} J^{-1} {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d} = c^{-1} J S^{-T} {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$, as $J^{-1}$ is just another choice of basis for ${\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$. Hence, for ${\Lambda}$ symplectic the adjoint lattice is only a scaled version of the original lattice.
As a last point in this section, we have a closer look at the relation between the ambiguity function (and hence the STFT) and the Wigner distribution. We start with their relation given by the symplectic Fourier transform.
\[pro\_symp\_Fourier\] For $f,g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, the ambiguity function and the Wigner distribution are symplectic Fourier transforms of each other, i.e, $${\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left({\mathcal{A}}_g f\right) (x,\omega) = {\mathcal{W}}_g f(x, \omega) \quad \text{ and } \quad {\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left({\mathcal{W}}_g f\right) (x,\omega) = {\mathcal{A}}_g f(x, \omega)$$
Also, we have the following algebraic relation between the ambiguity function and the Wigner distribution.
\[pro\_algebraic\] For $f,g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, the ambiguity function and the Wigner distribution fulfill $${\mathcal{W}}_g f(x,\omega) = 2^d {\mathcal{A}}_{g^\vee} f(2x, 2\omega) \qquad \text{ and } \qquad
{\mathcal{A}}_g f(x, \omega) = 2^{-d} {\mathcal{W}}_{g^\vee} f \left( \tfrac{x}{2}, \tfrac{\omega}{2} \right),$$ where $g^\vee (t) = g(-t)$ denotes the reflection of $g$.
We proceed with some more results regarding the ambiguity function and the Wigner distribution which we will need in the end to prove our main result. But first, we introduce some notation. For a function $F$ in phase space, the isotropic dilation is given by $$D_\alpha F(x, \omega) = F(\alpha x, \alpha \omega), \quad \alpha \in {\mathbb{R}}_+.$$ The behavior of this operator under the symplectic Fourier transform is given by $$\label{eq_symplectic_FT_dilation}
{\mathcal{F}}_\sigma (D_\alpha F)(x, \omega) = \alpha^{-2d} D_{\frac{1}{\alpha}} \, {\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \, F(x, \omega).$$
\[lem\_Fourier\_symp\] For $f,g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ with $g^\vee = g$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left(D_{\sqrt{2}} \, {\mathcal{A}}_g f \right)(x, \omega) & = D_{\sqrt{2}} \, {\mathcal{A}}_g f(x, \omega),\\
{\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left(D_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \, {\mathcal{W}}_g f \right)(x, \omega) & = D_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \, {\mathcal{W}}_g f(x, \omega).
\end{aligned}$$ If $-g^\vee = g$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left(D_{\sqrt{2}} \, {\mathcal{A}}_g f \right)(x, \omega) & = - D_{\sqrt{2}} \, {\mathcal{A}}_g f(x, \omega),\\
{\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left(D_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \, {\mathcal{W}}_g f \right)(x, \omega) & = - D_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} \, {\mathcal{W}}_g f(x, \omega).
\end{aligned}$$
This is an immediate consequence of Proposition \[pro\_symp\_Fourier\] and Proposition \[pro\_algebraic\]. By using Proposition \[pro\_symp\_Fourier\] and we get $${\mathcal{F}}_\sigma (D_{\sqrt{2}} \, {\mathcal{A}}_g f) (x, \omega) = 2^{-d} \, D_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} {\mathcal{W}}_g f (x, \omega)
= D_{\sqrt{2}} \left(2^{-d} {\mathcal{W}}_g f \left( \tfrac{x}{2}, \tfrac{\omega}{2} \right) \right).$$ Now, by the algebraic property from Proposition \[pro\_algebraic\] we conclude that $${\mathcal{F}}_\sigma (D_{\sqrt{2}} \, {\mathcal{A}}_g f)(x, \omega) = D_{\sqrt{2}} \, {\mathcal{A}}_{g^\vee} f(x, \omega).$$ In a similar manner we derive the analogous statement for ${\mathcal{W}}_g f$. The results follow from the definitions of ${\mathcal{A}}_g f$ and ${\mathcal{W}}_g f$ and the assumptions that $\pm g^\vee = g$.
In [@PeiLiu_FourierHermite_2012] it was shown that the (suitably scaled) cross Wigner distributions of two Hermite functions as well as tensor products of Hermite functions are eigenfunctions of the planar (2–dimensional) Fourier transform with eigenvalues $\pm 1$, depending on the pairing. In [@Lanzara_2017] another example of a “nonstandard" eigenfunction of the planar Fourier transform was given, namely the function $F(x, \omega) = \frac{\sqrt{x^2+\omega^2}}{x \omega}$ (integrals have to be understood as Cauchy principal values in this case). All these examples are invariant under rotation (also the presented set of eigenfunctions is countable). Lemma \[lem\_Fourier\_symp\] gives us an uncountable set of examples of eigenfunctions of the symplectic Fourier transform which do not necessarily possess any rotational symmetries.
For the next result, we recall that ${\mathcal{W}}_g f \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}^{2d})$ if and only if $f,g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ (see [@Gosson_Wigner_2017 chap. 7] or [@Jakobsen_S0_2018]). Also, if $f,g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$, then the Wigner distribution ${\mathcal{W}}_g f$ is in $S_0({\mathbb{R}}^{2d})$ (see [@Jakobsen_S0_2018]), which means that $${\mathcal{W}}_g f \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}^{2d}) \Longleftrightarrow {\mathcal{W}}_g f \in S_0({\mathbb{R}}^{2d}).$$ This statement holds, of course, for the ambiguity function ${\mathcal{A}}_g f$ and for the STFT ${\mathcal{V}}_g f$. Also, the assumptions for Poisson’s summation formula to hold pointwise are met and we derive the following result.
\[lem\_sum\_0\] Let $f,g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ and let $g$ be an odd function and ${\Lambda}$ a symplectic lattice with ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} = 2^d$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} {\mathcal{W}}_g f({\lambda}) & = - \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} {\mathcal{W}}_g f({\lambda}) = 0, \\
\sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{A}}_g f({\lambda}^\circ) & = - \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{A}}_g f({\lambda}^\circ) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
By the symplectic version of Poisson’s summation formula we have $$\sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} {\mathcal{W}}_g f({\lambda}) = \underbrace{{\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1}}_{=2^d} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left( {\mathcal{W}}_g f \right)({\lambda}^\circ)$$ By Proposition \[pro\_symp\_Fourier\] we have $$2^d \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left( {\mathcal{W}}_g f \right)({\lambda}^\circ) = 2^d \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{A}}_g f({\lambda}^\circ)$$ and by the algebraic relation in Proposition \[pro\_algebraic\] we have $$2^d \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{A}}_g f({\lambda}^\circ) = 2^d \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} 2^{-d} {\mathcal{W}}_{g^\vee} f(2^{-1} {\lambda}^\circ) = - \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} {\mathcal{W}}_g f({\lambda}),$$ since $g^\vee = - g$, ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} = 2^d$ and, hence, $2^{-1} {\Lambda}^\circ = {\Lambda}$ as ${\Lambda}$ is symplectic. Therefore, the statement about the Wigner distribution follows. The statement for the ambiguity function follows analogously.
An alternative (but equivalent) proof can be established by using Lemma \[lem\_Fourier\_symp\]: Let $f, g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$, $-g^\vee = g$ and ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} = 1$ (note that in this case ${\Lambda}= {\Lambda}^\circ$), then $$\sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} D_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} {\mathcal{W}}_g f ({\lambda}) = \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{F}}_\sigma \left(D_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} {\mathcal{W}}_g f \right) ({\lambda}) = \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} - D_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}} {\mathcal{W}}_g f ({\lambda}).$$ The analogous statement for ${\mathcal{A}}_g f$ obviously holds as well. Now, note that dilating the lattice and dilating the Wigner distribution are two equivalent ways to establish the result.
Sharp Frame Bounds {#sec_sharp_bounds}
==================
In this section we have a closer look at the frame operator and its spectrum. We will mainly follow Janssen’s articles [@Jan95; @Jan96]. The main differences are that we formulate the results for symplectic lattices in $2d$–dimensional phase space rather than for separable lattices in 2–dimensional phase space. Also, we use symmetric time–frequency shifts which only changes the appearing phase factors. For non–separable lattices, they will be easier to handle later on with this approach. Building on the results of the previous section, we will finally show that for odd windows in $S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ and ${\Lambda}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$ a lattice in phase space with ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} = 2^d$, the lower frame bound of the Gabor system $\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}(g,{\Lambda})$ vanishes. By the comments in Section \[subsec\_symmetric\] this is equivalent to the fact that the Gabor system ${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda})$ does not generate a frame, which is our main result.
The frame operator associated to the Gabor system $\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}(g, {\Lambda})$ is denoted by $\widetilde{S}_{g,{\Lambda}}$ and given by $$\widetilde{S}_{g,{\Lambda}} f = \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} \left\langle f, \rho({\lambda}) g \right\rangle \rho({\lambda}) g, \qquad f \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}.$$ Another, very useful, representation of the frame operator is due to Janssen [@Jan95] and usually called Janssen’s representation of the frame operator $$\widetilde{S}_{g,{\Lambda}} = {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} \left\langle g, \rho({\lambda}^\circ) g \right\rangle \rho({\lambda}^\circ).$$ The frame operator is the composition of the analysis and the synthesis operator, which are adjoint to each other. The analysis operator maps a function from ${L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ to ${\ell^2}({\Lambda})$, ${\Lambda}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$ and is given by $$\widetilde{G}_{g,{\Lambda}} f = \left( \langle f, \rho({\lambda}) g \rangle \right)_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}}.$$ Its adjoint is called the synthesis operator, mapping sequences $c = (c_{\lambda})_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} \in {\ell^2}({\Lambda})$ to ${L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$, and is given by $$\widetilde{G}^*_{g,{\Lambda}} c = \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}} c_{\lambda}\, \rho({\lambda}) g.$$ The frame operator can be written as $$\widetilde{S}_{g,{\Lambda}} = \widetilde{G}^*_{g,{\Lambda}} \widetilde{G}_{g,{\Lambda}}.$$ The following result is a straightforward generalization of the main result in [@Jan95], where Janssen showed it for $d=1$ and ${\Lambda}$ separable.
The following are equivalent:
1. $\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}(g, {\Lambda})$ is a frame with bounds $A$ and $B$.
2. $A \, I_{{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}} \leq \widetilde{S}_{g,{\Lambda}} \leq B \, I_{{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}}$.
3. $A \, I_{{\ell^2}({\Lambda}^\circ)} \leq {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \widetilde{G}_{g,{\Lambda}^\circ} \widetilde{G}^*_{g,{\Lambda}^\circ} \leq B \, I_{{\ell^2}({\Lambda}^\circ)}$.
The most interesting part for this work is that we can compute the frame bounds via the eigenvalues of the bi–infinite matrix, indexed by the adjoint lattice; $$\widetilde{G}_{g,{\Lambda}^\circ} \widetilde{G}^*_{g,{\Lambda}^\circ} = \left( \langle \rho({\lambda}^\circ) g, \rho({\lambda}^\circ{'}) g \rangle \right)_{{\lambda}^\circ, {\lambda}^\circ{'} \in {\Lambda}^\circ}.$$ We proceed by calculating the values of the above matrix; $$\langle \rho({\lambda}^\circ) g, \rho({\lambda}^\circ{'}) g \rangle = \langle g, \rho(-{\lambda}^\circ) \rho({\lambda}^\circ{'}) g \rangle = e^{\pi i \, \sigma ({\lambda}^\circ, {\lambda}^\circ{'})} \langle g, \rho({\lambda}^\circ{'}-{\lambda}^\circ) g \rangle, \qquad {\lambda}^\circ, {\lambda}^\circ{'} \in {\Lambda}^\circ.$$ Assume that ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1/d} \in {\mathbb{N}}$, then the entries in ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \widetilde{G}_{g,{\Lambda}^\circ} \widetilde{G}^*_{g,{\Lambda}^\circ}$ are constant along diagonals, i.e., ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \widetilde{G}_{g,{\Lambda}^\circ} \widetilde{G}^*_{g,{\Lambda}^\circ}$ has a Laurent structure. For the time–frequency shifts $\rho({\lambda}^\circ{'}-{\lambda}^\circ)$ the argument is obvious, the only justification we have to make is that the phase factor $e^{\pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ,{\lambda}^\circ{'})}$ is constant along diagonals. We show that $\sigma({\lambda}^\circ,{\lambda}^\circ{'})$ is an integer multiple of ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1/d}$. Let ${\Lambda}= \alpha ^{1/2d} S {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$, then ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda}) = \alpha$ and ${\Lambda}^\circ = \alpha^{-1/2d} S {\mathbb{Z}}^{2d}$. Since our lattice is symplectic by assumption, the symplectic form $\sigma$ is independent from the matrix $S$ and we have $$e^{\pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ,{\lambda}^\circ{'})} = e^{\pi i \, \sigma\left(\alpha^{-1/2d} S \, (k,l)^T, \, \alpha^{-1/2d} S \, (k',l')^T\right)} = e^{{\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1/d} \pi i (k \cdot l' - k' \cdot l)}, \qquad k,l,k',l' \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d.$$ In the case that ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1/d}$ is even, the phase–factor equals $+1$ and can be neglected.
However, if ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1/d}$ is odd, the phase–factor takes the role of an alternating sign, which is constant along diagonals, i.e., it is either $+1$ or $-1$ depending on the diagonal built by ${\lambda}^\circ - {\lambda}^\circ{'}$ being constant. For this reason we focus on the case where ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1/d}$ is even.
It follows from the general theory on Toeplitz (matrices) and Laurent operators that the spectrum of such a (double) bi–infinite matrix can be computed via the essential infimum and supremum of a Fourier series, where the coefficients of the series are derived from the entries in the matrix. Using the above arguments, the following result is a straight forward generalization of the result derived by Janssen in [@Jan96] (see Appendix \[app\_Janssen\] for Janssen’s result).
\[pro\_series\] For $g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}$ and ${\Lambda}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$ with ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1/d} \in {\mathbb{N}}$ the Gabor system $\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}(g, {\Lambda})$ possesses the optimal frame bounds $$\begin{aligned}
A & = \operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{z \in {\mathbb{R}}^2} \, {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ{'} - {\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} e^{\pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ, {\lambda}^\circ{'})} {\mathcal{A}}g({\lambda}^\circ{'}-{\lambda}^\circ) \, e^{2 \pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ{'}-{\lambda}^\circ, z)}\\
B & = \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{z \in {\mathbb{R}}^2} \, {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ{'} - {\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} e^{\pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ, {\lambda}^\circ{'})} {\mathcal{A}}g({\lambda}^\circ{'}-{\lambda}^\circ) \, e^{2 \pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ{'}-{\lambda}^\circ, z)}.
\end{aligned}$$
The above series is real–valued, since we sum over a lattice the imaginary parts also appear as complex conjugates an cancel out. Note that the above series need not be convergent. In this case the upper bound might not be finite and the Gabor system might not constitute a frame. However, for windows in Feichtinger’s algebra the upper bound is always finite[^2]. As the frame operator $\widetilde{S}_{g,{\Lambda}}$ is self–adjoint and positive semi–definite we have $$0 \leq A = \operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{z \in {\mathbb{R}}^2} \, {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ{'} -{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} e^{\pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ, {\lambda}^\circ{'})} {\mathcal{A}}g({\lambda}^\circ{'}-{\lambda}^\circ) \, e^{2 \pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ{'}-{\lambda}^\circ, z)},$$ by the theory of Laurent operators. We have now all the tools we need to prove Theorem \[thm\_main\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\] {#proof-of-theorem-thm_main .unnumbered}
------------------------------
In order to prove our main result, we will show that the lower frame bound vanishes under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_main\]. For ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} = 2^d$ and due to the fact that ${\lambda}^\circ{'} - {\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ$, the series in Proposition \[pro\_series\] reduces to $$\phi(z) = {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{A}}g({\lambda}^\circ) \, e^{2 \pi i \, \sigma({\lambda}^\circ, z)}.$$ Now observe that $$\phi(0) = {\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} {\mathcal{A}}g({\lambda}^\circ),$$ which is, up to the factor ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1}$, just the series from Lemma \[lem\_sum\_0\]. Hence, we conclude that for ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} = 2^d$ and $g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$, $g^\vee = -g$ we have $\phi(0) = 0$. This is equivalent to the statement that the lower frame bound of the system $\widetilde{{\mathcal{G}}}(g, {\Lambda})$ vanishes. The same is true for the lower frame bound of the Gabor system ${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda})$. Hence, the proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\] is complete.
Janssen’s Proposition {#app_Janssen}
=====================
We will shortly state Janssen’s proposition from [@Jan96] which he used to compute sharp frame bounds for the ${L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{})}$ case. In his formulation, Janssen used the STFT rather than the ambiguity function and separable lattices rather than general lattices. Hence, Janssen’s result is a special case of Proposition \[pro\_series\], but already carries the general idea in it. For $g \in {L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{})}$ and a lattice ${\Lambda}_{(\alpha,\beta)} = \alpha {\mathbb{Z}}\times \beta {\mathbb{Z}}$, $(\alpha \beta)^{-1} \in {\mathbb{N}}$, the Gabor system ${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda}_{(\alpha, \beta)})$ possesses the optimal frame bounds $$\begin{aligned}
A & = \operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{(x,\omega) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2} \, (\alpha \beta) ^{-1} \sum_{k-k',l-l' \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\mathcal{V}}g\left( \tfrac{k-k'}{\beta}, \tfrac{l-l'}{\alpha} \right) \, e^{2 \pi i \, ((k-k') x + (l-l') \omega)}\\
B & = \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{(x,\omega) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2} \, (\alpha \beta) ^{-1} \sum_{k-k',l-l' \in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\mathcal{V}}g\left( \tfrac{k-k'}{\beta}, \tfrac{l-l'}{\alpha} \right) \, e^{2 \pi i \, ((k-k') x + (l-l') \omega)}
\end{aligned}$$
We note that the phase factor is now implicitly appearing in the STFT and that the standard Poisson summation formula (and not its symplectic version) was used.
[10]{}
Ole Christensen. . . Birkhäuser, 2. edition, 2016.
Markus Faulhuber. . , 24(2):545–559, April 2018.
Markus Faulhuber and Stefan Steinerberger. . , 445(1):407–422, January 2017.
Hans G. Feichtinger. . , 92(4):269–289, 1981.
Gerald B. Folland. . Number 122 in [Annals of Mathematics Studies]{}. Princeton University Press, 1989.
Maurice A. de Gosson. , volume 7 of [*[Pseudo-Differential Operators. Theory and Applications]{}*]{}. Birkh[ä]{}user/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2011.
Maurice A. de Gosson. . World Scientific, Singapore, 2017.
Karlheinz Gröchenig. . , 121(1):87–104, 1996.
Karlheinz Gr[ö]{}chenig. . . Birkh[ä]{}user, Boston, MA, 2001.
Karlheinz Gr[ö]{}chenig. . , 20(4):865–895, 2014.
Mads S. Jakobsen. . , pages 1–82, 2018.
Augustus J. E. M. Janssen. . , 1(4):403–436, 1995.
Augustus J. E. M. Janssen. . , 7(2):165–183, 1996.
Flavia Lanzara and Vladimir Maz’ya. . , 224(5):694–698, Aug 2017.
Jakob Lemvig. . , 182(4):889–912, 2017.
Yurii Lyubarskii and Preben G. Nes. . , 34(3):488–494, 2013.
Soo-Chang Pei and Chun-Lin Liu. . In [*2012 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)*]{}, pages 3701–3704, March 2012.
Richard Tolimieri and Richard S. Orr. , 1(3):233–247, 1995.
[^1]: The author was supported by the Erwin–Schrödinger program of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): J4100-N32. The computational results presented have been achieved (in part) using the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC). The author wishes to thank Franz Luef for many fruitful discussions on the topic. The author thanks the anonymous referee for beneficial feedback on the first version of the manuscript.
[^2]: It follows from the results in Tolimieri and Orr [@TolOrr95] that ${\textnormal{vol}}({\Lambda})^{-1} \sum_{{\lambda}^\circ \in {\Lambda}^\circ} |{\mathcal{A}}g({\lambda}^\circ)|$ always is an upper bound, however, usually not the optimal upper bound. For $g \in S_0({\mathbb{R}^{d}})$ this expression is always finite.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The relaxation iterative method is used to minimize Ginzburg-Landau model for the two-band superconductor with Josephson-coupling. A stable spontaneous vortex-antivortex pair with long range order has been revealed. Our result appears due to the Josephson-coupling effect, which leads to a linearly-dependence of total free energy on the distance between vortex-antivortex pair, hence accounts for this phenomenon.\
author:
- |
Zhi-Wei Wang\
email: [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'bibfile.bib'
date: 29 January 2019
title: 'Spontaneous Long-range Vortex-antivortex Pair in the Two-band 2D Superconductor'
---
\[sec:level1\]1.Introduction
============================
Traditionally, according to the Mermin-Wagner (MW) theorem, it’s commonly believed that no continuous spontaneous symmetry breaking and therefore no phase transition (except the discrete situation) could occur in an isotropic two-dimensional system without topological defect. Then, Korsterlitz and Thouless[@kosterlitz1973ordering], also by Berezinskii[@berezinskii1971destruction], has indicated the existence of topological transition in a 2D system which explains the existence of vortex-antivortex pair observed in the superfluid helium-3. However, this type of phase transition cannot occur in a charged system (superconductor) since the repulsive energy between two vortices with opposite circulation fall off like $r^{-1}$ instead of the necessarily ln r. In order to get a stable vortex-antivortex pair in superconductor, quantum confinement effect has been introduced where the vortex-antivortex pair can be stabilized with the reflection of boundary (namely: the mirror reflection force )[@misko2003stable]. Also, the possibility to stabilize the vortex-antivortex pair in Superconductor with the non-zero demagnetization factor has been discussed by Epstein et al.[@beasley1979possibility]. Moreover, vortex-antivortex pair can appear by quantum magnetic dots pinning discussed by $Milo\breve{s}evi\acute{c}$[@milovsevic2004vortex]. Recently, Timm and Appel [@timm1994vortex] has indicated that the total free energy of system in the two-layered superconductor with Josephson coupling is linearly-dependent on their separation and argued that KT’s theorem, which assumes a logarithmic interaction, is not applicable to such a two-layered superconductor with Josephson-coupling, therefore, suggests the possibility of a spontaneous long-range vortex-antivortex excitation in the charged system.\
Multi-band superconductivity[@zehetmayer2013review] in different systems such as $ MgB_2 $ [@iavarone2002two] [@buzea2001review]and iron-based materials has been confirmed in the last two decades by several experimental techniques, showing quite different thermodynamic, reversible mixed-state and other abnormal properties from one-band superconductor due to interband coupling. To our knowledge, although numerous research has been done on two-band model, like phase soliton Lin et al.[@lin2012phase], (while the stability of their results needs further discussion)and by Tanaka[@tanaka2001soliton], Type-1.5 Superconductivity by Moshchalkov et al.[@moshchalkov2009type], a spontaneous vortex-antivortex pattern has not been reported. In present work, a novel long-range vortex-antivortex pair has been found by minimizing the free energy based on two-band Ginzburg-Landau model with Josephson-coupling where the direct iterative relaxation method [@wiki:xxx] [@wang1991numerical] [@adler1984relaxation]has been used with a periodic boundary condition. Due to the Josephson term, the interband symmetry has been broken, so wavefunction will organize itself under suitable initial condition.
2.Model
=======
We start with the two-band Ginzburg-Landau model with Josphson-coupling which provides the parameter accessible to experiments. Derived from microscopic BCS theory with Gor’kov’s Green’s function technique, the GL free energy in such a model can be written as [@zehetmayer2013review] [@vagov2012two]
$$\begin{aligned}
F=\frac{1}{S}\int dx \int dy \sum\limits_{j=1,2} \left[\alpha _j|\psi _j|{}^2+\frac{\beta _j}{2}|\psi _j|{}^4+\frac{1}{2m_j}\left|(-i \hbar \nabla -\frac{e^*}{c} A)\psi _j\right|{}^2\right]+\frac{1}{8\pi }(\nabla \times \mathbf{A})^2+\gamma (\psi _1^*\psi _2+\psi _2^*\psi _1)\end{aligned}$$
Here,wavefunction $\psi_j$ was introduced as a complex order parameter.$|\psi_j|^2$ was to represent the local density of superconducting electrons $n_s(r)$. $m_j$ is electron effective mass, pA is the magnetic vector potential, $\gamma$ is the strength of Josephson-coupling and j indicates the band index from 1 to 2.The variational of F with respect to the $\psi_j $ and A leads to the usual GL equation.\
To apply the iteration method, two steps are necessary. The first step is to make the free energy dimensionless by scaling energies by the superconducting condensation energy of band one, $\alpha_1^2/\beta_1$ and lengths by the coherence length of band one $\xi_1 $=$ (-\hbar^2 / 2 m_1 \alpha_1)^{1/2} $ , setting also $\psi_1=\widetilde{\psi_1} \psi_{1 \infty} $, $\psi_2=\widetilde{\psi_2} \psi_{2 \infty} $ where $ \psi_{1 \infty}^2=-\alpha_1/\beta_1, \psi_{2 \infty}^2=-\alpha_2/\beta_2 $ and $A=\frac{\Phi_0}{2\pi \xi_1} \mathcal{A}$
Equation becomes
$$\begin{split}
\mathcal{F} &=\frac{1}{S}\int dx \int dy -|\widetilde{\psi _1}|^2+\frac{1}{2}|\widetilde{\psi _1}|^4+ |(\nabla- i \mathcal{A})\widetilde{\psi _1} |^2 -a_2 |\widetilde{\psi _2} |^2+\frac{b_2}{2} |\widetilde{\psi _2}|^4+c_2|(\nabla- i \mathcal{A})\widetilde{\psi _2} |^2+\kappa^2 (\nabla \times \mathcal{A})^2 \\
&+d_2 (\widetilde{\psi _1^*} \widetilde{\psi _2}+\widetilde{\psi _2^*}\widetilde{\psi _1})
\end{split}$$
where $a_2=b_2=\frac{\alpha_2^2}{\alpha_1^2} \frac{\beta_1}{\beta_2}$, $c_2=\frac{m_1}{m_2}\frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_1} \frac{\beta_1}{\beta_2}$, $d_2=\frac{\gamma}{|\alpha_1|} (\frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_1} \frac{ \beta_1}{\beta_2})^{0.5}$, $\kappa=\frac{m c}{e^* \hbar} (\frac{\beta}{2 \pi })^{0.5} $.
The second step is to discretize the GL free energy functional after variational, and therefore, by using direct local-optimization technique for a multivariable function, one can set the relaxation iteration formula as follow.
$$\label{eqs1n1}
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde{\psi_1}^{(n+1)}(i,j)=\widetilde{\psi_1}^{(n)}(i,j)-\epsilon \frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\widetilde{\psi_1}^*(i,j)} }|^{(n)} ;\qquad
\widetilde{\psi_2}^{(n+1)}(i,j)=\widetilde{\psi_2}^{(n)}(i,j)-\epsilon \frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\widetilde{\psi_2}^*(i,j)} }|^{(n)}\\
\mathcal{A}_x^{(n+1)}(i,j)=\mathcal{A}_x^{(n)}(i,j)-\epsilon \frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\mathcal{A}_x(i,j)} }|^{(n)} ;\qquad
\mathcal{A}_y^{(n+1)}(i,j)=\mathcal{A}_y^{(n)}(i,j)-\epsilon \frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\mathcal{A}_y(i,j)} }|^{(n)}\\
\end{array}$$
Here, the original area S= $ L_x \times L_y $ is re-scaled into lattice area $N_x \times N_y $($ L_x=N_x d_x,L_y=N_y d_y $). And n stands for the generation of iteration steps, with a suitable choice of factor $\epsilon $ and suitable initial state,the $\mathcal{F}$ will reach its optimal state monotonically.
$$\label{eqs1n1}
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\widetilde{\psi_1}^*(i,j)} }=-\widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j)+|\widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j)|^2\widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j)-(\nabla -i\mathcal{A}(i,j) )^2 \widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j)+d_2 \widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j) \\
\frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\widetilde{\psi_2}^*(i,j)} }=-a_2 \widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j)+b_2 |\widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j)|^2\widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j)-c_2 (\nabla -i\mathcal{A}(i,j) )^2 \widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j)+d_2 \widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j) \\
\frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\mathcal{A}_x(i,j) } }=
i [\widetilde{\psi_1}^*(i,j) \nabla_x \widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j)-\widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j)\nabla_x \widetilde{\psi_1}^*(i,j) ]
+c_2\ i [\widetilde{\psi_2}^*(i,j) \nabla_x \widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j)-\widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j)\nabla_x \widetilde{\psi_2}^*(i,j) ] \\
+2 \mathcal{A}_x(i,j)|\widetilde{\psi_1}|^2 +2 c_2 \mathcal{A}_x(i,j)|\widetilde{\psi_2}|^2
+2\kappa^2 (\nabla \times \nabla \times \ \mathcal{A}(i,j))|_{along\ the\ x\ direction} \\
\frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{\mathcal{A}_y(i,j) } }=
i [\widetilde{\psi_1}^*(i,j) \nabla_y \widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j)-\widetilde{\psi_1}(i,j)\nabla_y \widetilde{\psi_1}^*(i,j) ]
+c_2\ i [\widetilde{\psi_2}^*(i,j) \nabla_y \widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j)-\widetilde{\psi_2}(i,j)\nabla_y \widetilde{\psi_2}^*(i,j) ] \\
+2 \mathcal{A}_y(i,j)|\widetilde{\psi_1}|^2 +2 c_2 \mathcal{A}_y(i,j)|\widetilde{\psi_2}|^2
+2\kappa^2 (\nabla \times \nabla \times \ \mathcal{A}(i,j))|_{along\ the\ y\ direction}\\
\end{array}$$
where
$$\label{eqs1n1}
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\partial{\widetilde{\psi}(i,j)}}{\partial{x}}=\frac{\widetilde{\psi}(i+1,j)+\widetilde{\psi}(i-1,j)}{2d_x} \\
\frac{\partial^2{\widetilde{\psi}^2(i,j)}}{\partial{x^2}}=\frac{\widetilde{\psi}(i+1,j)-2\widetilde{\psi}(i,j)+\widetilde{\psi}(i-1,j)}{d_x^2} \\
\frac{\partial{\widetilde{\psi}(i,j)}}{\partial{y}}=\frac{\widetilde{\psi}(i,j+1)+\widetilde{\psi}(i,j-1)}{2d_y} \\
\frac{\partial^2{\widetilde{\psi}^2(i,j)}}{\partial{y^2}}=\frac{\widetilde{\psi}(i,j+1)-2\widetilde{\psi}(i,j)+\widetilde{\psi}(i,j-1)}{d_y^2} \\
\end{array}$$
It’s easy to find out the boundary condition under the principle of gauge invariance [@doria1989virial]
$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{A}(x+b_v)= \mathcal{A}(x)+ \nabla \chi_v(x) \\
&\triangle(x+b_v)=\triangle (x) exp(i \frac{e^*}{\hbar c} \chi_v(x))
\end{aligned}$$
while the continuity of function must be satisfied as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{e^*}{\hbar c} [\chi_\alpha(x)-\chi_\alpha(x+b_\alpha)+\chi_\beta(x+b_\alpha)-\chi_\beta(x)]=2\pi N \quad
\end{aligned}$$ Here N stands for an integer, Therefore the boundary condition can be written as follow. Here i/j stands for the lattice number of x direction and y direction from 1 to $N_x/N_y$, k stands for the imaginary unit and $\Phi$ stands for total reduced flux.
$$\label{eqs1n1}
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde{\psi_1}(1,j)=\widetilde{\psi_1}(N_x,j)exp(-k\ j\ \Phi /N_x ) \\
\widetilde{\psi_2}(1,j)=\widetilde{\psi_2}(N_x,j)exp(-k\ j\ \Phi /N_x ) \\
\mathcal{A}_x(1,j)=\mathcal{A}_x(N_x,j) \\
\mathcal{A}_y(1,j)=\mathcal{A}_y(N_x,j)-\Phi/(d_x\ N_x) \\
\widetilde{\psi_1}(i,1)=\widetilde{\psi_1}(i,N_y)exp(-k\ \Phi /2 ) \\
\widetilde{\psi_2}(i,1)=\widetilde{\psi_2}(i,N_y)exp(-k\ \Phi /2 ) \\
\mathcal{A}_x(i,1)=\mathcal{A}_x(i,N_y) \\
\mathcal{A}_y(i,1)=\mathcal{A}_y(i,N_y) \\
\end{array}$$
3.Results
=========
3.1.Domains And Spontaneous Vortex-Antivortex Pair
--------------------------------------------------
In our calculation, the parameters for the lattice has been chosen as $N_x=N_y$ = 61 ,$d_x=d_y=\frac{16}{60} \xi_1 $. The relaxation step-size has been set as $\epsilon=0.01 $, the equation is iterated for one million steps.
Figure 1 records the variance of energy, after ten thousand steps, the change becomes very slight. Figure 2 records the max of $\frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{p} } $ which shows the speed of convergence, and found the max of $\frac{\partial{ \mathcal{F}}}{\partial{p} } $is less than $10^{-7}$ which meets the criteria for convergence and stablity. Here p stands for($ \widetilde{\psi_1}^*(i,j),\widetilde{\psi_2}^*(i,j), \mathcal{A}_x(i,j),\mathcal{A}_y(i,j)$)\
{width="40.00000%"}
{width="40.00000%"}
From Figure 3, we can find that both the spontaneous magnetic B-field and wavefunction have the $C_4$ symmetry. It is quite nature, because the total free energy interaction between vortex-antivortex pairs are linear. Due to this symmetry, we can say that each vortex (antivortex) exerts same force to its antivortex (vortex) neighbor, which can also be considered as each vortex trapped by their antivortex neighbor and vice versa, therefore the system will go back to its stable equilibrium if there are some perturbation.\
From Figure 3e/f and 4a/b, it is evident that our result can be analogous to the soliton behavior in two-band superconductor[@tanaka2001soliton], where the sign of $\gamma$($d_2$ has the same sign as $\gamma $) specifies the strength of the interband interaction. When it is positive(Figure 3e/f), the relative phase of $ \psi_1 $ and $ \psi_2 $ is $\pi $. When it is negative(Figure 4a/b), the relative phase of $ \psi_1 $ and $ \psi_2 $ is $\pi $ is 0. This shows the influence of Josephson-coupling on the two-band model.
The influence of Josephson-coupling on two-band model can also be displayed by the spontaneous magnetic B-field, there are four (as far we found) possible stable structure under different $d_2$ chosen.
The aforementioned behavior is quite different from the behavior of one-band superconductor, where the vortex-antivortex pair can also appear spontaneously, but decay to blank pattern by the collision of pairs after several steps, the spontaneous pair keeps stable in the two-band situation.
3.2.Stability of Vortex-antivortex Pair Under Applied B-field
-------------------------------------------------------------
To study the stability of vortex-antivortex pair in two-band model with Josephson-coupling, we apply magnetic B-field as perturbation. Under the influence of magnetic B-field,the spin should take the same direction as the applied field. From Figure 6, we found that the interband coupling is beneficial to the stability of the vortex-antivortex pair, since the stronger the intraband strength is, the longer transient state exists. And, Figure 7a/b/c/d shows the details of four stairs which witnesses four collisions between vortex and antivortex.
{width="50.00000%"}
4.Conclusion
============
We investigate the two-band GL model with Josephson-coupling on the basis of process of minimization the free energy with periodic boundary. A stable spontaneous long-range vortex-antivortex induced by the Josephson-coupling, which changes the coherence behavior between two band, has been found by the numerical search and theoretical analysis. In the meantime, this work shows the possibility of a new kind of topological excitations induced by the Josephson-coupling effect. Besides, there is an open question whether the similar spontaneous vortex-antivortex pair appears among other system with Josephson-coupling term or not. Furthermore, a generalization of this model by comparison with bright dark soliton pure mathematics structure is worth studying. Last but not least, this results shows possibility to trap unpaired majorana fermion if a two-band $p_x+ip_y$ model (also with Josephson-coupling) applied.
5.Acknowledgements
==================
We are grateful to Professor Shiping Zhou for his colourful discussions.
\[sec:level1\]Reference
=======================
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $\mathcal{A}\subseteq{[n]\choose a}$ and $\mathcal{B}\subseteq{[n]\choose b}$ be two families of subsets of $[n]$, we say $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are cross-intersecting if $A\cap B\neq \emptyset$ for all $A\in\mathcal{A}$, $B\in\mathcal{B}$. In this paper, we study cross-intersecting families in the multi-part setting. By characterizing the independent sets of vertex-transitive graphs and their direct products, we determine the sizes and structures of maximum-sized multi-part cross-intersecting families. This generalizes the results of Hilton’s [@H77] and Frankl–Tohushige’s [@FT92] on cross-intersecting families in the single-part setting.
[*Keywords:*]{} extremal set theory, cross-intersecting families, Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem, vertex-transitive graph.
[[*AMS subject classifications*]{}: 05D05.]{}
author:
- |
Xiangliang Kong$^{\text{a}}$, Yuanxiao Xi$^{\text{b}}$ and Gennian Ge$^{\text{a,}}$[^1]\
$^{\text{a}}$ School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100048, China\
$^{\text{b}}$ School of Mathematical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, Zhejiang, China
bibliography:
- 'Multi-part\_cross-intersecting\_families.bib'
title: 'Multi-part cross-intersecting families'
---
Introduction
============
Let $[n]$ be the standard $n$-element set. For an integer $0\leq k\leq n$, denote ${[n]\choose k}$ as the family of all $k$-element subsets of $[n]$. A family $\mathcal{F}$ is said to be $intersecting$ if $A\cap B\neq \emptyset$, for any $A,B\in\mathcal{F}$. The celebrated Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem [@EKR] says that if $\mathcal{F}\subseteq {[n]\choose k}$ is an intersecting family with $1\leq k\leq \frac{n}{2}$, then $$|\mathcal{F}|\leq {{n-1}\choose {k-1}},$$ and if $n>2k$, the equality holds if and only if every subset in $\mathcal{F}$ contains a fixed element.
Because of its fundamental status in extremal set theory, the Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem has numerous extensions in different ways. One of the directions is to study $cross$-$t$-$intersecting$ families: Denote $2^{[n]}$ as the $power~set$ of $[n]$, let $\mathcal{A}_i\subseteq 2^{[n]}$ for each $1\leq i\leq m$, $\mathcal{A}_1,\mathcal{A}_2,\ldots,\mathcal{A}_m$ are said to be cross-t-intersecting, if $|A\cap B|\geq t$ for any $A\in\mathcal{A}_i$ and $B\in\mathcal{A}_j$, $i\neq j$. Especially, we say $\mathcal{A}_1,\mathcal{A}_2,\ldots,\mathcal{A}_m$ are cross-intersecting if $t=1$. Hilton [@H77] investigated the cross-intersecting families in ${[n]\choose k}$, and proved the following inequality:
*([@H77])*\[h77\] Let $\mathcal{A}_1,\mathcal{A}_2,\ldots, \mathcal{A}_m$ be cross-intersecting families in ${[n]\choose k}$ with $n\geq 2k$. Then
\_[i=1]{}\^[m]{}|\_i|{
[ll]{}[nk]{},& m;\
m,& m.
.
In the same paper, Hilton also determined the structures of $\mathcal{A}_i$’s when the equality holds. Since then, there have been many extensions about Theorem \[h77\]. Borg [@B09] gave a simple proof of Theorem \[h77\], and generalized it to labeled sets [@B08], signed sets [@BL10] and permutations [@B10]. Using the results of the independent number about vertex-transitive graphs, Wang and Zhang [@WZ11] extended this theorem to general symmetric systems, which comprise finite sets, finite vector spaces and permutations, etc.
Hilton and Milner [@HM67] also dealt with pairs of cross-intersecting families in ${[n]\choose k}$ when neither of the two families is empty:
*([@HM67])*\[hm67\] Let $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}\subseteq {[n]\choose k}$ be non-empty cross-intersecting families with $n\geq 2k$. Then $|\mathcal{A}|+|\mathcal{B}|\leq {n\choose k}-{{n-k}\choose k}+1$.
This result was generalized by Frankl and Tokushige [@FT92] to the case when $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are not necessarily in the same $k$-uniform subfamily of $2^{[n]}$:
*([@FT92])*\[FT92\] Let $\mathcal{A}\subseteq {[n]\choose a}$ and $\mathcal{B}\subseteq {[n]\choose b}$ be non-empty cross-intersecting families with $n\geq a+b$, $a\leq b$. Then $|\mathcal{A}|+|\mathcal{B}|\leq {n\choose b}-{{n-a}\choose b}+1$.
In [@WZ13], Wang and Zhang generalized Theorem \[FT92\] to cross-t-intersecting families. Recently, using shifting techniques, Frankl and Kupavskii [@FK17] gave another proof of the result of Wang and Zhang for the case when $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}\subseteq{[n]\choose k}$. As another direction, the multi-part extension of the Erdős–Ko–Rado problem was introduced by Frankl [@F96], in connection with a similar result of Sali [@Sali92]. For an integer $p\geq 1$ and positive integers $n_1,\ldots, n_p$, take $[\sum_{i\in[p]}n_i]$ to be the ground set. Then this ground set can be viewed as the disjoint union of $p$ parts $\bigsqcup_{i\in[p]}S_i$, where $S_1=[n_1]$ and $S_i=\{1+\sum_{j\in[i-1]}n_j,\ldots,\sum_{j\in[i]}n_j\}$ for $2\leq i\leq p$. More generally, denote $2^{S_i}$ as the $power~ set$ of $S_i$, for sets $A_1\in 2^{S_1},\ldots, A_p\in 2^{S_p}$, let $\bigsqcup_{i\in[p]} A_i$ be the subset of $\bigsqcup_{i\in[p]}S_i$ with $A_i$ in the $i$-th part, and for families $\mathcal{F}_1\subseteq 2^{S_1},\ldots,\mathcal{F}_p\subseteq 2^{S_p}$, let $\prod_{i\in[p]}\mathcal{F}_i=\{\bigsqcup_{i\in[p]} A_i:~A_i\in \mathcal{F}_i\}$. Then consider $k_1\in[n_1],\ldots, k_p\in[n_p]$, we denote $\prod_{i\in[p]}{[n_i]\choose k_i}$ as the family of all subsets of $\bigsqcup_{i\in[p]}S_i$ which have exactly $k_i$ elements in the $i$-th part. Therefore, families of the form $\mathcal{F}\subseteq \prod_{i\in [p]}{[n_i]\choose k_i}$ can be viewed as the natural generalization of $k$-uniform families to the multi-part setting. Similarly, a multi-part family is intersecting if any two sets of this family intersect in at least one of the $p$ parts.
Frankl proved that for any integer $p\geq 1$, any positive integers $n_1,\ldots,n_p$ and $k_1,\ldots,k_p$ satisfying $\frac{k_1}{n_1}\leq\ldots\leq\frac{k_p}{n_p}\leq\frac{1}{2}$, if $\mathcal{F}\subseteq\prod_{i\in[p]}{[n_i]\choose k_i}$ is a multi-part intersecting family, then $$|\mathcal{F}|\leq\frac{k_p}{n_p}\cdot\prod_{i\in[p]}{n_i\choose k_i}.$$ This bound is sharp, for example, it is attained by the following family: $$\{A\in{[n_p]\choose k_p}:~i\in A,\text{~for~some~}i\in[n_p]\}\times\prod_{i\in[p-1]}{[n_i]\choose k_i}.$$
Recall that the $Kneser~graph$ $KG_{n,k}$ is the graph on the vertex set ${[n]\choose k}$, with $A,B\in{[n]\choose k}$ forming an edge if and only if $A\cap B=\emptyset$. And an intersecting subfamily of ${[n]\choose k}$ corresponds to an independent set in $KG_{n,k}$. Hence an intersecting subfamily of $\prod_{i\in[p]}{[n_i]\choose k_i}$ corresponds to an independent set in the graph (direct) product $KG_{n_1,k_1}\times\ldots\times KG_{n_p,k_p}$. Therefore, Frankl’s result can be viewed as a consequence of the general fact that $\alpha(G\times H)=\max\{\alpha(G)|H|,\alpha(H)|G|\}$ for vertex-transitive graphs $G$ and $H$, which was proved by Zhang in [@zhang2012independent].
Recently, Kwan, Sudakov and Vieira [@KSV18] considered a stability version of the Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem in the multi-part setting. They determined the maximum size of the non-trivially intersecting multi-part family when all the $n_i$’s are sufficiently large. This disproved a conjecture proposed by Alon and Katona, which was also mentioned in [@Katona2017].
In this paper, we extend Theorem \[h77\] and Theorem \[FT92\] to the $multi$-$part$ version. For any subset $S\subseteq[n]$, denote $\bar{S}$ as the complementary set of $S$ in $[n]$. Moreover, let $\mathcal{F}$ be a family of subsets of $[n]$, for any subfamily $\mathcal{A}\subseteq\mathcal{F}$, denote ${\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{F}}=\{B\in\mathcal{F}:A\cap B=\emptyset\text{ for some }A\in\mathcal{A}\}$. Our main results are as follows.
\[main0\] Given a positive integer $p$, let $n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_p$ and $k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_p$ be positive integers satisfying $n_i\geq 2k_i$ for all $i\in[p]$. Let $X=\prod_{i\in[p]}{[n_i]\choose k_i}$ and $\mathcal{A}_1,\mathcal{A}_2,\ldots,\mathcal{A}_m$ be cross-intersecting families over $X$ with $\mathcal{A}_1\neq \emptyset$. Then
\[bound1\] \_[i=1]{}\^[m]{}|\_i|{
[ll]{}|X|,& m\_[i]{};\
mM,& m\_[i]{},
.
where $M=\max_{i\in[p]}{n_i-1\choose k_i-1}\prod_{j\ne i}{n_j\choose k_j}$. Furthermore, the bound is attained if and only if one of the following holds:
$m<\min_{i\in[p]}\frac{n_i}{k_i}$ and $\mathcal{A}_1=X$, $\mathcal{A}_2=\cdots=\mathcal{A}_m=\emptyset$;
$m>\min_{i\in[p]}\frac{n_i}{k_i}$ and $\mathcal{A}_1=\cdots=\mathcal{A}_m=I$, where $I$ is a maximum intersecting family in $X$;
$m=\min_{i\in[p]}\frac{n_i}{k_i}$ and $\mathcal{A}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{A}_m$ are as in $(i)$ or $(ii)$, or there exists a non-empty set $S_1\subseteq\{s\in[p]:~\frac{n_s}{k_s}=2\}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\prod_{s\in S_1}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$ such that
\[formula\]
[l]{} \_1=((\_))\_[sS\_1]{}[\[n\_s\]k\_s]{} \_2=((’’\_))\_[sS\_1]{}[\[n\_s\]k\_s]{}
for some $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{E}'\subseteq\mathcal{F}$, where $\mathcal{A}=\{A_1,\ldots,A_{w_0}\}$ satisfying $2w_0< |\mathcal{F}|$ and $A_i\ne \bar{A}_j$ for all $i\ne j\in [w_0]$, $\mathcal{E}\sqcup\mathcal{E}'=\{E_1,\ldots,E_v\}$ and $\mathcal{E}_\mathcal{F}\sqcup\mathcal{E}'_\mathcal{F}=\{\bar{E}_1,\ldots,\bar{E}_v\}$ satisfying $2(v+w_0)=\prod_{s\in S_1}{n_s\choose k_s}$ and $\sqcup_{j=1}^v\{E_j,\bar{E}_j\}=\mathcal{F}\setminus(\mathcal{A}\sqcup \mathcal{A}_\mathcal{F})$.
\[rem1\] In [@WZ11], the authors proved a similar result (Theorem 2.5 in [@WZ11]) for general connected symmetric systems. Actually, Theorem \[main0\] can be viewed as an application of the method involved to obtain Theorem 2.5 in [@WZ11]. But different from the general case, Theorem \[main0\] determines all the exact structures when the bound in (\[bound1\]) is attained.
\[main1\] For any $p\geq 2$, let $n_i, t_i, s_i$ be positive integers satisfying $n_i\geq s_i+t_i+1$, $2\leq s_i,t_i\leq \frac{n_i}{2}$ for every $i\in[p]$ and $n_i\leq\frac{7}{4}n_j$ for all distinct $i,j\in [p]$. If $\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose s_i}\geq \prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose t_i}$ and $\mathcal{A}\subseteq\prod_{i\in [p]}{[n_i]\choose t_i},~\mathcal{B}\subseteq\prod_{i\in [p]}{[n_i]\choose s_i}$ are non-empty cross-intersecting families, then $$\label{eq02}
|\mathcal{A}|+|\mathcal{B}|\leq \prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose s_i}-\prod_{i\in [p]}{{n_i-t_i}\choose s_i}+1,$$ and the bound is attained if and only if the following holds:
$\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose s_i}\geq \prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose t_i}$, $\mathcal{A}=\{A\}$ and $\mathcal{B}=\{B\in \prod_{i\in [p]}{[n_i]\choose s_i}:B\cap A\neq\emptyset\}$ for some $A\in \prod_{i\in [p]}{[n_i]\choose t_i}$;
$\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose s_i}= \prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose t_i}$, $\mathcal{B}=\{B\}$ and $\mathcal{A}=\{A\in \prod_{i\in [p]}{[n_i]\choose t_i}:B\cap A\neq \emptyset\}$ for some $B\in \prod_{i\in [p]}{[n_i]\choose s_i}$.
\[condition\_of\_main1\] The restrictions $s_i, t_i\leq \frac{n_i}{2}$ for every $i\in[p]$ and $n_i\leq\frac{7}{4}n_j$ for all distinct $i,j\in [p]$ in Theorem \[main1\] are necessary.
When $s_i, t_i\leq \frac{n_i}{2}$ is violated, for example, taking $n_1=n_2=18$, $(s_1,t_1)=(15,2)$ and $(s_2,t_2)=(2,3)$, we have $s_1>\frac{n_1}{2}$ and ${n_1\choose s_1}\cdot{n_2\choose s_2}={n_1\choose t_1}\cdot{n_2\choose t_2}$. Set $\mathcal{A}=\{A_1\}\times{[n_2]\choose t_2}$ for some 2-subset $A_1\subseteq [n_1]$ and $\mathcal{B}=\{B_1\in {[n_1]\choose s_1}:B_1\cap A_1\neq\emptyset\}\times{[n_2]\choose s_2}$. Then we have $|\mathcal{A}|+|\mathcal{B}|>{n_1\choose s_1}\cdot{n_2\choose s_2}-{{n_1-t_1}\choose s_1}\cdot{{n_2-t_2}\choose s_2}+1$. As for the restriction $n_i\leq\frac{7}{4}n_j$, the constant $\frac{7}{4}$ here might not be tight, but the quantities of $n_i,n_j$ for distinct $i,j\in[p]$ need to be very close. For example, taking $n_1=5,n_2=12$ and $(s_1,t_1)=(s_2,t_2)=(2,2)$, we have $n_2>\frac{7}{4}n_1$ and ${n_1\choose s_1}\cdot{n_2\choose s_2}={n_1\choose t_1}\cdot{n_2\choose t_2}$. Similarly, set $\mathcal{A}=\{A_1\}\times{[n_2]\choose t_2}$ for some 2-subset $A_1\subseteq [n_1]$ and $\mathcal{B}=\{B_1\in {[n_1]\choose s_1}:B_1\cap A_1\neq\emptyset\}\times{[n_2]\choose s_2}$. Then we have $|\mathcal{A}|+|\mathcal{B}|>{n_1\choose s_1}\cdot{n_2\choose s_2}-{{n_1-t_1}\choose s_1}\cdot{{n_2-t_2}\choose s_2}+1$.
The families $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ we constructed here are closely related to imprimitive subsets of ${[n_1]\choose t_1}\times{[n_2]\choose t_2}$, which we will discuss later in Section 2.2 and Section 4.
We shall introduce some results about the independent sets of vertex-transitive graphs and their direct products in the next section, and prove Theorem \[main0\] in Section 3, Theorem \[main1\] in Section 4. In Section 5, we will conclude the paper and discuss some remaining problems. For the convenience of the proof, if there is no confusion, we will denote $\prod_{i\in[p]}A_i$ as the subset $\bigsqcup_{i\in[p]}A_i\subseteq \bigsqcup_{i\in[p]}S_i$ in the rest of the paper.
Preliminary results
===================
Independent sets of vertex-transitive graphs
--------------------------------------------
Given a finite set $X$, for every $A\subseteq X$, denote $\bar{A}=X\setminus A$. For a simple graph $G=G(V,E)$, denote $\alpha(G)$ as the independent number of $G$ and $I(G)$ as the set of all maximum independent sets of $G$. For $v\in V(G)$, define the neighborhood $N_G(v)=\{u\in V(G):(u,v)\in E(G)\}$. For a subset $A\subseteq V(G)$, write $N_G(A)=\{b\in V(G):(a,b)\in E(G)$ for some $a\in A\}$ and $N_G[A]=A\cup N_G(A)$, if there is no confusion, we denote them as $N(A)$ and $N[A]$ for short respectively.
A graph $G$ is said to be vertex-transitive if its automorphism group $\Gamma(G)$ acts transitively upon its vertices. As a corollary of the “No-Homomorphism” lemma for vertex-transitive graphs in [@albertson1985homomorphisms], Cameron and Ku [@CK03] proved the following theorem.
\[CK\]*([@CK03])* Let $G$ be a vertex-transitive graph and $B$ a subset of $V(G)$. Then any independent set $S$ in $G$ satisfies that $\frac{|S|}{|V(G)|}\leq\frac{\alpha(G[B])}{|B|}$, equality implies that $|S\cap B|=\alpha(G[B])$.
Using the above theorem, Zhang [@zhang2011primitivity] proved the following result.
*([@zhang2011primitivity])*\[subgraph independent set\] Let $G$ be a vertex-transitive graph, and $A$ be an independent set of $G$, then $\frac{|A|}{|N_G[A]|}\leq\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}$. Equality implies that $|S\cap N_G[A]|=|A|$ for every $S\in I(G)$, and in particular $A\subseteq S$ for some $S\in I(G)$.
An independent set $A$ in $G$ is said to be imprimitive if $|A|<\alpha(G)$ and $\frac{|A|}{|N[A]|}=\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}$, and $G$ is called IS-imprimitive if $G$ has an imprimitive independent set. Otherwise, $G$ is called IS-primitive. Note that a disconnected vertex-transitive graph $G$ is always IS-imprimitive. Hence IS-primitive vertex-transitive graphs are all connected.
The following inequality about the size of an independent set $A$ and its non-neighbors $\bar{N}[A]$ is crucial for the proof of Theorem \[main0\].
\[lemmaimprimitive\] Let $G$ be a vertex transitive graph, and let $A$ be an independent set of $G$. Then
|A|+||[N]{}\[A\]|(G).
Equality holds if and only if $A=\emptyset$ or $|A|=\alpha(G)$ or $A$ is an imprimitive independent set.
For the integrity of the paper, we include the proof here. In [@WZ11], Wang and Zhang proved the same inequality for a more generalized combinatorial structure called $symmetric$ $system$ (see [@WZ11], Corollary 2.4).
If $A=\emptyset$ or $A=\alpha(G)$, the equality trivially holds. Suppose $0<|A|<\alpha(G)$, and let $B$ be a maximal independent set in $\bar{N}[A]$, then $|B|=\alpha(\bar{N}(A))$. Clearly, $A\cup B$ is also an independent set of $G$, thus we have $|A|+|B|\leq\alpha(G)$. By Theorem $\ref{CK}$, we obtain that $\frac{|B|}{|\bar{N}[A]|}\ge\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}$. Therefore,
|A|+||[N]{}\[A\]||A|+|B|(G),
the equality holds when $\alpha(G)=|A|+\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}|\bar{N}[A]|=|A|+\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}(|G|-|N[A]|)$, which leads to $\frac{|A|}{|N[A]|}=\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}$, i.e., $A$ is an imprimitive independent set.
Let $X$ be a finite set, and $\Gamma$ a group acting transitively on $X$. Then $\Gamma$ is said to be primitive on $X$ if it preserves no nontrivial partition of $X$. A vertex-transitive graph $G$ is called primitive if the automorphism $\text{Aut}(G)$ is primitive on $V(G)$. To show the connection between the primitivity and the IS-primitivity of a vertex-transitive graph $G$, Zhang (see Proposition 2.4 in [@zhang2011primitivity]) proved that if $G$ is primitive, then it must be IS-primitive. As a consequence of this result, Wang and Zhang [@WZ11] derived the IS-primitivity of the Kneser graph.
*([@WZ11])*\[imprimitive Kneser graph\] The Kneser graph $KG_{n,k}$ is IS-primitive except for $n=2k\ge 4$.
In order to deal with the multi-part case, we also need the results about the independent sets in direct products of vertex-transitive graphs. Let $G$ and $H$ be two graphs, the direct product $G\times H$ of $G$ and $H$ is defined by
V(GH)=V(G)V(H),
and
E(GH)={\[(u\_1,v\_1),(u\_2,v\_2)\]:(u\_1,u\_2)E(G)(v\_1,v\_2)E(H)}.
Clearly, $G\times H$ is a graph with $\text{Aut}(G)\times\text{Aut}(H)$ as its automorphism group. And, if $G,H$ are vertex-transitive, then $G\times H$ is also vertex-transitive under the actions of $\text{Aut}(G)\times\text{Aut}(H)$. We say the direct product $G\times H$ is MIS-normal (maximum-independent-set-normal) if every maximum independent set of $G\times H$ is a preimage of an independent set of one factor under projections.
In [@zhang2012independent], Zhang obtained the exact structure of the maximal independent set of $G\times H$.
*([@zhang2012independent])*\[tensor product\] Let $G$ and $H$ be two vertex-transitive graphs with $\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}\ge\frac{\alpha(H)}{|H|}$. Then
(GH)=(G)|H|,
and exactly one of the following holds:
- $G\times H$ is MIS-normal;
- $\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}=\frac{\alpha(H)}{|H|}$ and one of $G$ or $H$ is IS-imprimitive;
- $\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}>\frac{\alpha(H)}{|H|}$ and $H$ is disconnected.
In fact if $\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}=\frac{\alpha(H)}{|H|}$ and $A$ is an imprimitive independent set of $G$, then for every $I\in I(H)$, it is easy to see that $S=(A\times V(H))\cup (\bar{N}[A]\times I)$ is an independent set of $G\times H$ with size $\alpha(G)|H|$.
Zhang [@zhang2011primitivity] also investigated the relationship between the graph primitivity and the structures of the maximum independent sets in direct products of vertex-transitive graphs.
*([@zhang2011primitivity])*\[normal-imprimitive\] Suppose $G\times H$ is MIS-normal and $\frac{\alpha(H)}{|H|}\leq\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}$. If $G\times H$ is IS-imprimitive, then one of the following two possible cases holds:
- $\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}=\frac{\alpha(H)}{|H|}$ and one of them is IS-imprimitive or both $G$ and $H$ are bipartite;
- $\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}>\frac{\alpha(H)}{|H|}$ and $G$ is IS-imprimitive.
As an application of Theorem \[tensor product\] and Theorem \[normal-imprimitive\], Geng et al. [@geng2012structure] showed the MIS-normality of the direct products of Kneser graphs.
*([@geng2012structure])*\[imprimitive product kneser graph\] Given a positive integer $p$, let $n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_p$ and $k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_p$ be $2p$ positive integers with $n_i\ge 2k_i$ for $1\leq i\leq p$. Then the direct product of the Kneser graph $$\text{KG}_{n_1,k_1}\times\text{KG}_{n_2,k_2}\times\cdots\times\text{KG}_{n_p,k_p}$$ is MIS-normal except that there exist $i,j$ and $\ell$ with $n_i=2k_i\ge 4$ and $n_j=2k_j$, or $n_i=n_j=n_{\ell}=2$.
Nontrivial independent sets of part-transitive bipartite graphs
---------------------------------------------------------------
For a bipartite graph $G(X,Y)$ with two parts $X$ and $Y$, an independent set $A$ is said to be non-trivial if $A\nsubseteq X$ and $A\nsubseteq Y$. $G(X,Y)$ is said to be part-transitive if there is a group $\Gamma$ acting transitively upon each part and preserving its adjacency relations. Clearly, if $G(X,Y)$ is part-transitive, then every vertex of $X~(Y)$ has the same degree, written as $d(X)~(d(Y))$. We use $\alpha(X,Y)$ and $I(X,Y)$ to denote the size and the set of the maximum-sized nontrivial independent sets of $G(X,Y)$, respectively.
Let $G(X,Y)$ be a non-complete bipartite graph and let $A\cup B$ be a nontrivial independent set of $G(X,Y)$, where $A\subseteq X$ and $B\subseteq Y$. Then $A\subseteq X\setminus N(B)$ and $B\subseteq Y\setminus N(A)$, which implies $$|A|+|B|\leq \max{\{|A|+|Y|-|N(A)|, |B|+|X|-|N(B)|\}}.$$ So we have $$\label{eq03}
\alpha(X,Y)=\max{\{|Y|-\epsilon(X), |X|-\epsilon(Y)\}},$$ where $\epsilon(X)=\min\{|N(A)|-|A|: A\subseteq X, N(A)\neq Y\}$ and $\epsilon(Y)=\min\{|N(B)|-|B|: B\subseteq Y, N(B)\neq X\}$.
We call $A\subseteq X$ a fragment of $G(X,Y)$ in $X$ if $N(A)\neq Y$ and $|N(A)|-|A|=\epsilon(X)$, and we denote $\mathcal{F}(X)$ as the set of all fragments in $X$. Similarly, we can define $\mathcal{F}(Y)$. Furthermore, denoting $\mathcal{F}(X,Y)=\mathcal{F}(X)\cup\mathcal{F}(Y)$, we call an element $A\in \mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ a $k$-fragment if $|A|=k$. And we call a fragment $A\in\mathcal{F}(X)$ trivial if $|A|=1$ or $A=X\setminus N(b)$ for some $b\in Y$. Since for each $A\in \mathcal{F}(X)$, $Y\setminus N(A)$ is a fragment in $\mathcal{F}(Y)$. Hence, once we know $\mathcal{F}(X)$, $\mathcal{F}(Y)$ can also be determined.
Let $X$ be a finite set, and $\Gamma$ a group acting transitively on $X$. If $\Gamma$ is imprimitive on $X$, then it preserves a nontrivial partition of $X$, called a block system, each element of which is called a block. Clearly, if $\Gamma$ is both transitive and imprimitive, there must be a subset $B\subseteq X$ such that $1<|B|<|X|$ and $\gamma(B)\cap B=B$ or $\emptyset$ for every $\gamma \in \Gamma$. In this case, $B$ is called an imprimitive set in $X$. Furthermore, a subset $B\subseteq X$ is said to be $semi$-$imprimitive$ if $1<|B|<|X|$ and for each $\gamma\in \Gamma$ we have $\gamma(B)\cap B=B$, $\emptyset$ or $\{b\}$ for some $b\in B$.
The following theorem (cf. [@J85 Theorem 1.12]) is a classical result on the primitivity of group actions.
*([@J85])*\[primitivity\] Suppose that a group $\Gamma$ transitively acts on $X$. Then $\Gamma$ is primitive on $X$ if and only if for each $a\in X$, $\Gamma_a$ is a maximal subgroup of $\Gamma$. Here $\Gamma_a=\{\gamma\in\Gamma:\gamma(a)=a\}$, the stabilizer of $a\in X$.
Noticing the similarities about families that are cross-t-intersecting or cross-Sperner, Wang and Zhang [@WZ13] proved the following theorem about $\alpha(G(X,Y))$ and $I(X,Y)$ of a special kind of part-transitive bipartite graphs.
*([@WZ13])*\[key00\] Let $G(X,Y)$ be a non-complete bipartite graph with $|X|\leq|Y|$. If $G(X,Y)$ is part-transitive and every fragment of $G(X,Y)$ is primitive under the action of a group $\Gamma$. Then $\alpha(X,Y)=|Y|-d(X)+1$. Moreover,
If $|X|<|Y|$, then $X$ has only 1-fragments;
If $|X|=|Y|$, then each fragment in $X$ has size 1 or $|X|-d(X)$ unless there is a semi-imprimitive fragment in $X$ or $Y$.
To deal with multi-part cross-intersecting families, we introduce the following variation of Theorem \[key00\].
\[key01\] Let $G(X,Y)$ be a non-complete bipartite graph with $|X|\leq|Y|$. If $G(X,Y)$ is part-transitive under the action of a group $\Gamma$. Then $$\label{eq04}
\alpha(X,Y)=\max{\{|Y|-d(X)+1, |A'|+|Y|-|N(A')|, |B'|+|X|-|N(B')|\}},$$ where $A'$ and $B'$ are minimum imprimitive subsets of $X$ and $Y$ respectively. By minimum, here we mean that $|N(A')|-|A'|=\min{\{|N(A)|-|A|: A\in X~(\text{or~} Y) \text{~is~imprimitive}\}}$.
For the proof of Theorem \[key01\], we need the following two lemmas from [@WZ13].
*([@WZ13])*\[lem01\] Let $G(X,Y)$ be a non-complete bipartite graph. Then, $|Y|-\epsilon(X)=|X|-\epsilon(Y)$, and
$A\in \mathcal{F}(X)$ if and only if $(Y\setminus N(A))\in \mathcal{F}(Y)$ and $N(Y\setminus N(A))=X\setminus A$;
$A\cap B$ and $A\cup B$ are both in $\mathcal{F}(X)$ if $A$, $B\in \mathcal{F}(X)$, $A\cap B\neq \emptyset$ and $N(A\cup B)\neq Y$.
*([@WZ13])*\[lem02\] Let $G(X,Y)$ be a non-complete and part-transitive bipartite graph under the action of a group $\Gamma$. Suppose that $A\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ such that $\emptyset\neq\gamma(A)\cap A\neq A$ for some $\gamma\in\Gamma$. Define $\phi: \mathcal{F}(X,Y)\rightarrow\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$,
(A)={
[ll]{}YN(A),& A(X);\
XN(A),& A(Y).
.
If $|A|\leq|\phi(A)|$, then $A\cup\gamma(A)$ and $A\cap\gamma(A)$ are both in $\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$.
\[balanced\] As a direct consequence of Lemma \[lem01\], a maximum-sized nontrivial independent set in $G(X,Y)$ is of the form $A\sqcup(Y\setminus N(A))$ for some $A\in \mathcal{F}(X)$ or $B\sqcup(X\setminus N(B))$ for some $B\in \mathcal{F}(Y)$. Therefore, in order to address our problems, it suffices to determine $\mathcal{F}(X)$ $(\text{or~}\mathcal{F}(Y))$.
Meanwhile, for the mapping $\phi$ in Lemma \[lem02\], we have $\phi^{-1}=\phi$ and $|A|+|\phi(A)|=\alpha(X,Y)$. When $|A|=|\phi(A)|$, we call the fragment $A$ balanced. Thus, all balanced fragments have size $\frac{1}{2}\alpha(X,Y)$.
The same as the original proof of Theorem \[key00\] in [@WZ13], we apply Lemma \[lem02\] repeatedly. For any $A_0\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ satisfying $|A_0|\leq|\phi(A_0)|$, if there exists $\gamma\in\Gamma$ such that $\emptyset\neq\gamma(A_0)\cap A_0\neq A_0$, then by Lemma \[lem02\] we have: (1) $A_0\cap\gamma(A_0)\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ or (2) $\gamma(A_0)\cap A_0=\emptyset$ or $\gamma(A_0)\cap A_0=A_0$ for any $\gamma\in\Gamma$.
For case (1), denote
A\_1={
[ll]{}A\_0(A\_0), & |A\_0(A\_0)||(A\_0(A\_0))|;\
(A\_0(A\_0)), & ;
.
and consider the primitivity of $A_1$, i.e., whether there is a $\gamma'\in\Gamma$ such that $\emptyset\neq\gamma'(A_1)\cap A_1\neq A_1$ or not.
For case (2), if $|A_0|\neq1$, according to the definition, $A_0$ is an imprimitive set of $X$ (or $Y$). Otherwise, $|A_0|=1$, which means $\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ contains a singleton.
By doing these procedures repeatedly, after $r$ $(0\leq r\leq |A_0|-1)$ steps, we have a fragment $A_r\in\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ such that $A_r$ is either a singleton or an imprimitive set. Hence, we have $$\alpha(X,Y)=\max{\{|Y|-d(X)+1, |X|-d(Y)+1, |A'|+|Y|-|N(A')|, |B'|+|X|-|N(B')|\}},$$ where $A'$ and $B'$ are minimum imprimitive subsets of $X$ and $Y$ respectively. Noticing that $|Y|\geq|X|$ and $d(X)|X|=d(Y)|Y|$, we have $d(X)=d(Y)|Y|/|X|\geq d(Y)$. Therefore, $$|Y|-|X|=d(X)|X|/d(Y)-|X|=(d(X)-d(Y))|X|/d(Y)\geq d(X)-d(Y),$$ which implies that $|X|-d(Y)+1\leq|Y|-d(X)+1$. Finally we have $$\alpha(X,Y)=\max{\{|Y|-d(X)+1, |A'|+|Y|-|N(A')|, |B'|+|X|-|N(B')|\}}.$$
Proof of Theorem \[main0\]
==========================
Throughout this section, for any nonempty subset $S\subseteq[p]$ and $A=\prod_{i\in S}A_i\in\prod_{i\in S}{[n_i]\choose k_i}$, denote $\bar{A}=\prod_{i\in S}\bar{A}_i$. Before we start the proof of Theorem \[main0\], we introduce the following proposition about the direct product of Kneser graphs.
\[note1\] Given a positive integer $p$, let $n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_p$ and $k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_p$ be positive integers with $n_i\ge 2k_i$ for $1\leq i\leq p$. Let $G=\prod_{i\in[p]}{KG_{n_i,k_i}}$. Then $G$ is IS-imprimitive if and only if there exists an $i\in[p]$ such that $n_i=2k_i\ge 4$ or there exist distinct $i,j\in[p]$ such that $n_i=n_j=2$ and $k_i=k_j=1$.
Note that if the Kneser graph $KG_{n,k}$ is disconnected, then $n=2k\geq 4$ and $KG_{n,k}$ is bipartite. Thus by Proposition \[imprimitive Kneser graph\], $KG_{2k,k}$ is IS-imprimitive for all $k\geq 2$. Moreover, since $\chi({KG_{n,k}})=n-2k+2$ for all $n\geq 2k$ (Lovász-Kneser Theorem, see [@Lovasz78]), we know that if $KG_{n,k}$ is bipartite, then $n=2k\geq 2$. Now we use induction on the number of factors $p$.
If $p=2$, let $G_1=KG_{n_1,k_1}$, $G_2=KG_{n_2,k_2}$, and $G=G_1\times G_2$. W.l.o.g., assume that $\frac{\alpha(G_1)}{|G_1|}\ge\frac{\alpha(G_2)}{|G_2|}$. Then, by Theorem \[tensor product\], (i) $G_1\times G_2$ is MIS-normal, or (ii) $\frac{\alpha(G_1)}{|G_1|}=\frac{\alpha(G_2)}{|G_2|}$ and one of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is IS-imprimitive, or (iii) $\frac{\alpha(G_1)}{|G_1|}>\frac{\alpha(G_2)}{|G_2|}$ and $G_2$ is disconnected. For case (i), by Theorem \[normal-imprimitive\], at least one factor of $G$ is IS-imprimitive or both $G_1$ and $G_2$ are bipartite. Noticed that $KG_{2,1}$ is IS-primitive, therefore, either there exists an $i\in [2]$ such that $n_i=2k_i\ge 4$ or there exist distinct $i,j\in[2]$ such that $n_i=n_j= 2k_i=2k_j=2$. For cases (ii) and (iii), since $G$ is not MIS-normal, by Theorem \[imprimitive product kneser graph\], at least one of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is IS-imprimitive. Thus the proposition holds when $p=2$.
Suppose the proposition holds when the number of factors is $p-1$. Set $G'_1=\prod_{i=1}^{p-1}KG_{n_i,k_i}$ and $G'_2=KG_{n_p,k_p}$, by Theorem \[normal-imprimitive\], at least one factor of $G'_1$ and $G'_2$ is IS-imprimitive or both $G'_1$ and $G'_2$ are bipartite. If $G_1'$ is IS-imprimitive, by the induction hypothesis, there exists an $i'\in[p-1]$ such that $n_{i'}=2k_{i'}\ge 4$ or there exist distinct $i',j'\in[p-1]$ such that $n_{i'}=n_{j'}=2k_{i'}=2k_{j'}=2$. If $G_2'$ is IS-imprimitive, then $n_p=2k_p\geq 4$. Otherwise, both $G'_1$ and $G'_2$ are IS-primitive and bipartite. Thus, for $G'_2$, we have $n_p=2k_p=2$. For $G'_1$, since $\chi(G'_1)\cdot\alpha(G'_1)\ge |V(G'_1)|$, we know that there exists $i'\in[p-1]$ such that $n_{i'}=2k_{i'}=2$ by Lemma \[tensor product\]. This completes the proof.
The idea of the proof for Theorem \[main0\] is similar to that for general connected symmetric systems in [@WZ11]. Since $\prod_{i=1}^{p}\text{KG}_{n_i,k_i}$ is a vertex transitive graph, by Lemma \[lemmaimprimitive\], we can prove the bound (\[bound1\]). Then, through a careful analysis, we can obtain the structure of all imprimitive independent sets of this graph. This leads to the unique structures of $\mathcal{A}_1$ and $\mathcal{A}_2$ in $(\ref{formula})$.
Define a graph $G$ on the vertex set $X=\prod_{s\in[p]}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$ with $A,B\in X$ forming an edge in $G$ if and only if $A\cap B=\emptyset$. Therefore, $G$ is the direct product of Kneser graphs $\text{KG}_{n_1,k_1}\times\cdots\times\text{KG}_{n_p,k_p}$.
Assume that $2\leq\frac{n_1}{k_1}\leq\frac{n_2}{k_2}\leq\ldots\leq\frac{n_p}{k_p}$, then $\frac{|G|}{\alpha(G)}=\frac{n_1}{k_1}$ by Theorem \[tensor product\]. Following the notations of Borg in [@B09; @B10; @BL10], write $\mathcal{A}^\ast_i=\{A\in\mathcal{A}_i|A\cap B\ne\emptyset\text{ for any }B\in\mathcal{A}_i\}$, $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_i=\mathcal{A}_i\setminus\mathcal{A}_i^\ast$, $\mathcal{A}^\ast=\bigcup_{i=1}^m\mathcal{A}_i^{\ast}$, $\hat{\mathcal{A}}=\bigcup_{i=1}^m\hat{\mathcal{A}}_i$. Note that $\bar{N}_{G}[\mathcal{A}]=\{B\in X|A\cap B\ne\emptyset,\text{ for any }A\in\mathcal{A}\}$ for $\mathcal{A}\subseteq X$, it is easy to show that $\mathcal{A}^\ast$ is an intersecting family and $\hat{\mathcal{A}}\subseteq\bar{N}_{G}[\mathcal{A}^\ast]$. It follows that $\mathcal{A}_i\cap\mathcal{A}_j\subseteq\mathcal{A}_i^\ast\cap\mathcal{A}_j^\ast$ from the definition, therefore $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_i\cap\hat{\mathcal{A}}_j=\emptyset$ for $i\ne j$, and $|\hat{\mathcal{A}}|=\sum_{i=1}^m|\hat{\mathcal{A}}_i|$. Thus by Lemma \[lemmaimprimitive\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{imprimitive equation}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^m|\mathcal{A}_i|&=\sum\limits_{i=1}^m|\hat{\mathcal{A}}_i|+\sum\limits_{i=1}^m|\mathcal{A}_i^\ast|\leq|\hat{\mathcal{A}}|+m|\mathcal{A}^\ast|\leq|\bar{N}_{G}[\mathcal{A}^\ast]|+m|\mathcal{A}^\ast|\nonumber\\
&=\frac{|G|}{\alpha(G)}(\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}|\bar{N}_{G}[\mathcal{A}^\ast]|+|\mathcal{A}^\ast|)+(m-\frac{|G|}{\alpha(G)})|\mathcal{A}^\ast|\\
&\leq |G|+(m-\frac{|G|}{\alpha(G)})|\mathcal{A}^\ast|=|G|+(m-\frac{n_1}{k_1})|\mathcal{A}^\ast|.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
If $m<\frac{n_1}{k_1}$, then $\sum_{i=1}^m|\mathcal{A}_i|\leq|G|$, and the equality implies $\mathcal{A}^\ast=\emptyset$. Thus $\mathcal{A}_i=\hat{\mathcal{A}_i}$ for every $i\in[m]$, and this yields that the graph $G$ is a disjoint union of the induced subgraph $G[\mathcal{A}_i]'s$. And by the cross-intersecting property, each $G[\mathcal{A}_i]$ is a connected component of $G$. Since $G$ is connected when $\frac{n_s}{k_s}>2$ for all $s\in[p]$ and $m\geq 2$, we know that one of $\mathcal{A}_i$ is $X$ and the rest are empty sets, as case (i).
If $m>\frac{n_1}{k_1}$, then $\sum_{i=1}^m|\mathcal{A}_i|\leq m\alpha(G)$, and the equality implies that $\mathcal{A}_1^\ast=\ldots=\mathcal{A}_m^\ast=\mathcal{A}^\ast$, $|\mathcal{A}^\ast|=\alpha(G)$, as case (ii).
If $m=\frac{n_1}{k_1}$, then $\sum_{i=1}^m|\mathcal{A}_i|\leq|X|$, and the equality implies that $\mathcal{A}_1^\ast=\ldots=\mathcal{A}_m^\ast=\mathcal{A}^{\ast}$ and $\frac{\alpha(G)}{|G|}|\bar{N}_{G}[\mathcal{A}^\ast]|+|\mathcal{A}^\ast|=\alpha(G)$. By Lemma \[lemmaimprimitive\], we know that $|\mathcal{A}^\ast|=0$, or $|\mathcal{A}^\ast|=\alpha(G)$, or $\mathcal{A}^\ast$ is an imprimitive independent set of $G$. In the last case, $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_1,\ldots,\hat{\mathcal{A}}_m$ are cross-intersecting families and form a partition of $\bar{N}_{G}[\mathcal{A}^\ast]$. In order to determine the structures of the maximum-sized cross-intersecting families in this case, we shall characterize the imprimitive independent set of $G$.
\[imprimitive independent set\] Let $\mathcal{F}=\prod_{s\in S}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$ and $X'=\prod_{s\in[p]\setminus S}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$, where $S=\{s\in [p]:~\frac{n_s}{k_s}=2\}$. If $\mathcal{A}^\ast$ is an imprimitive independent set of $G$, then $\mathcal{A}^\ast=\mathcal{A}\times X'$, where $\mathcal{A}\subseteq\mathcal{F}$ is a non-maximum intersecting family.
According to Proposition \[note1\], $G$ is IS-imprimitive if and only if there exists an $i\in S$ such that $n_i=2k_i\ge 4$ or there exist distinct $i,j\in S$ such that $n_i=n_j=2$ and $k_i=k_j=1$. Thus, with the assumptions in this claim, $S\neq \emptyset$ and $S=\{i_0\}$ if and only if $n_{i_0}=2k_{i_0}\geq 4$ for some $i_0\in[p]$. W.l.o.g., assume that $S=[s_0]$, where $s_0=|S|$. Under this circumstance, $m=\frac{n_1}{k_1}=2$.
Divide $\mathcal{A}^\ast$ into $u$ disjoint parts $\{C_i\times \mathcal{D}_i\}_{i=1}^{u}$, where $C_i=C_{i,1}\times\ldots\times C_{i,s_0}\in\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{D}_i\subseteq X'$ for all $i\in [u]$ and $C_i\ne C_j$ for any $i\ne j\in[u]$. Since $N_G(C_i\times \mathcal{D}_i)=\bar{C_i}\times\mathcal{D}_i'$, where $\mathcal{D}'_i=\{A\in X': A\cap D_i=\emptyset\text{~for~some~} D_i\in\mathcal{D}_i\}$, we know that $N_G[C_i\times \mathcal{D}_i]\cap N_G[C_j\times \mathcal{D}_j]=\emptyset$ for all $i\ne j\in[u]$. Meanwhile, $C_i\times \mathcal{D}_i\cap N_G(C_j\times \mathcal{D}_j)=\emptyset$ for all $i\ne j\in[u]$. Otherwise, assume that there exists $T_1\times T_2\in C_i\times\mathcal{D}_i\cap N_G(C_j\times\mathcal{D}_j)$, for some $T_1\in\mathcal{F}$ and $T_2\in X'$. Thus we have $T_1\times T_2\cap C_j\times D_j=\emptyset$, for some $D_j\in\mathcal{D}_j$, which contradicts the fact that $\mathcal{A}^\ast$ is an intersecting family.
By projecting $G$ onto the last $p-s_0$ factors, we obtain a graph $G'$ with vertex set $X'$ such that $A,B\in X'$ form an edge in $G'$ if and only if $A,B$ are disjoint. Consider the cross-intersecting families $\{\mathcal{D}_i,\bar{N}_{G'}(\mathcal{D}_i)\}$ in $X'$, since $|\{\mathcal{D}_i,\bar{N}_{G'}(\mathcal{D}_i)\}|=2<\frac{n_{s_0+1}}{k_{s_0+1}}$, by case (i), we know that
|\_i|+||[N]{}\_[G’]{}(\_i)|=|\_i|+|X’|-|N\_[G’]{}(\_i)||X’|,
thus we have $|\mathcal{D}_i|\leq|N_{G'}(\mathcal{D}_i)|$, and $|C_i\times \mathcal{D}_i|=|\mathcal{D}_i|\leq |N_{G'}(\mathcal{D}_i)|=|N_G(C_i\times \mathcal{D}_i)|$. Therefore
===,
and the equality holds if and only if for all $i\in[u]$, $\mathcal{D}_i=X'$ or $\bar{N}_{G'}(\mathcal{D}_i)=X'$. Since $\mathcal{D}_i\ne\emptyset$, we have $\mathcal{A}^\ast=\bigsqcup_{i=1}^{u}C_i\times X'=\mathcal{A}\times X'$. Recall that $\frac{n_s}{k_s}>2$ for all $s>s_0$, hence $C_i\cap C_j\neq \emptyset$ for any $i\neq j\in[u]$. Therefore, by the imprimitivity of $\mathcal{A}^\ast$, $\mathcal{A}^\ast$ is a non-maximum independent set of $G$, thus $\mathcal{A}\subseteq\mathcal{F}$ is a non-maximal intersecting family and the claim holds. For every intersecting family $\mathcal{A}\subseteq\mathcal{F}$, since $\frac{n_s}{k_s}=2$ for all $s\in {S}$, then $\mathcal{A}=\{A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_w\}\times\prod_{s\in S\setminus S'}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$ for some nonempty subset $S'\subseteq S$, where $\{A_1,\ldots,A_w\}\subseteq\prod_{s\in S'}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$ satisfying $A_i\neq \bar{A}_j$ for all $i\neq j\in [w]$. In particular, if $\mathcal{A}$ is a maximum intersecting family, we can obtain that $\bigsqcup_{j=1}^{w}\{A_j,\bar{A}_j\}=\prod_{s\in S'}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$ and $2w=\prod_{s\in S'}{n_s\choose k_s}$.
Therefore, $\mathcal{A}^\ast=\{A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_{w_0}\}\times\prod_{s\in S\setminus S_1}{[n_s]\choose k_s}\times X'$ and $N_G(\mathcal{A}^\ast)=\{\bar{A}_1,\bar{A}_2,\ldots,\bar{A}_{w_0}\}\times\prod_{s\in S\setminus S_1}{[n_s]\choose k_s}\times X'$, for some positive integer $w_0<\frac{\prod_{s\in S_1}{n_s\choose k_s}}{2}$ and nonempty subset $S_1\subseteq S$.
From the structure of the imprimitive independent set $\mathcal{A}^\ast$, we know that
|[N]{}\_G\[\^\]={E\_1,|[E]{}\_1,E\_2,|[E]{}\_2,…,E\_v,|[E]{}\_v}\_[sSS\_1]{}[\[n\_s\]k\_s]{}X’,
where $\emptyset\neq\{E_1,\ldots,E_v\}\subseteq\prod_{s\in S_1}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$, and $\bigsqcup_{j=1}^{w_0}\{A_j,\bar{A}_j\}\sqcup\bigsqcup_{j=1}^v\{E_j,\bar{E}_j\}=\prod_{s\in S_1}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$.
Since $E_j\times\prod_{s\in S\setminus S_1}{[n_s]\choose k_s}\times X'$ and $\bar{E}_j\times\prod_{s\in S\setminus S_1}{[n_s]\choose k_s}\times X'$ must be contained in the same one of $\hat{\mathcal{A}_1}$, $\hat{\mathcal{A}_2}$, we have
\_1&=()\_[sSS\_1]{}[\[n\_s\]k\_s]{}X’,\
\_2&=(’’)\_[sSS\_1]{}[\[n\_s\]k\_s]{}X’,
where $\mathcal{E}\sqcup\mathcal{E}'=\{E_1,\ldots,E_v\}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}\sqcup\tilde{\mathcal{E}}'=\{\bar{E}_1,\ldots,\bar{E}_v\}$. Here we denote $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}=\{\bar{E}_{i_1},\ldots,\bar{E}_{i_l}\}$ if $\mathcal{E}=\{E_{i_1},\ldots,E_{i_l}\}\subseteq\prod_{s\in S_1}{[n_s]\choose k_s}$, for some subset $\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}\subseteq[v]$.
Finally, to sum up,
\_1&=\^\_1=(X’)(()\_[sSS\_1]{}[\[n\_s\]k\_s]{}X’),\
\_2&=\^\_2=(X’)((’’)\_[sSS\_1]{}[\[n\_s\]k\_s]{}X’).
Proof of Theorem \[main1\]
==========================
Throughout this section, we denote $S_n$ as the symmetric group on $[n]$ and $S_C$ as the symmetric group on $C$ for $C\subseteq [n]$. For each $i\in[p]$, let $X_i$ be a finite set, then for each family $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \prod_{i\in[p]}X_i$, we denote $\mathcal{A}|_i$ as the projection of $\mathcal{A}$ onto the $i$-th factor.
For the proof of Theorem \[main1\], we need the following proposition obtained by Wang and Zhang in [@WZ13].
*([@WZ13])*\[fragment2\] Let $G(X,Y)$ be a non-complete bipartite graph with $|X|=|Y|$ and $\epsilon(X)=d(X)-1$, and let $\Gamma$ be a group part-transitively acting on $G(X,Y)$. If each fragment of $G(X,Y)$ is primitive and there are no $2$-fragments in $\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$, then every nontrivial fragment $A\in \mathcal{F}(X)$ (if there exists) is balanced (see Remark \[balanced\]), and for each $a\in A$, there is a unique nontrivial fragment $B$ such that $A\cap B=\{a\}$.
The proof of Theorem \[main1\] is divided into two parts: Firstly, we prove the bound (\[eq02\]). Consider a non-complete bipartite graph defined by the multi-part cross-intersecting family. Through discussions about the primitivity of group $\prod_{i=1}^{p}S_{n_i}$ and careful evaluations about $|\mathcal{A}|+|\mathcal{Y}|-|N(\mathcal{A})|$, the bound (\[eq02\]) follows from Theorem \[key01\]. Secondly, based on a characterization of all nontrivial fragments in this bipartite graph, we determine all the structures of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ when the bound (\[eq02\]) is attained.
With the assumptions in the theorem, we define a bipartite graph $G(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$ with $\mathcal{X}=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{[n_i]\choose t_i}$ and $\mathcal{Y}=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{[n_i]\choose s_i}$. For $A=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{A_i}\in \mathcal{X}$ and $B=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{B_i}\in \mathcal{Y}$ ($A_i\in {[n_i]\choose t_i}$ and $B_i\in {[n_i]\choose s_i}$, for every $1\leq i\leq p$), $(A,B)$ forms an edge in $G(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$ if and only if $A\cap B=\emptyset$, i.e., $A_i\cap B_i=\emptyset$ for each $1\leq i\leq p$.
It can be easily verified that $\prod_{i=1}^{p}S_{n_i}$ acts transitively on $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$, respectively, and preserves the property of cross-intersecting. Thus we have $d(\mathcal{X})=|N(A)|$ for each $A\in \mathcal{X}$, and $d(\mathcal{Y})=|N(B)|$ for each $B\in \mathcal{Y}$. Since, for each $A=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{A_i}\in \mathcal{X}$, $$N(A)=\{B=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{B_i}\in \mathcal{Y}:~A_i\cap B_i=\emptyset\text{ for each }1\leq i\leq p\}=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{[n_i]\setminus A_i\choose s_i},$$ we have $d(\mathcal{X})=|N(A)|=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{{n_i-t_i}\choose s_i}$. Similarly, $d(\mathcal{Y})=|N(B)|=\prod_{i=1}^{p}{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}$.
By Theorem \[key01\], we obtain that $$\alpha(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})=\max{\{|\mathcal{Y}|-d(\mathcal{X})+1, |\mathcal{A}'|+|\mathcal{Y}|-|N(\mathcal{A}')|, |\mathcal{B}'|+|\mathcal{X}|-|N(\mathcal{B}')|\}},$$ where $\mathcal{A}'$ and $\mathcal{B}'$ are minimum imprimitive subsets of $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ respectively. Therefore, in order to estimate $\alpha(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$ accurately, more discussions about the sizes and the structures of the imprimitive subsets of $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ are necessary.
\[imprimitive subset\] Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be imprimitive subsets of $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ respectively, then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}&=\prod_{i\in T_1}{\{A_i,\bar{A_i}\}}\times\prod_{i\in T_2}{\{A_i\}}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(T_1\sqcup T_2)}{[n_i]\choose t_i},~\text{for some disjoint $T_1, T_2\subseteq [p]$},\\
\mathcal{B}&=\prod_{i\in R_1}{\{B_i,\bar{B_i}\}}\times\prod_{i\in R_2}{\{B_i\}}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(R_1\sqcup R_2)}{[n_i]\choose s_i},~\text{for some disjoint $R_1, R_2\subseteq [p]$},\end{aligned}$$ where $A_i\in {[n_i]\choose t_i}$, $B_i\in {[n_i]\choose s_i}$, $T_1\sqcup T_2\neq\emptyset$, $R_1\sqcup R_2\neq\emptyset$ and $T_2,R_2\neq[p]$. Furthermore, for each $i\in T_1$, $n_i=2t_i$ and for each $i\in R_1$, $n_i=2s_i$.
If $\Gamma=\prod_{i=1}^{p}S_{n_i}$ is imprimitive on $\mathcal{X}$, then from the definition we know that $\Gamma$ preserves a nontrivial partition $\{\mathcal{X}_j\}_{j=1}^{L}$ of $\mathcal{X}$. By projecting $\mathcal{X}_j$ to the $i$-th factor, we can obtain that $\bigsqcup_{j=1}^{L}(\mathcal{X}_j|_{i})=\mathcal{X}|_i={[n_i]\choose t_i}$ and $\Gamma|_{i}=S_{n_i}$ preserving this partition of $[n_i]\choose t_i$.
It is well known that for each $A_i\in {[n_i]\choose t_i}$, the stabilizer of $A_i$ is isomorphic to $S_{t_i}\times S_{n_i-t_i}$, which is a maximal subgroup of $S_{n_i}$ if $2t_i\neq n_i$ (see e.g. [@NB06]). Then by Theorem \[primitivity\], we obtain that $S_{n_i}$ is primitive on $[n_i]\choose t_i$ unless $2t_i=n_i$, which means for the factors with $2t_i\neq n_i$ the partition $\bigsqcup_{j=1}^{L}(\mathcal{X}_j|_{i})$ of ${[n_i]\choose t_i}$ must be a trivial partition. Thus for each $j\in L$, $\mathcal{X}_j|_{i}$ is either a singleton in ${[n_i]\choose t_i}$, or $\mathcal{X}_j|_{i}={[n_i]\choose t_i}$.
When $2t_i=n_i$, it can be easily verified that the only imprimitive subset of $[n_i]\choose t_i$ has the form $\{A_i,\bar{A_i}\}$. Therefore, for the factors with $2t_i=n_i$, the partition $\bigsqcup_{j=1}^{L}(\mathcal{X}_j|_{i})$ of ${[n_i]\choose t_i}$ is either a trivial partition, or each partition block has the form $\mathcal{X}_j|_{i}=\{A_{i,j},\bar{A}_{i,j}\}$ for some $A_{i,j}\in {[n_i]\choose t_i}$.
Since each imprimitive subset of $\mathcal{X}$ can be seen as a block of a nontrivial partition of $\mathcal{X}$, we have $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{X}_j$ for some $j\in [L]$. From the analysis above, we know that $\mathcal{A}|_i=\{A_i\}$ or $\{A_i,\bar{A_i}\}$ for some $A_i\in {[n_i]\choose t_i}$, or $\mathcal{A}|_i={[n_i]\choose t_i}$. Therefore, set $T_1\subseteq [p]$ such that for all $i\in T_1$, $2t_i=n_i$ and $\mathcal{A}|_i=\{A_i,\bar{A_i}\}$ for some $A_i\in {[n_i]\choose t_i}$; set $T_2\subseteq [p]$ such that for all $i\in T_1$, $\mathcal{A}|_i$ is a singleton, finally, we have $$\mathcal{A}=\prod_{i\in T_1}{\{A_i,\bar{A_i}\}}\times\prod_{i\in T_2}{\{A_i\}}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(T_1\sqcup T_2)}{[n_i]\choose t_i}.$$ The proof for the imprimitive subsets of $\mathcal{Y}$ is the same as that of $\mathcal{X}$. Thus, the claim holds.
By Claim \[imprimitive subset\], we know that for the imprimitive subsets $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ above $$|\mathcal{A}|=2^{|T_1|}\cdot\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(T_1\sqcup T_2)}{n_i \choose t_i}~\text{and}~|\mathcal{B}|=2^{|R_1|}\cdot\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(R_1\sqcup R_2)}{n_i \choose s_i}.$$ And since $$\begin{aligned}
N(\mathcal{A})&=\{B\in \mathcal{Y}:~A\cap B=\emptyset\text{ for some }A\in\mathcal{A}\}\\
&=\prod_{i\in T_1}{({A_i\choose s_i}\sqcup{\bar{A}_i\choose s_i})}\times\prod_{i\in T_2}{{[n_i]\setminus A_i}\choose s_i}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(T_1\sqcup T_2)}{[n_i]\choose s_i},\\
N(\mathcal{B})&=\{A\in \mathcal{X}:~A\cap B=\emptyset\text{ for some }B\in\mathcal{B}\}\\
&=\prod_{i\in R_1}{({B_i\choose t_i}\sqcup{\bar{B}_i\choose t_i})}\times\prod_{i\in R_2}{{[n_i]\setminus B_i}\choose t_i}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(R_1\sqcup R_2)}{[n_i]\choose t_i},\\\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
|N(\mathcal{A})|=2^{|T_1|}\cdot\prod_{i\in T_1}{{\frac{n_i}{2}}\choose s_i}\cdot\prod_{i\in T_2}{{n_i-t_i}\choose s_i}\cdot\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(T_1\sqcup T_2)}{n_i\choose s_i},\\
|N(\mathcal{B})|=2^{|R_1|}\cdot\prod_{i\in R_1}{{\frac{n_i}{2}}\choose t_i}\cdot\prod_{i\in R_2}{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}\cdot\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(R_1\sqcup R_2)}{n_i\choose t_i}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we can estimate quantities $|\mathcal{A}'|+|\mathcal{Y}|-|N(\mathcal{A}')|$ and $|\mathcal{B}'|+|\mathcal{X}|-|N(\mathcal{B}')|$.
\[size estamitae\] With the assumptions in the theorem, for all imprimitive subsets $\mathcal{A}\subseteq\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{Y}$, $|\mathcal{Y}|-d(\mathcal{X})+1> |\mathcal{A}|+|\mathcal{Y}|-|N(\mathcal{A})|$, and $|\mathcal{Y}|-d(\mathcal{X})+1> |\mathcal{B}|+|\mathcal{X}|-|N(\mathcal{B})|$.
We prove the claim by estimating the difference directly. Denote $$\begin{aligned}
&~D_1=|N(\mathcal{A})|-|\mathcal{A}|-d(\mathcal{X})+1\text{~and}\\
D_2&=|\mathcal{Y}|-|\mathcal{X}|+|N(\mathcal{B})|-|\mathcal{B}|-d(\mathcal{X})+1\end{aligned}$$ to be the differences between $|\mathcal{Y}|-d(\mathcal{X})+1$ and, respectively, $|\mathcal{A}|+|\mathcal{Y}|-|N(\mathcal{A})|$ and $|\mathcal{B}|+|\mathcal{X}|-|N(\mathcal{B})|$. Set $d_1=\frac{D_1}{|N(\mathcal{A})|}$, $d_2=\frac{D_2}{|\mathcal{X}|}$. Then, we have $d_1=1-\beta_1-\beta_2+\theta$, $d_2=\delta+\eta_0\cdot(1-\eta_1-\eta_2)+\theta'$, where $\theta=|N(\mathcal{A})|^{-1}$, $\delta=\frac{|\mathcal{Y}|-|\mathcal{X}|}{|\mathcal{X}|}$, $\eta_0=\frac{|N(\mathcal{B})|}{|\mathcal{X}|}$, $\theta'=|\mathcal{X}|^{-1}$, $\beta_1=\frac{|\mathcal{A}|}{|N(\mathcal{A})|}$, $\beta_2=\frac{d(\mathcal{X})}{|N(\mathcal{A})|}$, $\eta_1=\frac{|\mathcal{B}|}{|N(\mathcal{B})|}$, and $\eta_2=\frac{d(\mathcal{X})}{|N(\mathcal{B})|}$. Since ${n_i\choose t_i}\cdot{{n_i-t_i}\choose s_i}={n_i\choose s_i}\cdot{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}$ for each $i\in [p]$, we have $1/{{n_i-t_i}\choose s_i}={n_i\choose t_i}/({n_i\choose s_i}\cdot{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i})$ for each $i\in[p]$. This yields that $$\begin{aligned}
&~~~~\beta_1=\prod_{i\in [p]}\frac{{n_i \choose t_i}}{{n_i\choose s_i}}\cdot\prod_{i\in T_1\sqcup T_2}\frac{1}{{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}},~~\beta_2=\frac{1}{2^{|T_1|}}\cdot\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(T_1\sqcup T_2)}\prod_{j=0}^{s_i-1}(1-\frac{t_i}{n_i-j}),\\
\eta_1&=\prod_{i\in [p]}\frac{{n_i \choose s_i}}{{n_i\choose t_i}}\cdot\prod_{i\in R_1\sqcup R_2}\frac{1}{{{n_i-t_i}\choose s_i}},~~\eta_2=\prod_{i\in [p]}\frac{{n_i \choose s_i}}{{n_i\choose t_i}}\cdot\frac{1}{2^{|R_1|}}\cdot\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus(R_1\sqcup R_2)}\prod_{j=0}^{t_i-1}(1-\frac{s_i}{n_i-j}).\end{aligned}$$
By the assumptions, we know that $n_i\geq s_i+t_i+1\geq5$, $\prod_{i\in [p]}\frac{{n_i \choose t_i}}{{n_i\choose s_i}}\leq 1$ and ${{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}\geq {\lceil\frac{n_i}{2}\rceil\choose t_i}\geq \frac{n_i}{2}$. Since $T_1\sqcup T_2\neq\emptyset$, $R_1\sqcup R_2\neq\emptyset$ and $T_2,R_2\neq[p]$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_1&\leq\prod_{i\in T_1\sqcup T_2}\frac{1}{{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}}\leq\max\limits_{i\in (T_1\sqcup T_2)}{\{(\frac{2}{n_i+2})^{|T_1|}\cdot(\frac{2}{n_i})^{|T_2|}\}},\\
&~\beta_2\leq\frac{1}{2^{|T_1|}}\cdot\max\limits_{i\in[p]\setminus (T_1\sqcup T_2)}\{(1-\frac{4n_i-6}{n_i(n_i-1)})^{p-(|T_1|+|T_2|)}\},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_1&\leq(1+\delta)\cdot\prod_{i\in R_1\sqcup R_2}\frac{1}{{{n_i-t_i}\choose s_i}}\leq(1+\delta)\cdot\max\limits_{i\in (R_1\sqcup R_2)}{\{(\frac{2}{n_i+2})^{|R_1|}\cdot(\frac{2}{n_i})^{|R_2|}\}},\\
&~~~~~~~~~\eta_2\leq(1+\delta)\cdot\frac{1}{2^{|R_1|}}\cdot\max\limits_{i\in[p]\setminus (R_1\sqcup R_2)}\{(1-\frac{4n_i-6}{n_i(n_i-1)})^{p-(|R_1|+|R_2|)}\}.\end{aligned}$$ This leads to
\_1+\_2{
[ll]{}1-\_[ij]{}{--}, & T\_2;\
-\_[ij]{}{--}, & ;
.
and
{
[ll]{}1-\_[ij]{}{--}, & R\_2;\
-\_[ij]{}{--}, & .
.
Since $5\leq n_i\leq\frac{7}{4} n_j$ for all distinct $i,j\in[p]$, thus we have $\beta_1+\beta_2,\frac{\eta_1+\eta_2}{1+\delta}\leq 1$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d_1=1-\beta_1-\beta_2+\theta> 1-\beta_1-\beta_2\geq0,\\
d_2&=\delta+\eta_0\cdot(1-\eta_1-\eta_2)+\theta'=\delta\cdot(1-\eta_0\cdot\frac{\eta_1+\eta_2}{1+\delta})+\eta_0\cdot(1-\frac{\eta_1+\eta_2}{1+\delta})+\theta'>0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the claim holds.
For each pair of non-empty cross-intersecting families $(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B})\in 2^{\mathcal{X}}\times2^{\mathcal{Y}}$, $\mathcal{A}\cup \mathcal{B}$ forms a nontrivial independent set of $G(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$. Therefore, by Claim \[size estamitae\], the inequality (\[eq02\]) holds.
To complete the proof, we need to characterize all the nontrivial fragments in $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{X})$. As a direct consequence of Claim \[size estamitae\], every fragment of $G(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$ is primitive. Hence, by Theorem \[key00\], when $\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i \choose t_i}<\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose s_i}$, $\mathcal{X}$ has only $1$-fragments.
When $\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i \choose t_i}=\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose s_i}$, suppose there are nontrivial fragments in $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{X})$. W.l.o.g., assume that $\mathcal{S}$ is a minimal-sized nontrivial fragment in $\mathcal{X}$. By Theorem \[key00\], $\mathcal{S}$ is semi-imprimitive. Since for any two different elements $A,B\in\mathcal{X}$, $|N(A)\cap N(B)|<\prod_{i\in [p]}{{n_i-t_i}\choose s_i}-1$. Therefore, there are no $2$-fragments in $\mathcal{F(\mathcal{X})}$. By Proposition \[fragment2\], $\mathcal{S}$ is balanced.
Now we are going to prove the non-existence of such $\mathcal{S}$ by analyzing its size and structure, which will yield that $\mathcal{X}$ also has only $1$-fragments when $\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i \choose t_i}=\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose s_i}$.
For each $A=\prod_{i\in [p]}A_i\in \mathcal{S}$, let $\Gamma_A=\prod_{i\in [p]}(S_{A_i}\times S_{\bar{A}_i})$, $\Gamma_{\mathcal{S}}=\{\sigma\in \Gamma:~\sigma(\mathcal{S})=\mathcal{S}\}$ and $\Gamma_{A,\mathcal{S}}=\{\sigma\in \Gamma_A:~\sigma(\mathcal{S})=\mathcal{S}\}$. We claim that there exists a subset $C\in \mathcal{S}$ such that $\Gamma_{C}\neq \Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}$. Otherwise, for any two different subsets $B,B'\in \mathcal{S}$, we have $\Gamma_{B}=\Gamma_{B,\mathcal{S}}$ and $\Gamma_{B'}= \Gamma_{B',\mathcal{S}}$. Since $\Gamma_{B,\mathcal{S}}$ and $\Gamma_{B',\mathcal{S}}$ are both subgroups of $\Gamma_{\mathcal{S}}$, we have $\langle\Gamma_{B},\Gamma_{B'}\rangle$ is a subgroup of $\Gamma_{\mathcal{S}}$. Let $T\subseteq [p]$ be the factors where $B'_i=B_i~(\text{or}~\bar{B}_i~\text{if}~2t_i=n_i)$, write $$\Gamma_B=\prod_{i\in T}(S_{B_i}\times S_{\bar{B}_i})\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus T}(S_{B_i}\times S_{\bar{B}_i}),$$ then we have, $$\Gamma_{B'}=\prod_{i\in T}(S_{B_i}\times S_{\bar{B}_i})\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus T}(S_{B'_i}\times S_{\bar{B}'_i}).$$ Since $\langle S_{B_i}\times S_{\bar{B}_i}, S_{B'_i}\times S_{\bar{B}_i'}\rangle=S_{n_i}$ for each $B'_i\ne B_i~(\text{and}~B'_i\ne\bar{B}_i~\text{if}~2t_i=n_i)$, we have $$\langle\Gamma_{B},\Gamma_{B'}\rangle=\prod_{i\in T}(S_{B_i}\times S_{\bar{B}_i})\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus T}S_{n_i}.$$ Therefore, for some fixed $B\in\mathcal{S}$, $\Gamma_{\mathcal{S}}$ contains $\prod_{i\in T'}(S_{B_i}\times S_{\bar{B}_i})\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus T'}S_{n_i}$ as a subgroup, where $$T'=\{i|i\in[p],\text{ such that }A_i=B_i~(\text{or }\bar{B}_i\text{ if }2t_i=n_i)\text{ for all }A\in\mathcal{S}\}.$$ When $T'=\emptyset$, we have $\Gamma_{\mathcal{S}}=\prod_{i\in [p]}S_{n_i}$, thus $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{X}$, yielding a contradiction. When $T'\neq \emptyset$, if $|T'|=1$, w.l.o.g., taking $T'=\{1\}$, we have $(S_{B_1}\times S_{\bar{B}_1})\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus \{1\}}S_{n_i}\subseteq\Gamma_{\mathcal{S}}$. Therefore, since $\mathcal{S}\neq\mathcal{X}$, from the definition of $T'$ we have $$\mathcal{S}=\{B_1\}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus \{1\}}{[n_i]\choose t_i}, \text{~or~} S=\{B_1,\bar{B}_1\}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus \{1\}}{[n_i]\choose t_i}\text{~when $2t_1=n_1$}.$$ In both cases, $|\mathcal{S}|<\frac{\alpha(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})}{2}$. If $|T'|\geq 2$, we have $$\mathcal{S}\subseteq\{B_{i_0}\}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus \{i_0\}}{[n_i]\choose t_i}, \text{~or~} S\subseteq\{B_{i_0},\bar{B}_{i_0}\}\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus \{i_0\}}{[n_i]\choose t_i}\text{~when $2t_{i_0}=n_{i_0}$},$$ for some $i_0\in T'$. Therefore, when $T'\neq \emptyset$, we always have $|\mathcal{S}|<\frac{\alpha(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})}{2}$, which contradicts the fact that $\mathcal{S}$ is balanced. Hence, the existence of $C$ is guaranteed.
By Proposition \[fragment2\] we have that $[\Gamma_{C}:\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}]$, the index of $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}$ in $\Gamma_{C}$, equals 2. Now let $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}[C_i]$ be the projection of $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}$ onto $S_{C_i}$, $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}[C_i]$ must be a subgroup of $S_{C_i}$ of index no greater than 2. Thus $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}[C_i]=S_{C_i}$ or $A_{C_i}$. Since $\Gamma_C=\prod_{i\in [p]}(S_{C_i}\times S_{\bar{C}_i})$, we know that $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}=\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus\{j\}}(S_{C_i}\times S_{\bar{C}_i})\times(A_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}})$ or $\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus\{j\}}(S_{C_i}\times S_{\bar{C}_i})\times(S_{C_{j}}\times A_{\bar{C}_{j}}$), for some $j\in [p]$.
Since for all $i\in [p]$, $t_i=|B_i\cap C_i|+|B_i\cap \bar{C}_i|$ for each pair $B,C\in \mathcal{S}$. If $|B_i\cap C_i|>1$, let $s,t\in B_i\cap C_i$, then the transposition $(s~t)$ fixes both $C_i$ and $B_i$. Taking $i=j$, the semi-imprimitivity of $\mathcal{S}$ implies that $(s~t)\in \Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}}$. This yields $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}}=S_{C_{j}}\times A_{\bar{C}_{j}}$. From this process it follows that, for each $B\in \mathcal{S}$, there exists at most one of $|B_j\cap C_j|$ and $|B_j\cap \bar{C}_j|$ to be greater than $1$. Note that if $B_j\in\bar{C}_j$, then $S_{C_j}$ and $S_{B_j}$ fix both $C_j$ and $B_j$, i.e., $S_{C_j}\times S_{B_j}\subseteq \Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}}$. Since $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}}=A_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}$ or $S_{C_{j}}\times A_{\bar{C}_{j}}$, and neither $A_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}$ nor $S_{C_{j}}\times A_{\bar{C}_{j}}$ contains $S_{C_j}\times S_{B_j}$. Therefore, we obtain that $|B_j\cap C_j|=1$ for each $B\in \mathcal{S}$, or $|B_j\cap C_j|=t_j-1$ for each $B\in \mathcal{S}$.
We claim that for both cases, $\mathcal{S}$ can not be balanced.
Suppose $|B_j\cap C_j|=1$ for each $B\in \mathcal{S}$. W.l.o.g., assume $B_j\cap C_j=\{1\}$ for some $B\in \mathcal{S}$. From the semi-imprimitivity of $\mathcal{S}$, we know that for all $\gamma\in \Gamma,~\gamma(\mathcal{S})\cap\mathcal{S}=\emptyset, ~\mathcal{S}$ or $\{A\}$ for some $A\in \mathcal{S}$. Thus $(\gamma(\mathcal{S})\cap\mathcal{S})|_j=\emptyset,~\mathcal{S}|_j$ or $\{A_j\}$ for some $A_j\in {[n_j]\choose t_j}$. If $t_j>2$, then $|B_j\cap \bar{C}_j|\geq 2$, so $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}}=A_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}$. On the other hand, we can find distinct $s,t\in C_j$ such that $(1~s~t)(B_j)=B_j\setminus\{1\}\cup\{s\}\in \mathcal{S}|_j$ since $(1~s~t)\in A_{C_j}$. Then $(1~s)(\mathcal{S}|_j)$ has more than one element of $\mathcal{S}|_j$, therefore $(1~s)\in \Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}}$. This contradiction proves that $t_j=2$. Thus $\mathcal{S}|_j=\mathcal{C}=\{A_j\in{[n_j]\choose 2}:~1\in A_j\}$. Otherwise, w.l.o.g., assume $C_j=\{1,2\}$ and there exists $B\in \mathcal{S}$ such that $B_j\cap C_j=\{2\}$. Since $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}}=A_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}$ or $S_{C_{j}}\times A_{\bar{C}_{j}}$, we have $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathcal{S}|_j$ and $\mathcal{C'}=\{A_j\in{[n_j]\choose 2}:~2\in A_j\}\subseteq\mathcal{S}|_j$. Thus $\mathcal{S}|_j=\mathcal{C}\cup\mathcal{C'}$. This yields $\Gamma_{C,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}}=S_{C_{j}}\times S_{\bar{C}_{j}}$, leading to a contradiction. Suppose now $|B_j\cap C_j|=t_j-1>1$ for each $B\in \mathcal{S}$. Similarly, we can prove that $n_j-t_j=2$, which contradicts $n_j\geq s_j+t_j+1$ and $2\leq s_j$, $t_j\leq \frac{n}{2}$. Therefore, for each $B\in \mathcal{S}$, $|B_j\cap C_j|=1$. From the analysis above, we know that for each $B\in \mathcal{S}$, $B_j=\{1,b\}$ for some $b\in[n_j]$. Thus, for each $B\in \mathcal{S}$, we have $\Gamma_{B,\mathcal{S}}|_{S_{B_{j}}\times S_{\bar{B}_{j}}}=A_{B_{j}}\times S_{\bar{B}_{j}}$, and $\Gamma_{B,\mathcal{S}}=\prod_{i\in[p]\setminus \{j\}}(S_{B_i}\times S_{\bar{B}_i})\times(A_{B_{j}}\times S_{\bar{B}_{j}})$ since $[\Gamma_{B}:\Gamma_{B,\mathcal{S}}]=2$. Therefore $\Gamma_{\mathcal{S}}$ contains $$\langle\Gamma_{B,\mathcal{S}},\text{~for~all~}B\in \mathcal{S}\rangle=\prod_{i\in T''}(S_{C_i}\times S_{\bar{C}_i})\times\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus (T''\cup\{j\})}S_{n_i}\times S_{[n_j]\setminus\{1\}}$$ as a subgroup, where $T''=\{i|i\in[p],\text{ such that }B_i=C_i~(\text{or }\bar{C}_i\text{ if }2t_i=n_i)\text{ for all }B\in\mathcal{S}\}$. Similarly, by arguing the structure of $\mathcal{S}$, if $T''\neq\emptyset$, we can prove that $|\mathcal{S}|<\frac{\alpha(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})}{2}$. Thus we have $T''=\emptyset$ and $\mathcal{S}=\prod_{i\in[p]\setminus\{j\}}{[n_i]\choose t_i}\times \mathcal{C}$.
Since $\mathcal{S}$ is balanced, $\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i \choose t_i}=\prod_{i\in [p]}{n_i\choose s_i}$ and $|\mathcal{S}|=\prod_{i\in[p]\setminus\{j\}}{n_i\choose t_i}\cdot (n_j-1)$, we have $$\label{eq05}
2\prod_{i\in[p]\setminus\{j\}}{n_i\choose t_i}\cdot (n_j-1)=\prod_{i\in[p]\setminus\{j\}}{n_i\choose t_i}\cdot{n_j\choose 2}-\prod_{i\in[p]\setminus\{j\}}{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}\cdot{{n_j-s_j}\choose 2}+1,$$ which means $n_j$ must be an integral zero of the following function $$\begin{aligned}
H(x)=(1-a_0)\cdot x^2-(5-a_0\cdot(2s_j+1))\cdot x+(2b_0+4-a_0\cdot (s_j^2+s_j)),\end{aligned}$$ where $a_0=\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus \{j\}}\frac{{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}}{{n_i\choose t_i}}$ and $b_0=\prod_{i\in [p]\setminus \{j\}}{{n_i\choose t_i}^{-1}}$. Since $n_j\geq3+s_j$ and $2\leq s_j\leq \frac{n_j}{2}$, by Vieta’s formulas for quadratic polynomials, there is no such $n_j$ satisfying $H(n_j)=0$ when $s_j\geq 3$. Hence $\mathcal{S}=\prod_{i\in[p]\setminus\{j\}}{[n_i]\choose t_i}\times \mathcal{C}$ is a nontrivial balanced fragment of $\mathcal{X}$ if and only if $t_j=s_j=2$ and equation (\[eq05\]) holds. Using the fact that $\frac{{{n_i-s_i}\choose t_i}}{{n_i\choose t_i}}\leq (1-\frac{s_i}{n_i})(1-\frac{s_i}{n_i-1})$ and the assumption $n_i\leq \frac{7}{4}n_j$ for distinct $i,j\in[p]$, it can be easily verified that the LHS of equation (\[eq05\]) is strictly less than the RHS when $s_j=2$. Therefore, $\mathcal{S}$ can not be balanced.
This completes the proof.
Concluding remarks
==================
In this paper we have investigated two multi-part generalizations of the cross-intersecting theorems. Our main contribution is determining the maximal size and the corresponding structures of the families for both trivially and nontrivially (with the non-empty restriction) cross-intersecting cases.
The method we used for the proof was originally introduced by Wang and Zhang in [@WZ11], which was further generalized to the bipartite case in [@WZ13]. This method can deal with set systems, finite vector spaces and permutations uniformly. It is natural to ask whether we can extend the single-part cross-intersecting theorems for finite vector spaces and permutations to the multi-part case. It is possible for permutations when considering the case without the non-empty restriction, and we believe it is also possible for finite vector spaces. But when it comes to the case where the families are non-empty, as far as we know, there is still no result for finite vector spaces and permutations.
For single-part families $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, it is natural to define cross-t-intersecting as $|A\cap B|\geq t$ for each pair of $A\in \mathcal{A}$ and $B\in \mathcal{B}$. But for multi-part families, when defining cross-t-intersecting between two families, the simple extension of the definition for single-part case can be confusing. Therefore, a reasonable definition and related problems for multi-part cross-$t$-intersecting families are also worth considering.
[^1]: The research of G. Ge was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos.11431003 and 61571310, Beijing Scholars Program, Beijing Hundreds of Leading Talents Training Project of Science and Technology, and Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The energy spectrum of tearing mode turbulence in a sheared background magnetic field is studied in this work. We consider the scenario where the nonlinear interaction of overlapping large-scale modes excites a broad spectrum of small-scale modes, generating tearing mode turbulence. The spectrum of such turbulence is of interest since it is relevant to the small-scale back-reaction on the large-scale field. The turbulence we discuss here differs from traditional MHD turbulence mainly in two aspects. One is the existence of many linearly stable small-scale modes which cause an effective damping during energy cascade. The other is the scale-independent anisotropy induced by the large-scale modes tilting the sheared background field, as opposed to the scale-dependent anisotropy frequently encountered in traditional critically balanced turbulence theories. Due to these two differences, the energy spectrum deviates from a simple power law and takes the form of a power law multiplied by an exponential falloff. Numerical simulations are carried out using visco-resistive MHD equations to verify our theoretical predictions, and reasonable agreement is found between the numerical results and our model.'
author:
- Di Hu
- Amitava Bhattacharjee
- 'Yi-Min Huang'
title: Energy spectrum of tearing mode turbulence in sheared background field
---
\#1\#2[[\#1 ]{}[(\#2)]{}]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{}
="321D ==
=
===========================
=\[\]=\[\]=
=
\#1\#2 \#1[ $$\begin{aligned}
#1\end{aligned}$$]{}
\#1[[(\#1)]{}]{} \#1[[\#1]{}]{}
Introduction {#s:Intro}
============
1em
The generation of a spectrum of small-scale tearing modes by their large-scale counterparts is a very relevant issue both in magnetically confined devices such as a reversed-field-pinch (RFP) or a tokamak as well as in space and astrophysical plasmas. For RFPs, the constant interaction of tearing modes and resistive interchange modes keeps the plasma in a perpetual turbulent state [@RFP]. For tokamaks, the non-linear excitation and overlapping of a spectrum of tearing modes may break nested flux surfaces and lead to disruption [@Diamond1984; @Strauss1986; @Craddock1991]. In astrophysical plasmas, secondary plasmoid turbulence is found to play a crucial role during magnetic reconnection both in kinetic [@Daughton2011] and in resistive MHD[@Huang16APJ] investigations.
An important aspect of these problems is the back-reaction of small-scale field fluctuations on their large-scale counterparts. A well-known example of such back-reaction is the hyper-resistivity produced in a mean-field theory, which has been a subject of intensive studies in the past decades [@Strauss1986; @Craddock1991; @Boozer1986; @AB1986; @Hameiri1987]. To understand this problem, however, knowledge regarding the structure of tearing turbulence spectrum is necessary [@Diamond1984; @Strauss1986; @Craddock1991; @AB1986; @Hameiri1987]. Hence, in this paper, we try to construct a model to describe the structure of tearing-instability-driven turbulence spectrum in a sheared strong magnetic field. While this sheared and strongly magnetized case would appear to be most relevant to laboratory plasmas and to space and astrophysical plasmas characterized by strong guide fields, our approach also provides important qualitative insight into more general problems where turbulence is instability-driven due to strong spatial inhomogeneities.
Two arguments are commonly invoked when studying the spectrum of MHD turbulence. One is the inertial range argument, which states that there exists a self-similar region in the $k$ space between the energy injection scale and dissipation scale where energy is conservatively transferred from one scale to another, resulting in a power-law energy spectrum[@FrischBook; @DiamondBook]. The other is the scale-dependent anisotropy which indicates that the ratio between the parallel and perpendicular length scale $l_\|/l_\bot$ of turbulent eddies depends on $l_\bot$. For weak turbulence in a homogeneous magnetic field, three-wave interactions result in no cascade along the parallel direction [@Ng96ApJ; @Ng96POP; @Galtier2000; @Lithwick2003]. Hence, $l_\|$ is independent of $l_\bot$, which yields an energy spectrum $E\left(k_\bot,l_\|\right)=E_\bot\left(k_\bot\right)f\left(l_\|\right)\propto
k_\bot^{-2}$, where $f\left(l_\|\right)$ is any initial spectrum function of $l_\|$ and $k_\bot\sim l_\bot^{-1}$ is the perpendicular wave number. For strong turbulence, assuming no scale-dependent alignment, the frequently invoked critical balance condition assumes that the nonlinear term and linear term are of the same order, $v_A/l_\|\sim v\left(l_\bot\right)/l_\bot$, where $v_A$ is the Alfvén speed of the background field and $v\left(l_\bot\right)$ is the velocity at a given perpendicular scale $l_\bot$ [@GS1995; @GS1997]. Combining the critical balance assumption with the inertial range argument yields the scale-dependent anisotropy $l_\|\propto l_\bot^{2/3}$, corresponding to the energy spectrum $E\left(k_\bot\right)\propto k_\bot^{-5/3}$ [@DiamondBook]. With scale-dependent alignment, the balance between linear and nonlinear terms becomes $v_A/l_\|\sim v^2\left(l_\bot\right)/v_A l_\bot$, leading to the anisotropy relation $l_\|\propto l_\bot^{1/2}$, and the energy spectrum $E\left(k_\bot\right)
\propto k_\bot^{-3/2}$ [@Boldyrev2006].
However, recent development in kinetic turbulence theory has pointed out the possibility that stable eigenmodes nonlinearly excited by unstable modes can act as an effective damping mechanism [@HatchPRL2011; @HatchPOP2011]. This is equally true for tearing turbulence with which we are concerned here. Unlike the commonly discussed externally driven turbulence in a homogeneous system, instability driven turbulence usually has many stable modes along with a few unstable modes which provide the energy for the rest of the spectrum. The effective damping caused by the stable modes interrupt the transfer of energy between scales and thus alter the structure of the spectrum. It may then be expected that the resulting spectrum will deviate from the traditional power-law form $E\left(k_\bot\right)\propto k_\bot^{\gb_0}$ and take the form of a power law multiplied by an exponential fall $E\left(k_\bot\right)\propto k_\bot^{\gb_1} \exp{\left(-\gd k_\bot^{\gb_2}\right)}$ [@Terry2009; @Terry2012]. Here, $\gb_0$, $\gb_1$, $\gd$ and $\gb_2$ are constant coefficients. Furthermore, a recent resistive MHD simulation concerning plasmoid-mediated turbulence in a sheared magnetic field has found discrepancy from the scale-dependent anisotropy picture and produced an approximately scale-independent anisotropy $l_\|\propto l_\bot$ in strong turbulence when the magnitude of the magnetic field perturbation is comparable with that of the background field [@Huang16APJ]. These results raise doubt regarding the validity of the standard inertial range picture as well as that of scale-dependent anisotropy for tearing mode turbulence in a magnetically sheared system.
In the light of the discussion above, in this paper we revisit the problem of the spectrum of tearing mode turbulence. On one hand, the presence of large-scale perturbations in a sheared guide field is found to introduce a scale-independent anisotropy in the small-scale eddies. On the other hand, we find significant effective damping of the turbulence calculated from linear stability of high $k_\bot$ modes, wherein the effective damping scales as $k_\bot^p$, with $p=6/5$ and $4/3$ in the inviscid and viscous regime, respectively. This effective damping has a considerably weaker dependence on $k_\bot$ than that of classical dissipation, which generally scales as $k_\bot^2$. We provide an analytical model for turbulence under such scale-independent anisotropy and effective damping. Based on this model, the modified spectrum will be obtained by considering the local energy budget in $k$ space. This analytical spectrum will then be compared with resistive MHD simulation. Reasonable agreement is found between analytical predictions and numerical results.
The rest of the paper is arranged as follows. In Section \[s:System\], the system of interest will be described and the basic resistive MHD equations will be introduced. In Section \[s:DampedTurbulence\], the theoretical model regarding the damped tearing turbulence and the modified turbulence spectrum will be discussed. This new spectrum will be checked with simulation results in Section \[s:Simulation\], and spectral properties as well as structure functions of the turbulence will be discussed. The turbulence anisotropy will be studied analytically as well as numerically. Furthermore, this scale-independent anisotropy will be checked for strong turbulence cases. Discussions on the implication of this new form of spectrum to future studies and a conclusion will be presented in Section \[s:Conclusion\].
System of interest {#s:System}
==================
1em
We will consider the standard compressible MHD equations with viscosity and resistivity included, as follows: +() = 0 , () +()+= -(p+) +()+\^2() , p +(p) = -(\_A-1)p, = (-) .Here, Eq.() is the continuity equation, Eq.() is the equation of motion, Eq.() represents the equation of state, and Eq.() is the Ohm’s law. Here $\gr$ is the plasma density, $\wsv$ is the velocity, $\waB$ is the total magnetic field, $\waJ$ is the current density, and $p$ is the pressure. The vacuum permeability $\gm_0$ has been absorbed into $\gr$ and $\waJ$. Furthermore, $\gg_A=5/3$ here is the adiabatic index (which should not be confused with the growth rate of the tearing modes). The constant dissipation coefficients $\gn$ and $\gh$ stand for classic viscosity and resistivity respectively.
In this study, we will consider a simple slab system with coordinates $\left(x,y,z\right)$, and the boundary conditions are assumed to be periodic at all sides. The sizes of the system in $x$, $y$, $z$ directions are $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ respectively, and the geometric center of the system is chosen to be $\left(x,y,z\right)=\left(0,0,0\right)$. The three components of the equilibrium magnetic field $\waB_0$ are the following: B\_[x0]{} = 0 ,B\_[y0]{} = B\_[y0]{}(0) ,B\_[z0]{} = .Here, $B_{y0}\left(0\right)$ and $B_0$ are constants to be specified later. The system is initially in force-free, with the pressure assumed to be constant and set to unity. The corresponding initial current profile is J\_[z0]{} = -B\_[y0]{}(0) .An artificial constant electric field along $z$ direction is implemented to sustain the initial current profile against resistive diffusion. Although the assumed global geometry is simple, it is sufficient to capture the fundamental physical process of the dynamics of small-scale tearing fluctuations. The qualitative features of the theory are not expected to change in more realistic global geometry.
We define a “safety factor” q and the “rotational transform” analogous to that of a tokamak. The corresponding $q$ profile is then a function of $x$. In the region $x\in\left[-0.5,0.5\right]$, the $q$ profile is shown in Fig.\[fig:1\], with $X=2$, $Y=4$, $Z=20$, $B_{0}=10$, $B_{y0}\left(0\right)=1.5$, and the corresponding minimum safety factor is given by $q\left(0\right)=1.3$. Numerical observation indicates that several large-scale modes, such as $2/1$, $3/1$ and $3/2$ modes, are unstable for this magnetic shear profile. The nonlinear growth and interaction of these modes will then generate a spectrum of small-scale modes.
As the turbulence grows in strength, it will have a back-reaction on the mean background field, leading to self-consistent evolution of the latter. The mean current profile will tend to relax under turbulence spreading [@Diamond1984; @Strauss1986; @Craddock1991], and it is observed that substantial profile flattening would occur over time after the turbulence has been fully established. Ultimately, the relaxation would reach a point where there is no free energy available, and the tearing turbulence would then gradually decay away. However, it will be shown in Section \[s:StrongField\] that the characteristic time scale of such decay is much longer than the slowest nonlinear turnover time of eddies, thus the turbulence can be viewed as having attained a quasi-steady-state before decay occurs.
Analytical model for tearing turbulence {#s:DampedTurbulence}
=======================================
1em
The structure of tearing turbulence spectrum will be discussed analytically in this section. Three quantities are needed in order to obtain the spectrum of tearing turbulence in a sheared guide field. The first is the effective damping rate caused by small-scale linearly stable modes, the second is the anisotropy property of the tearing turbulence, and the third is the local energy transfer in the $k$ space [@FrischBook; @DiamondBook]. We will treat the effective damping and anisotropy property in Section \[s:EffectiveDamping\] and \[s:Anisotropy\] respectively, then substitute these results into the local energy transfer equation in Section \[s:EnergyBudget\] to obtain the turbulence spectrum. In Section \[s:EffectiveDamping\], we will first justify the use of linear stability theory in considering the effective damping, then provide the $k_\bot$ scaling of growth rate and further obtain the effective damping rate for inviscid and viscous limit in Eq.()-(). In Section \[s:Anisotropy\], we will investigate the scale-dependence of turbulence anisotropy by considering the ratio between the parallel wave number dispersion $\gD k_\|\sim l_\|^{-1}$ as defined in Eq.() and the perpendicular wave number $k_\bot\sim l_\bot^{-1}$. The result is given in Eq.() and Eq.() for unperturbed and perturbed sheared guide field respectively. Finally, in Section \[s:EnergyBudget\], we combine the aforementioned results with the local energy budget in Eq.() and the forward energy transfer rate in Eq.() to obtain the spectrum shape shown in Eq.().
Effective damping caused by linearly stable modes {#s:EffectiveDamping}
-------------------------------------------------
1em
We consider the effective damping under the assumption of weak nonlinearity, that is, the nonlinear interaction is assumed to be sufficiently weak that it does not change the linear outer region solution. Hence, we can still use linear theory to consider the mode structure, and the effective damping rate can be estimated from the negative linear growth rate.
The justification of using the linear growth rate to estimate effective damping may be formulated more precisely as follows. The effective island width $w$ for a given Fourier component of the magnetic perturbation $\taB_k\left(x,y,z\right)=\taB_k^{(0)}
\left(x\right) \exp{\left(ik_yy-ik_zz\right)}$ has the following dependence on mode numbers and the magnetic perturbation strength: [@WhiteRMP; @Di2015] w \~(-/\_[0s]{}”)\^[1/2]{} \~()\^[1/2]{} ,where $\gy$ is the perturbed oblique flux ,\_z +(k\_z/k\_y)\_y .Here, $\vsh$ is the oblique direction defined by given $k_y$ and $k_z$. Also, $\taB_x$ is the $x$ component of the corresponding magnetic perturbation and $\gY_{0s}''$ is the second order derivative of background oblique flux taken at the resonant surface. Furthermore, $L_s\equiv
Zq/s$ is the magnetic shear length and $s\equiv Yq'/q$ is the magnetic shear. In the inviscid limit, the tearing layer width scales as [@Rutherford1973; @Coppi1966; @Glasser1975] x\_\~()\^[2/5]{}(’)\^[1/5]{} ,where $\gD'\equiv \gy_s'/\gy_s\big|_{-}^{+}$ is the tearing stability index; the minus and plus signs here denote the left and the right side of the resonant surface. Alternatively, in the viscous regime we have [@Finn2005] x\_\~()\^[1/3]{}P\_m\^[1/6]{} ,where the magnetic Prandtl number $P_m\equiv \gn/\gh$. The following two factors justify the use of linear stability analysis. First, the perturbation amplitudes of high-$k$ modes are orders of magnitude smaller than that of low $k$ modes, thus the effective width of a high-$k$ island will also be much smaller than that of a low-$k$ island. Second, the effective island width will shrink faster than the tearing layer width for increasing $k$, as the power dependence on $k$ for the former is greater than that of the latter. Simple estimation using the turbulence spectrum obtained later in Section \[s:Simulation\] indicates that, in our case of weak turbulence, the island width will be smaller than the tearing layer width when $k_\bot\geq 25$.Furthermore, the contribution from hyper-resistivity is also ignored since it is proportional to the driven mode width to the fourth power, making its contribution less important for very small-scale modes. [@Craddock1991]
We now examine the linear growth rate of the small-scale modes. The ideal linear eigen-equation for slab geometry can be written as [@Furth1963; @BiskampBook; @Baalrud2012]: \_x\^2 = (k\^2+) .Here, $F\equiv \waB_0\cdot\wsk$, and $k$ is the wave number perpendicular to the oblique direction $\vsh$. It should be noted that we have $k_\bot\simeq k$ due to $k_\|\ll k_\bot$ as a result of the localized small-scale mode structure. For straight tearing modes with $k_z=0$, $F''/F$ remains finite even at the resonant surface where $F=0$. If $k_\bot^2\muchg F''/F$, then the eigen-structure has the following form near resonant surface $x=x_s$: \_s .Hence, for high $k$ modes which are linearly stable, we have: ’ |\_[-]{}\^[+]{} -2k\_.For oblique modes, there is a logarithmic singularity in the derivative of the ideal solution since $F''/F$ is singular near the resonant surface [@Furth1963; @Di2015]. However, the contribution of this logarithmic singularity to $\gy'$ is even in parity near the resonant surface, thus does not contribute to $\gD'$. Hence, the $\gD'$ of high-$k$ oblique modes should have the same form as that of straight modes as shown in Eq.(). Numerical solution of Eq.() confirms this statement [@Baalrud2012].
The linear growth rate for oblique tearing modes in the inviscid limit is given by [@BiskampBook; @Baalrud2012] = \^[3/5]{}(’)\^[4/5]{}(k\_B\_[ys]{}’)\^[2/5]{}\^[-1/5]{} ,while in the viscous regime we have [@Finn2005] = \^[2/3]{}P\_m\^[-1/6]{}’(k\_B\_[ys]{}’)\^[1/3]{}\^[-1/6]{} .Here, $B_{ys}'$ is the $x$ gradient of $B_y$ taken at resonance $x_s$. The stable eigenmodes satisfying these dispersion relations are similar in mode structure and parity to the unstable modes that drive the turbulence. Equations (\[eq:LinearGrowth1\]) and (\[eq:LinearGrowth2\]) give the following $k_\bot$ dependence for $\gg$: -\^[3/5]{}k\_\^[6/5]{} in the inviscid limit and -\^[2/3]{}P\_m\^[-1/6]{}k\_\^[4/3]{} in the viscous regime.
As has been mentioned in Section \[s:System\], the background magnetic field is constantly evolving throughout the time-evolution of turbulence, hence we need to track the evolution of $B_{ys}'$ numerically as the turbulence evolves. We define the following characteristic length scale of $B_y$ variation: Thus, the effective damping in $k$ space can be written as: \_[damping]{} = 2E(k) = -2DS\^[-p/2]{}(k\_)\^[p]{}E(k) ,with $p=6/5$ in the inviscid limit and $p=4/3$ in the viscous limit. Here, $E\left(k_\bot\right)=v\left(k_\bot\right)^2/k_\bot$ is the “energy density” in $k_\bot$ space. We consider *a priori* the equipartition of magnetic and kinetic energy for medium to high $k_\bot$. (We will check the validity of this assumption *a posteriori*). The Lundquist number $S$ is defined as $S\equiv \gt^*_\gh/\gt_A$, with $\gt^*_\gh\equiv \gl^2/\gh$ and $\gt_A\equiv Z/v_A$, while $v_A$ is the Alfvén speed corresponding to the guide field. Furthermore, $D$ is the effective damping coefficient with dimension of $1/t$. Combining Eq.() or Eq.() with Eq.(), we obtain D = 1.41()\^[2/5]{} ()\^[2/5]{}\_A\^[-1]{} in the inviscid limit and D = 2()\^[1/3]{} ()\^[1/3]{}\_A\^[-1]{}P\_m\^[-1/6]{} in the viscous regime. The damping rate given in Eq.() has a weaker dependence on $k_\bot$ than the classical dissipation does, making the distinction between the inertial range and the dissipation range hard to define. Thus, the present physical situation, in which damping appears to be important at all scales, does not permit a strict delineation of an inertial range in tearing turbulence.
Scale-independent anisotropy in sheared background field {#s:Anisotropy}
--------------------------------------------------------
1em
The scale dependence of the ratio between the parallel and the perpendicular length scales of eddies is of great interest since it directly affects the nonlinear turnover rate and thus further influences the forward energy cascade rate of turbulence. The nonlinear turnover rate for MHD turbulence can be modeled as [@DiamondBook]: .Here, $v\left(k_\bot\right)$ represents kinetic perturbation at $k_\bot$ scale.
For weak turbulence generated by oppositely propagating Alfvén waves with straight background field lines, the three-wave interaction preserves the $k_\|$ space structure of the beating waves, thus preventing any energy cascade along the direction parallel to the background magnetic field [@Ng96ApJ; @Ng96POP]. A simple way to see this is by considering the resonant condition of wave number and frequency for three-wave interaction [@Shebalin1983; @Sridhar2010]. We have: \_1 +\_2 = \_3 ,\^\_1 + \^\_2 = \^\_3 .Here, $\gw^+=v_Ak_\|$ and $\gw^-=-v_Ak_\|$ represent the angular frequencies of the forward and the backward propagating Alfvén waves, respectively. The oppositely propagating waves indicate that either $k_{1\|}$ or $k_{2\|}$ must be zero to satisfy both resonance conditions for the wave number and the frequency. Hence, there is no cascade of energy along $k_\|$ and the nonlinear turnover rate scales as $\gt_{nl}\propto
v\left(k_\bot\right)^2l_\bot^{-2}$ as a result.
On the other hand, for a spectrum of modes in a sheared guide field, the parallel length scale $l_\|\simeq 1/\gD k_\|$, where $\gD k_\|$ is the dispersion in parallel wave number, and perpendicular length scale $l_\bot\simeq 1/k_\bot$, where $k_\bot$ is the perpendicular wave number. The dispersion in parallel wave number, $\gD k_\|$, is defined as (k\_)\^2 \_[k\_,x]{} -\^2\_[k\_,x]{} .Here, $\left<f\right>_{k_\bot,x}$ represents averaging quantity $f$ over $k_\|$ for a given $k_\bot$ and across the $\left(y,z\right)$ plane for a given $x$. Averaging over the $\left(y,z\right)$ plane is necessary because the small-scale mode structures are very localized and we are looking at the spectrum at a specific $x$. Within the framework of weak turbulence theory in a strong guide field where the average field is assumed to be unperturbed, we will find a similar independence between $l_\|$ and $l_\bot$ in the turbulence spectrum, i.e., $\gD k_\|\propto k_\bot^0$, although the physical mechanism is somewhat different from that described above. However, it can be seen that the inclusion of a finite large-scale perturbation will introduce an additional relationship between $\gD k_\|$ and $k_\bot$ in the spectrum, so long as we have $\taB_L L_s k_\bot/B_{z0} \muchg 1$, where $\taB_L$ is the random large-scale perturbation, $L_s$ is the shear length of background guide field, and $B_{z0}$ is the guide field along the ignorable direction. It is important to note that $k_\bot$ in this criterion is the perpendicular wave number of the small-scale modes rather than the large-scale perturbation. Thus, the left-hand-side of the aforementioned criterion should not be confused with the Kubo number of the large-scale perturbation, defined as the ratio between the nonlinear and linear terms $\gk\equiv\left(\taB/B_0\right)/\left(l_\|/l_\bot\right)$.
We assume the perturbation has the following form: $\taB_k\left(x,y,z\right)=\taB_k^{(0)}
\left(x\right) \exp{\left(ik_yy-ik_zz\right)}$, where $m\equiv
Yk_y/2\gp$ and $n\equiv Zk_z/2\gp$. For the unperturbed background field, we have: k\_ = 2( - ) = k\_y(-) = - ,1/q .Again, $L_s\equiv Zq/s$, $q\equiv YB_{z0}/ZB_{y0}$, and $s\equiv Yq'/q$. We repeat for emphasis that $B_{y0}$ and $B_{z0}$ here do not contain the contribution of large-scale perturbation. The length $\gD x\equiv x-x_s$ represents the distance to the resonant surface for a given $m/n$.
It will be shown later on in Section \[s:StrongField\] that the characteristic length scale of turbulence strength envelope is much larger than $1/k_\bot$ in cases we are interested in, thus $\gy_s$ can be assumed to be independent of $\gD x$ for a given $x$. Then Eq.() yields \_[k\_,x]{} = \_x .Note that here we integrate over $\gD x$ instead of $k_\|$ because $dk_\|\propto d\gD x$ so long as $k_y\propto k_\bot$. For the denominator, we have: \_[-]{}\^[dx]{} = |\_[-]{}\^[0]{} -|\_[0]{}\^ = .Thus we obtain: \_[k\_]{} = 0 ,(k\_)\^2 = k\_\_[-]{}\^[ ()\^2dx]{} .Because the localized mode structure also implies that all the small-scale modes which can be “seen” from $x$ have similar $\gm$, we can approximately write: k\_= k\_y +k\_z ,\
(x) .Therefore, we obtain k\_y k\_.Substituting the above relationship into Eq.(), the parallel length scale $l_\|$ for small scale perturbations is found to be independent of $k_\bot$ l\_\^[-2]{} = (k\_)\^2 k\_\^[0]{} .This is similar to the weak turbulence limit discussed in Ref.\[\] and Ref.\[\], although the underlying physics is quite different.
Now, let us consider the effect of a large-scale perturbation on the small-scale anisotropy. We consider the summation of several large-scale modes as a random magnetic perturbation strong enough to twist the field “seen” by the small-scale modes. Let $\taB_L$ be the perturbation component in $\left(y,z\right)$ plane. Thus, the parallel wave number for each mode is now: k\_ = - +k\_y -k\_z .Recalling Eq.(), for given $x$, we have: k\_ - +k\_y .For simplicity, we define the following parameters: T ,U .An important feature of the latter parameter is that the contribution from the large-scale perturbation vanishes upon taking the $\left(y,z\right)$ plane average since $U$ vanishes under such spatial average, although $U^2$ does not.
Carrying out the same method used above, we also obtain \_[k\_,x]{} = \_x = 0 ,as well as \_[k\_,x]{} & & \_x\
& = & \_x .Thus, so long as $2U^2k_\bot^2L_s^2/T^2\muchg 1$, we have k\_ = k\_k\_,resulting in a scale-independent anisotropy $l_\|/l_\bot\propto l_\bot^0$. Here, we emphasize that $U/T$ can still be small for the condition $2U^2k_\bot^2L_s^2/T^2\muchg 1$ to be valid due to the largeness of $L_sk_\bot$, with $k_\bot$ being the wave number of small-scale modes.
Local energy budget in $k_\bot$ space {#s:EnergyBudget}
-------------------------------------
1em
The impact of non-negligible dissipation on the structure of the spectrum has been studied by considering the local energy budget in the $k$ space [@Terry2009; @Terry2012]. We will follow this methodology here, albeit in the context of turbulence with scale-independent anisotropy instead of turbulence that is critically balanced one, as discussed in Section \[s:Anisotropy\].
Under the local interaction assumption, the local energy budget in the $k_\bot$-space naturally arises from considerations of the effective damping and classical resistive diffusion, [@Terry2009; @Terry2012]: -2D S\^[-p/2]{} (k\_)\^p E(k\_) -2\_\^[\*-1]{}(k\_)\^2E(k\_) = ,where $\gt_\gh^*\equiv \gl^2/\gh$, $T\left(k_\bot\right)$ is the energy forward transfer rate at scale $k_\bot$, and $E\left(k_\bot\right)=v\left(k_\bot\right)^2/k_\bot$ is the energy density in the $k_\bot$ space. The energy budget Eq.() can be solved to yield the energy spectrum if $T\left(k_\bot\right)$ can be written as a function of $E\left(k_\bot\right)$. The traditional scaling for MHD turbulence without scale-dependent alignment indicates that [@DiamondBook] T(k\_) = .Here, $v\left(k_\bot\right)$ represents the kinetic perturbation at $k_\bot$ scale, and $v_A$ is the Alfvén speed measured with the guide field. Due to the equipartition of kinetic and magnetic energy, $T\left(k_\bot\right)$ also represents the forward cascade of magnetic energy as $v\left(k_\bot\right)=v_A\left(\taB\left(k_\bot\right)/B_0\right)$ with $\taB\left(k_\bot\right)$ as the magnetic perturbation at $k_\bot$ scale.
Using the scale-independent anisotropy discussed before, the forward transfer rate is now T(k\_) = , .Here, $\ga$ is a constant characterizing the scale-independent anisotropy, the value of which will be extracted from numerical simulations of tearing turbulence. We follow the closure technique used in Refs.\[\] - \[\], and write the forward energy transfer rate T(k\_) & = & v(k\_)\^4k\_(v\_A)\^[-1]{}\
& = & E(k\_)k\_\^2(v\_A)\^[-1]{}v(k\_)\^2\
& = & E(k\_)\^[1/2]{}k\_\^[3/2]{}(v\_A)\^[-1/2]{} .Here, we have used the closure $v\left(k_\bot\right)^2\simeq
\ge^{1/2}k_\bot^{-1/2}\left(\ga v_A\right)^{1/2}$. This closure technique effectively builds the inertial power-law behavior into the energy spectrum as an asymptote in the low-damping limit. Therefore, as can be seen later in this section, the spectrum approaches a simple power law when the effective damping vanishes.
Substituting Eq.() into Eq.(), we obtain a linear first order ordinary differential equation for the energy spectrum: E(k\_)k\_= -E(k\_) -\
E(k\_)\^[-1/2]{}(v\_A)\^[1/2]{}\^[1/2]{} .The tearing turbulence spectrum with linear stabilities act as effective damping is then: E(k\_) & \~& (v\_A)\^[1/2]{}\^[1/2]{}k\_\^[-3/2]{}\
& & ,with $p=6/5$ and $p=4/3$ in the inviscid and viscous regime respectively, while effective damping coefficient $D$ is given by Eq.() and Eq.(). From Eq.(), it can be seen that the primary impact of effective damping is an exponential multiplier on the original power law. In the limit of small effective damping, the spectrum recovers the simple power-law behavior predicted by the assumption of an inertial range. Also, the power-law behavior in the no damping limit tends to be $k_\bot^{-3/2}$ due to the scale independent anisotropy $l_\|\propto l_\bot$.
Simulations {#s:Simulation}
===========
1em
In this section, the analytical result from Section \[s:DampedTurbulence\] will be tested against resistive MHD simulation using the same set of equations ()-() described in Section \[s:System\]. Specifically,we are concerned with the structure of the energy spectrum $E\left(k_\bot\right)$ and the dependence of $k_\bot/k_\|$ on $k_\bot$. We will first examine the strong guide field case where $B_{y0}/B_{z0}\sim\mathcal{O}\left(10^{-1}\right)$ and $\taB_L/B_{z0}\sim\mathcal{O}\left(10^{-2}\right)$. We will then consider the case of comparable guide field where $B_{y0}/B_{z0}\sim\mathcal{O}\left(1\right)$ and the large-scale perturbed field is only one order of magnitude smaller than the guide field $\taB_L/B_{z0}\sim\mathcal{O}
\left(10^{-1}\right)$. In the latter case, the Kubo number for the large-scale perturbation is $\gk=\left(\taB_L/B_{0}\right)
\left(L_\|/L_\bot\right)\geq 1$, corresponding to the regime where turbulent shearing is comparable with parallel propagation. Here, the Kubo number $\gk$ is equivalent to the $\gc$ used by Goldreich and Sridhar in Ref.\[\]. Numerical observation of the magnetic shear length indicates we have $2\taB_L^2L_s^2k_\bot^2/B_{z0}^2 > \mathcal{O}\left(10^2\right)$ when $k_\bot>20$ for both of the above cases. The numerical algorithm will follow that of Ref.\[\] and Ref.\[\]. Five-point finite difference scheme is used to calculate derivatives, and trapezoidal leapfrog is used for time stepping scheme. The resistivity is set to be $\gh=1\times 10^{-4}$, and the magnetic Prandtl number is $P_m\equiv\gn/\gh=1$, and thus we are in the viscous regime discussed above. In the numerical scheme, an additional artificial fourth-order dissipation is also implemented to damp small-scale fluctuations at grid size. This should not be confused with the real hyper-dissipation self-consistently generated by the nonlinear terms [@Strauss1986; @Craddock1991].
Strong guide field case {#s:StrongField}
-----------------------
1em
&\
(a)&(b)\
&\
(c)&(d)
In this subsection, we will compare the tearing turbulence in a strong guide field with our previous theoretical model. Let $X=2$. $Y=4$, $Z=20$, $B_{y0}\left(0\right)=1.5$ and $B_{0}=10$.
At the beginning of the simulation, small initial perturbations with harmonics $m/n=3/2$, $2/1$ and $3/1$ are seeded. The resonant surfaces corresponding to those modes lie in the central region of the system $x\in\left[-0.5,0.5\right]$, as can be seen from Fig.\[fig:1\]. This is also the region where the turbulence amplitude is strongest later in time. The quadratic form of magnetic and kinetic perturbation is averaged across the $y$-$z$ plane, providing us the sum of perturbation energy over the whole spectrum, $\left<\tsv^2\right>$ and $\left<\taB^2\right>$, given by = -\^2 , = -\^2 .These perturbation energies as functions of $x$ are plotted in Fig.\[fig:2\] for different times. Initially, the dynamics is dominated by a few large-scale unstable modes, and the envelope of their mode structure determines the perturbation energy profile, as can be seen from Fig.\[fig:2\] (a) and Fig.\[fig:2\] (b). Later, the initial islands overlap with each other and generate a large spectrum of small-scale modes, and the perturbation energy profile becomes smooth in the core region, as seen in Fig.\[fig:2\] (c) and Fig.\[fig:2\] (d). By the time the tearing turbulence enters quasi-steady state, both the magnetic and kinetic energy perturbations are confined within the region $x\in\left[-0.5,0.5\right]$, and their profiles are almost flattened within the central region. The kinetic perturbation seems to be much smaller than the magnetic perturbation, which would appear to raise doubt regarding our energy equipartition assumption. However, as will be seen later in Section \[s:StrongField\], this is because equipartition is established not at the scale of the large-scale instabilities driving the turbulence but at the small scales. Meanwhile, the spectrum for high-$k$ modes actually agrees rather well with the equipartition assumption.
The alignment of the turbulent eddies to the local mean field is also of interest. That is, we wish to know whether or not the eddies have elongated structure along the mean field direction, as would be expected from highly magnetized MHD turbulence. Here, we look at the local property of magnetic perturbation for a given $x$ position, and perform Fourier decomposition along $y$ and $z$ direction for all components of magnetic field. We take the zeroth order harmonic as the local mean field for the given $x$ position, while all the other harmonics correspond to modes with various scales. The alignment of those modes to the direction of local mean field line can be represented by looking at $\wsk\cdot\waB_0$. We once again write \_0 = B\_[y0]{}k\_y -B\_[z0]{}k\_z = k\_y(-)B\_[z0]{} .Such alignment of small-scale tearing modes can then be checked by looking at the distribution of the 2-D perturbed energy spectrum $\left|\taB_k\right|^2$ and $\left|\tsv_k\right|^2$ in $\left(m,n\right)$ space. The result for $x=0$ is shown in Fig.\[fig:3\], where the logarithm of the perturbed energy is plotted as a function of mode number $m$ and $n$. The black dashed line represents the contour of $\wsk\cdot\waB_0$, with the one originating from the $\left(0,0\right)$ point corresponding to $\wsk\cdot\waB_0=0$. It can be seen that the energy spectrum strongly aligns with the local mean field, indicating a strongly anisotropic structure. It is noteworthy that, for a magnetically sheared system, this localization in the $k$ space directly corresponds to the localization of mode structures near their respective resonant surfaces in configuration space. Due to this localized mode structure, the amplitude of the mode decreases rapidly as we move away from its resonant surface. Thus, only modes which are near resonance (corresponds to low $k_\|$) can be seen from the spectrum shown in Fig.\[fig:3\], resulting in observed localization in the $k$ space. This is especially true for high-$k$ modes. The red dashed lines represent the contours of $k_\bot$. The strong alignment behavior of small-scale perturbation in the presence of strong guide field indicates that we have $k_\|\ll k_\bot$, and consequently $k_y^2+k_z^2=k_\bot^2+k_\|^2\simeq k_\bot^2$. This confirms our previous assumptions.
&\
(a)&(b)
With the alignment of eddies known, we now look at how this highly anisotropic turbulence establishes itself. From Fig.\[fig:2\] (c) and (d), it can be seen that the turbulence strength is rather flat in the central region, this implies that we can use the local spectrum for a given $x$ to represent the evolution of global tearing turbulence. Here, we choose to look at the spectrum evolution at $x=0$. The energy density in $k_\bot$ space $E\left(k_\bot\right)$ can be obtained by integrating over the red dashed lines in Fig.\[fig:3\]. The spectrum of $E\left(k_\bot\right)$ for several different times is presented in Fig.\[fig:4\]. The logarithm of magnetic energy perturbation is shown as a function of the logarithm of the perpendicular scale $k_\bot$. It can be seen that at $t=0$ there are only several large-scale unstable modes. Then the interaction of these large-scale modes gradually stir up small-scale modes. At a later time, the tearing turbulence reaches a quasi-steady state as can be seen in Fig.\[fig:4\]. The structure of $E\left(k_\bot\right)$ spectrum changes very little from $t=63.6$ to $t=109.6$ while the longest non-linear turnover time of the eddies is on the order of $\gt_{nl}\sim 1$.
The comparison between magnetic and kinetic energy spectrum after the turbulence reached the quasi-steady state is another important issue, as we have assumed an equipartition of energy in Section \[s:EnergyBudget\]. An example kinetic and magnetic spectrum for quasi-steady state tearing turbulence is shown in Fig.\[fig:5\] for $t=85.6$. It can be seen that for high-$k$ modes the kinetic and magnetic energy are approximately the same, while at the largest scale there is a departure from equipartition. The departure does not significantly impact our theoretical analysis in Section \[s:EnergyBudget\], since we are primarily concerned with small-scale modes which are linearly stable rather than the unstable large-scale modes. As a side note, the fact that the magnetic perturbation is one order of magnitude larger than the kinetic perturbation for largest scale modes is also consistent with the observation in Fig.\[fig:2\], as the total magnetic perturbation energy is also one order of magnitude larger than the total kinetic perturbation energy.
The next important property we are interested in is the structure function of the turbulence, which provides us information regarding the scale dependence of its anisotropy and thus has significant impact on the energy transfer rate and consequently the turbulence spectrum. We follow the procedure detailed in Ref.\[\] and Ref.\[\], and define the following two-point structure functions: F\_k(l\_,l\_) ,F\_m(l\_,l\_) .Here, $\wgz=\left(x,y,z\right)$ is the position of a random point in the configuration space, and $\wsl$ is a random vector. Thus, $\wgz+\wsl$ and $\wgz$ define a random pair of points in configuration space. The bracket $\left<f\right>$ here indicates an ensemble average over a large number of random pairs. Due to the strong localization of mode structure demonstrated in Fig.\[fig:3\], we look at a 2D version of the structure function in our study. That is, we take the random pairs within the $y$-$z$ plane for a given $x$ instead of considering the full 3D space. The parallel and perpendicular component of $\wsl$ is defined by the local mean field direction, which is calculated by averaging the magnetic field at two points. We average over $10^9$ random pairs of points, and obtain the structure function for both kinetic and magnetic perturbation as functions of $l_\|$ and $l_\bot$. The contours of this structure function in $\left(l_\|,l_\bot\right)$ then reflect the anisotropy of the eddy at different $l_\bot$ scales.
To extract this anisotropy information, we search for the intersection of a given contour of $F_k\left(l_\|,l_\bot\right)$ or $F_m\left(l_\|,l_\bot\right)$ with the $l_\|$ and $l_\bot$ axis respectively. Thus we can obtain a pair of $l_\|$ and $l_\bot$ for a given contour of $F_k\left(l_\|,l_\bot\right)$ or $F_m\left(l_\|,l_\bot\right)$, the ratio of which represents the anisotropy at a given scale. A scan of these $l_\|$ and $l_\bot$ pairs then shows the scale dependence of turbulence anisotropy. The anisotropy thus obtained is plotted in Fig.\[fig:6\], with two scalings $k_\|\propto k_\bot$ and $k_\|\propto
k_\bot^{2/3}$ plotted as black dashed lines. It can be seen that the anisotropic behavior of simulation result largely agrees with our analytical model and is mostly scale-independent. There is some discrepancy between the length scale of kinetic and magnetic perturbations, which might be the consequence of their different distribution width in $\left(k_y,k_z\right)$ space as can be seen in Fig.\[fig:3\]. The ratio between parallel and perpendicular length scale ultimately deviates from the scale-independent scaling at the very small scale where classical dissipation kicks in. Lastly, it is observed that $l_\|$ is two orders of magnitude larger than $l_\bot$, thus we hereby take $\ga\sim 10^{-2}$ as a reasonable estimation. This estimation also agrees with our prediction by Eq.() since we also have $\taB_L/B_{z0}\sim\mathcal{O}\left(10^{-2}\right)$.
With the characteristic structure known, we can finally check our analytical model given by Eq.() against the simulation results. The magnetic perturbation spectrum for tearing turbulence is shown in Fig.\[fig:7\] for $t=85.6$ and $x=0$. The simulation result is compared with three analytical models: our damped turbulence model as shown in Eq.(), a simple power law $E\left(k_\bot\right)\propto k_\bot^{\gb}$ as a result of the traditional inertial range argument, and the spectrum produced by Eq.() if only the resistivity is included as damping. From numerical observation, we estimate the characteristic length scale to be $\gl\simeq 10$ near the central flattened region where the resonant surfaces of the concerned modes lie. Here $\gl$ can be larger than $X$ since it only serves as an indication of the local magnetic field gradient. The only free parameter in Eq.() is then the energy injection rate $\ge$, which will be used to fit the simulation result. On the other hand, the power index $\gb$ in the simple power law will also be used as a free parameter to fit the numerical result. The fitting exercise yields $\ge\simeq 1.2\times 10^{-3}$ and $\gb\simeq
-2.0$, with fixed parameters $\gl=10$ and $\ga=0.01$. The fitted curves are shown in Fig.\[fig:7\]. It can be seen that our analytical model is in better agreement with the simulation result than either the simple power law or the spectrum obtained by assuming that it is determined by the effect of resistivity only. It is noteworthy that although the final decay of the turbulence spectrum is due to the influence of resistivity, the actual curve deviates from the inertial range curve due to the presence of effective damping. While this deviation might suggest that there exists an inertial range with a steeper slope represented, for instance, by the blue dashed line, this is not the case since the behavior seen is caused by slow exponential decay and cannot be represented accurately by a power law.
Weaker guide field case {#s:WeakField}
-----------------------
1em
The strong guide field case has been investigated in the previous subsection. Reasonable agreement has been found between the simulation result and our theoretical prediction obtained in Section \[s:DampedTurbulence\]. The magnitude of the perturbation has been found to be two order of magnitude smaller than the guide field. However, we are also interested in cases where the guide field is weaker, and the large-scale Kubo number $\gk=\left(\taB_L/B_{0}\right) \left(L_\|/L_\bot\right)\simeq
1$. Again, $\gk$ here is equivalent to the $\gc$ used in Ref.\[\]. Note that, in this case of stronger turbulence, the perturbed field is still smaller than the guide field, although the Kubo number may exceed unity due to anisotropy.
The initial magnetic fields are now $B_{y0}\left(0\right)=1.5$ and $B_{0}=2.5$. To maintain a similar initial safety factor profile with the one shown in Fig.\[fig:1\], the system size is now $X=2$, $Y=4$ and $Z=4$. We are mainly concerned with the anisotropic behavior and the energy spectrum of the turbulence, and we wish to determine whether or not the distinctive features exhibited in our weak turbulence simulation persist in this stronger turbulence case.
We first examine the anisotropy. Again, we look at the contours of structure functions for both the kinetic and magnetic perturbation as described in Section \[s:StrongField\], and we use the same technique detailed there to extract the turbulence anisotropy for different scales. The $x$ position is chosen at $x=0$, and time $t=59.6$, when the turbulence has already reached the quasi-steady state. The anisotropy is shown in Fig.\[fig:8\], with the two scalings $k_\|\propto
k_\bot$ and $k_\|\propto k_\bot^{2/3}$ plotted as black dashed lines. It can be seen that this stronger turbulence case still follows the scale-independent anisotropy behavior described in Section \[s:Anisotropy\] and only deviates from it at very small scales. In fact, the scale-independent anisotropy is even better compared to that shown in Fig.\[fig:6\], possibly due to a stronger large-scale perturbation.
We then look at the structure of the turbulence spectrum. The magnetic perturbation spectrum for $x=0$ and $t=59.6$ is shown in Fig.\[fig:9\]. Once again, the simulation result is compared with a simple power law $E\left(k_\bot\right)\propto k_\bot^{-2.4}$ and the spectral form predicted by our model as described by Eq.(), with fixed parameters $\gl=10$ and $\ga=0.05$. The fitting result returns $\ge=8.5\times 10^{-4}$. Reasonable agreement is again found between the numerical result and our prediction, with a gradual departure from the original $k^{-3/2}$ scaling well before entering the resistive dissipation scale.
A noteworthy feature of this stronger turbulence case is that the Kubo numbers for the largest perturbations exceed unity. From Fig.\[fig:8\], it can be seen that the scale-independent anisotropy is approximately $l_\|/l_\bot\simeq 20$. At the same time, numerical observation from Fig.\[fig:9\] indicates the largest scale perturbation has $\taB_L/B_{0}\sim\mathcal{O}\left(10^{-1}\right)$. Hence, for the large-scale perturbations, we have $\gk\simeq 2$, while for smaller scale perturbation the Kubo number steadily decreases as the perturbation strength decreases. This is different from the critical balance scenario where the Kubo number remains on the order of unity across all scales. This deviation from critical balance is very similar to that discussed by Huang et al. in Ref.\[\]. Thus, we conclude that our analysis can also be applied to the case where the nonlinear mixing is stronger than the linear parallel propagation, such as those reported in plasmoid turbulence, where the critical balance condition was frequently assumed to be true.
Discussion and conclusion {#s:Conclusion}
=========================
1em
Instability driven tearing turbulence in sheared magnetic field is studied in this work. The turbulence consists of several large-scale unstable modes and a broad spectrum of small-scale linearly stable modes which are excited by their large-scale counterparts. It is found that the linearly stable modes will act as an effective damping mechanism which has a weaker dependence on $k_\bot$ than classical dissipation. For inviscid and viscous regimes, the dependence scales as $k_\bot^{6/5}$ and $k_\bot^{4/3}$ respectively. The weak dependence indicates that this damping mechanism will manifest itself long before turbulence eddies reach the resistive or viscous dissipation scales. Consequently, a well-defined inertial range cannot be identified, and damping must be considered at all scales. Furthermore, we argue that the tilting of sheared background field by large-scale perturbations will impose a scale-independent anisotropy for small-scale modes. This anisotropic behavior then determines the scale dependence of the forward energy cascade rate.
With the knowledge of effective damping rate and energy cascade rate at hand, the structure of this damped turbulence can be obtained by considering local energy budget in the $k_\bot$ space. The key idea is that the difference of energy forward transfer rate between the two ends of any interval in the $k_\bot$ space corresponds to the damping within that interval. The resulting spectrum features a power law multiplied by an exponential falloff, as opposed to the pure power-law spectrum obtained by using the standard inertial range argument.
The above analytical result is checked against visco-resistive MHD simulations. The turbulence is found to be highly anisotropic and tends to align with the strong local mean-field direction. The two-point structure functions are calculated to investigate anisotropic property at different scales, and a scale-independent anisotropy is found, confirming our $l_\|\propto l_\bot$ argument. Furthermore, the equipartition between kinetic and magnetic energy is found to be valid for the turbulence in question. The numerical result appears to agree well with our analytical model based on effective damping.
The behavior of a stronger turbulence, where the Kubo number exceeds unity for certain scales, is also investigated. We find that the scale-independent anisotropy and the energy spectrum continue to hold for the stronger turbulence case, indicating that our analysis remains applicable even for the scenario where the perpendicular turbulence shearing is stronger than the parallel propagation.
With this knowledge regarding spectrum structure, the next step would be considering the back-reaction of small-scale turbulence on large scales. This involves a sum of quadratic form of perturbed quantities over the whole spectrum, which requires knowledge regarding the form of spectrum given by our study here. An example is the small-scale spreading of mean field described by hyper-resistivity, as has been studied in Ref.\[\] and Ref.\[\]. Our analysis here provides a solid basis for future study along these lines. These studies are left to future work.
1em
**Acknowledgments**
1em
The authors thank P. H. Diamond, X.-G. Wang, H.-S. Xie and L. Shi for fruitful discussion. This work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11261140326 and the China Scholarship Council. A. Bhattacharjee and Y.-M. Huang acknowledge support from NSF Grants AGS-1338944 and AGS-1460169, and DOE Grant DE-SC0016470. Simulations were performed with supercomputers at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center. D. Hu publishes this paper while working in ITER Organization. ITER is a Nuclear Facility INB-174. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the ITER Organization.
[10]{} H. A. B. Bodin, “The reversed field pinch". Nucl. Fusion [**30**]{} 1717 (1990);
P. H. Diamond, R. D. Hazeltine, Z. G. An, B. A. Carreras and H. R. Hicks, “Theory of anomalous tearing mode growth and the major tokamak disruption". Phys. Fluids [**27**]{} 1449 (1984);
H. R. Strauss, “Hyperresistivity produced by tearing mode turbulence". Phys. Fluids [**29**]{} 3668 (1986);
G. G. Craddock, “Hyperresistivity due to densely packed tearing mode turbulence". Phys. Fluids B [**3**]{} 316 (1991);
W. Daughton, V. Roytershteyn, H. Karimabadi, L. Yin, B. J. Albright, B. Bergen and K. J. Bowers, “Role of electron physics in the development of turbulent magnetic reconnection in collisionless plasmas". Nature Physics [**7**]{} 539-542 (2011);
Y.-M. Huang, A. Bhattacharjee, “Turbulent magnetohydrodynamic reconnection mediated by the plasmoid instability". Ap. J. [**818**]{} 20 (2016);
A. H. Boozer, “Ohm’s law for mean magnetic field". J. Plasma Phys. [ **35**]{} 133-139 (1986);
A. Bhattacharjee, E. Hameiri, “Self-consistent dynamolike activity in turbulent plasma". Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{} 206 (1986);
E. Hameiri, A. Bhattacharjee, “Turbulent magnetic diffusion and magnetic field reversal". Phys. Fluids [**30**]{} 1743 (1987);
U. Frisch, “Turbulence - The legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov". (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), p. 72;
P. H. Diamond, S.-I. Itoh and K. Itoh, “Physical kinetics of turbulent plasmas". Modern Plasma Physics, Vol. [**1**]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010), p. 52 & p. 350;
C. S. Ng and A. Bhattacharjee, “Interaction of shear-Alfvén wave packet: implication for weak magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in astrophysical plasmas". Ap. J. [**465**]{} 845 (1996);
C. S. Ng and A. Bhattacharjee, “Scaling of anisotropic spectra due to the weak interaction of shear-Alfvén wave packets". Phys. Plasmas [**4**]{} 605 (1996);
S. Galtier, S. V. Nazarenko, A. C. Newell and A. Pouquet, “A weak turbulence theory for incompressible magnetohydrodynamics". J. Plasma Phys. [**63**]{} 447-488 (2000);
Y. Lithwick and P. Goldreich, “Imbalanced weak magnetohydrodynamic turbulence". Ap. J. [**582**]{} 1220-1240 (2003);
P. Goldreich and S. Sridhar, “Toward a theory of interstellar turbulence. 2: Strong Alfvénic turbulence". Ap. J. [**438**]{} 763 (1995);
P. Goldreich and S. Sridhar, “Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence revisited". Ap. J. [**485**]{} 680 (1997);
S. Boldyrev, “Spectrum of magnetohyrodynamic turbulence". Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{} 115002 (2006);
D. R. Hatch, P. W. Terry, F. Jenko, F. Merz and W. M. Nevins, “Saturation of gyrokinetic turbulence through damped eigenmodes". Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{} 115003 (2011);
D. R. Hatch, P. W. Terry, F. Jenko, F. Merz, M. J. Pueschel, W. M. Nevins and E. Wang, “Role of subdominant stable modes in plasma microturbulence". Phys. Plasmas [**18**]{} 055706 (2011);
P. W. Terry and V. Tangri, “Magnetohydrodynamic dissipation range spectra for isotropic viscosity and resistivity". Phys. Plasmas [**16**]{} 082305 (2009);
P. W. Terry, A. F. Almagri, G. Fiksel, C. B. Forest, D. R. Hatch, F. Jenko, M. D. Nornberg, S. C. Prager, K. Rahbarnia, Y. Ren and J. S. Sarff, “Dissipation range turbulent cascade in plasmas". Phys. Plasmas [**19**]{} 055906 (2012);
H. Tennekes and J. L. Lumley, “A first course in turbulence". (MIT press, Cambridge, 1972), p. 268;
R. B. White, “Resistive reconnection", Rev. Mod. Phys. [**58**]{} 183 (1986);
D. Hu and L. E. Zakharov, “Quasilinear perturbed equilibria of resistively unstable current carrying plasma", J. Plasma Phys. [**81**]{} 515810602 (2015);
P. H. Rutherford, “Nonlinear growth of the tearing mode", Phys. Fluids [**16**]{} 1903 (1973);
B. Coppi, J. M. Greene, J. L. Johnson, “Resistive Instabilities in a diffuse linear pinch". Nucl. Fusion [**6**]{} 101 (1966);
A. H. Glasser, J. M. Greene, J. L. Johnson, “Resistive instabilities in general toroidal plasma configuration". Phys. Fluids [**18**]{} 875 (1975);
J. M. Finn, “Hyperresistivity due to viscous tearing mode turbulence”. Phys. Plasmas [**12**]{} 092313 (2005);
H. P. Furth, J. Killeen and M. N. Rosenbluth, “Finite-resistivity instability of a sheet pinch". Phys. Fluids [**6**]{} 459 (1963);
D. Biskamp, “Magnetic reconnection in plasmas". (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000), p. 81;
S. D. Baalrud, A. Bhattacharjee and Y.-M. Huang, “Reduced magnetohydrodynamic theory of oblique plasmoid instabilities". Phys. Plasmas [**19**]{} 022101 (2012);
J. V. Shebalin, W. H. Matthaeus, and D. Montgomery, “Anisotropy in MHD turbulence due to a mean magnetic field” J. Plasma Phys. [**29**]{}, 525 (1983);
S. Sridhar, “Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in a strongly magnetized plasma". Astron. Nachr., [**331**]{} 93 (2010);
P. N. Guzdar, J. F. Drake, D. McCarthy, A. B. Hassam and C. S. Liu, “Three-dimensional fluid simulations of the nonlinear drift-resistive ballooning modes in tokamak edge plasmas". Phys. Fluids B [**5**]{} 3712 (1993);
J. Cho and E. T. Vishniac, “The anisotropy of magnetohydrodynamic Alfvén turbulence". Ap. J. [**539**]{} 273 (2000);
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Assuming the existence of a proper class of supercompact cardinals, we force a generic extension in which, for every regular cardinal $\kappa$, there are $\kappa^+$-Aronszajn trees, and all such trees are special.'
address:
- ' School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), P.O. Box: 19395-5746, Tehran-Iran. '
- ' The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Einstein Institute of Mathematics, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel. '
author:
- Mohammad Golshani
- Yair Hayut
title: The Special Aronszajn Tree Property
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Aronszajn trees are of fundamental importance in combinatorial set theory, and two of the most interesting problems about them, are the problem of their existence (the Tree Property), and the problem of their specialization (the Special Aronszajn Tree Property).
Given a regular cardinal $\kappa$, a *$\kappa$-Aronszajn tree* is a tree of height $\kappa$, where all of its levels have size less than $\kappa$ and it has no cofinal branches of size $\kappa$. The *Tree Property* at $\kappa$ is the assertion “there are no $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees”.
By a theorem of König, the tree property holds at $\aleph_0$, while by a result of Aronszajn, the tree property fails at $\aleph_1$. The problem of the tree property at higher cardinals is more complicated and is independent of $\operatorname{ZFC}$. An interesting and famous question of Magidor asks if the tree property can hold at all regular cardinals bigger than $\aleph_1$, and though the problem is widely open, there are many works towards its consistency.
In this paper, we are interested in the problem of specializing Aronszajn trees at the successor of regular cardinals.
A $\lambda^{+}$-Aronszajn tree $T$, on a successor cardinal $\lambda^{+}$, is *special*, if there exists a function $f\colon T \to \lambda$ such that if $x <_T y$, then $f(x) \neq f(y)$.
The specialization function, $f$, witnesses the fact that $T$ has no cofinal branches. Thus, if $T$ is special, then it remains Aronszajn in any larger model of $\operatorname{ZFC}$ in which $\lambda^{+}$ is a cardinal.
For an uncountable regular cardinal $\kappa$, let $\operatorname{SATP}(\kappa)$, the *Special Aronszajn Tree Property* at $\kappa$, be the assertion “there are $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees and all such trees are special”. By Baumgartner-Malitz-Reinhardt [@baumgartner], $\text{MA}+\neg \text{CH}$ implies $\operatorname{SATP}(\aleph_1)$. Laver-Shelah [@laver-shelah] extended this result to get $\operatorname{SATP}(\kappa^+)$, for $\kappa$ regular, starting from a weakly compact cardinal bigger than $\kappa$.
In this paper, we force the Special Aronszajn Tree Property at many successors of regular cardinals. First, we consider the case of forcing the Special Aronszajn Tree Property at both $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$, and prove the following theorem.
\[main theorem2\] Assume there exists a weakly compact cardinal. Then there is a generic extension of the universe in which the Special Aronszajn Tree Property holds at both $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$.
Then we consider the problem of specializing Aronszajn trees at infinitely many successive cardinals, and prove the following theorem.
\[main theorem3\] Assume there are infinitely many supercompact cardinals. Then there is a forcing extension of the universe in which the Special Aronszajn Tree Property holds at all $\aleph_{n}$’s, $0 < n < \omega$.
The above result can be extended to get the Special Aronszajn Tree Property at all $\aleph_{\alpha+n}$’s, where $\alpha$ is any limit ordinal and $1<n < \omega$. Finally, we use a class-sized iterated forcing construction to get the following result.
\[main theorem\] Assume there are class many supercompact cardinals with no inaccessible limit. Then there is a $\operatorname{ZFC}$-preserving class forcing extension of the universe, in which the Special Aronszajn Tree Property holds at the successor of every regular cardinal.
Our forcing notions are design to specialize trees at a double successor cardinal, in a way that allow us to specialize trees at many cardinals simultaneously. Using Baumgartner’s forcing, we can also specialize all $\aleph_1$-trees. The possibility of specialization of Aronszajn trees at the successor of a singular cardinal or the successor of an inaccessible cardinal remains open.
It is clear that if $T$ is a special $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree, then $T$ is not $\kappa$-*Suslin*; so the problem of making all $\kappa$-Aronszajn trees special is tightly connected to the $\kappa$-Suslin hypothesis, which asserts that there are no $\kappa$-Suslin trees. Let the *Generalized Suslin Hypothesis* be the assertion “the $\kappa$-Suslin hypothesis holds at all uncountable regular cardinals $\kappa$”. An old and major open question in set theory is if this statement can be consistent. As a corollary of Theorem \[main theorem\], we obtain the following partial answer to it.
Assume there are class many supercompact cardinals with no inaccessible limit. Then there is a $\operatorname{ZFC}$-preserving class forcing extension of the universe, in which the Generalized Suslin Hypothesis holds at the successor of every regular cardinal.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[section2\] we prove Theorem \[main theorem2\]. To do this, we first introduce Baumgartner’s forcing for specializing $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn trees, and discuss some of its basic properties. Then we introduce a new forcing notion, which specializes names for $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees, and show that it shares many properties in common with the Laver-Shelah forcing for specializing $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees. Finally we show how the above results can be combined to define a forcing iteration which gives the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\]. In Section \[section:abstract\], we restate the main technical lemmas of Section \[section2\] in a general way which is suitable for the purposes of Section \[section3\] and Section \[section4\]. In Section \[section3\] we prove Theorem \[main theorem3\], and finally, in Section \[section4\], we show how to iterate the forcing notion of section \[section3\] to prove Theorem \[main theorem\].
Out notations are mostly standard. For facts about forcing and large cardinals we refer the reader to [@jech2003].
We force downwards and we always assume that our forcing notions are separative, namely for pair of conditions $p, q$ in a forcing notion $\mathbb{P}$, $p \leq q$ means that $p$ is stronger than $q$ and $p \Vdash q\in \dot{G}$ where $\dot{G} = \{ \langle p, \check{p}\rangle \mid p \in \mathbb{P}\}$ is the canonical name for the generic filter. Also if $\MPB$ is a forcing notion in the ground model $V$, when writing $V[G_{\MPB}]$, we assume $G_{\MPB}$ is a $\MPB$-generic filter over $V$.
The Special Aronszajn Tree Property at aleph1 and aleph2 {#section2}
========================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[main theorem2\]. In Subsection \[Baumgartner forcing for specializing trees\], we review Baumgartner’s forcing for specializing $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn trees, then in Subsection \[Specializing names for trees\], we introduce a forcing notion for specializing names of $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees. The forcing is a variant of the Laver-Shelah forcing [@laver-shelah], where instead of specializing $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees, we specialize names of $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees. In Subsection \[Definition of the main forcing\], we define the main forcing iteration $\MPB$, and in Subsection \[Properties of the forcing notion P\], we prove the basic properties of $\MPB$. The main technical part is to show that $\MPB$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition, where $\kappa$ is the weakly compact cardinal we start with. Finally in Subsection \[Completing the proof of Theorem main theorem2\] we complete the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\].
Baumgartner’s forcing for specializing aleph1-Aronszajn trees {#Baumgartner forcing for specializing trees}
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we briefly review Baumgartner’s forcing for specializing $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn trees, and refer to [@baumgartner1983] for more details on the results of this subsection.
Let $T$ be an $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn tree. The Baumgartner’s forcing for specializing $T$, $\mathbb{B}(T)$, is the set of all partial functions $f: T \to \omega$ such that
1. $\operatorname{dom}(f) \subseteq T$ is finite.
2. If $s, t \in \operatorname{dom}(f)$ and $s <_T t$, then $f(s) \neq f(t)$.
The order on $\mathbb{B}(T)$ is the reverse inclusion.
Let us state the basic properties of the forcing notion $\mathbb{B}(T)$.
\[basic properties of B(T)\]
- $\mathbb{B}(T)$ is c.c.c.
- In the generic extension by $\mathbb{B}(T)$, the tree $T$ is specialized; in fact if $G$ is $\mathbb{B}(T)$-generic over the ground model $V$, then $F= \bigcup G$ is a specializing function from $T$ to $\omega$.
We sketch the proof for completeness.
$($a$)$ We present the proof given in [@coskey]. Suppose towards a contradiction that $\mathbb{B}(T)$ has an uncountable antichain $A$. We can assume, without loss of generality, that the elements of $A$ all have the same size $N$. For each $f \in A$, let $\operatorname{dom}(f)=\{t^f_1, \dots, t^f_N \}$. Furthermore, using the $\Delta$-System Lemma, we may assume that there is some $r$ such that for every pair of elements $f, g$ in $A$, $\operatorname{dom}(f) \cap \operatorname{dom}(g) = r$ and $f \restriction r = g\restriction r$. Note that as $A$ is an antichain, for distinct pairs $f, g \in A$, there exist $k, l < N$ such that $t^f_k$ and $t^g_l$ are compatible in $T$ and $f(t^f_k)=g(t^g_l)$.
Let $U$ be a non-principal uniform ultrafilter on $A$. Then for each $f \in A$, there exist $k,l<N$ such that $$A_{f,k,l}=\{g \in A \mid t^f_k \text{~and~} t^g_l \text{~are compatible and ~} f(t^f_k)=g(t^g_l) \} \in U.$$ Let $A' \subseteq A$ be an uncountable subset of $A$ such that these $k,l$ are the same for each $f\in A'$. Let $f, g \in A'$. Then for each $h \in A_{f, k, l} \cap A_{g, k, l}$, $t^h_l$ is compatible with both $t^f_k$ and $t^g_k$, and since $A_{f, k, l} \cap A_{g, k, l}$ is in $U$ and in particular uncountable, we can find an $h$ as above, such that $t^h_l >_T t^f_k,~t^g_k$. As $T$ is a tree, we have $t^f_k$ and $t^g_k$ are compatible in $T$. It follows that $$b= \{ s \in T \mid \exists f \in A', s \leq_T t^f_k \}$$ is an uncountable branch in $T$, a contradiction to the assumption that $T$ is Aronszajn.
$($b$)$ Is easy, and follows by simple density arguments.
\[def:B(V)\] Baumgartner’s forcing for specializing all $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn trees, $\mathbb{P}$, is defined as the finite support iteration $$\mathbb{P} = \langle \langle \MPB_\alpha \mid \alpha \leq 2^{\aleph_1} \rangle, \langle \dot{\MQB}_\alpha \mid \alpha < 2^{\aleph_1} \rangle \rangle$$ of forcing notions where
1. For each $\alpha < 2^{\aleph_1}, \Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha}$“$\dot{\MQB}_\alpha =\mathbb{B}(\dot{T}_\alpha)$”, for some $\MPB_\alpha$-name $\dot{T}_\alpha$ which is forced by $1_{\MPB_\alpha}$ to be an $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn tree.
2. If $\dot{T}$ is a $\mathbb{P}$-name for an $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn tree, then for some $\alpha < 2^{\aleph_1}, \dot{T}$ is a $\MPB_\alpha$-name and $\Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha}$“$\dot{T}=\dot{T}_\alpha$”.
Let us mention some basic properties of $\mathbb{P}$.
\[basic properties of Baumgartner P\]
- $\mathbb{P}$ is c.c.c.
- In the generic extension by $\mathbb{P}, 2^{\aleph_0}=(2^{\aleph_1})^V$ and all $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn trees are specialized.
$($a$)$ Follows from Lemma \[basic properties of B(T)\]$($a$)$ and the Solovay-Tennenbaum theorem that the finite support iteration of c.c.c. forcing notions is c.c.c.
$($b$)$ Follows from Lemma \[basic properties of B(T)\]$($b$)$ and Definition \[def:B(V)\](2).
In the above definition of $\mathbb{P}$, we used some underlying bookkeeping method which was used in order to pick the names $\dot{T}_\alpha$. We will need a minor generalization of this. Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a function such that for every c.c.c. forcing notion $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{R})$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-name for an $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn tree. We do not require that every name for an $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn tree is enumerated by $\mathcal{T}$. Let $$\mathbb{P}_\gamma(\mathcal{T})=\langle \langle \mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}) \mid \alpha \leq \gamma \rangle, \langle \dot{\MQB}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}) \mid \alpha <\gamma \rangle \rangle$$ be the finite support iteration of forcing notions of length $\gamma$, where for each $\alpha < \gamma$, $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_\a(\mathcal{T})}$“$\dot{\MQB}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}) =\mathbb{B}(\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}))$”. Note that for every $\mathcal{T}$ as above and every ordinal $\gamma$, $\mathbb{P}_\gamma(\mathcal{T})$ is c.c.c., as a finite support iteration of c.c.c. forcing notions.
The following lemma will be used in the course of proving Theorem \[main theorem2\].
\[lemma: not adding new branches by baumgartner forcing\] Let $\mathcal{T}$ be as above. Let $S$ be a tree of height $\omega_1$ and let $\gamma$ be an ordinal. Then $\mathbb{P}_\gamma(\mathcal{T})$ does not introduce new branches to $S$.
Let us show that $\mathbb{P}_\gamma(\mathcal{T}) \times \mathbb{P}_\gamma(\mathcal{T})$ is c.c.c. Let $\mathcal{T}'$ be the following function:
- If $\alpha < \gamma$, then $\mathcal{T}'(\mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}'))=\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}))$. In particular, $\mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}') \cong \mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T})$, for all $\alpha \leq \gamma$.
- If $\gamma \leq \alpha < \gamma+\gamma$, and if $\beta < \gamma$ is such that $\alpha=\gamma+\beta$, then $\mathcal{T}'(\mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}'))=\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{P}_\beta(\mathcal{T}))$.
Note that if $\alpha=\gamma+\beta$, where $\beta < \gamma$, then $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}')}$“$\mathcal{T}'(\mathbb{P}_\alpha(\mathcal{T}'))$ is a special Aronszajn tree, in particular it is Aronszajn”. It then follows that the forcing iteration $\mathbb{P}_{\gamma+\gamma}(\mathcal{T}')$ is c.c.c., and by the definition of $\mathcal{T}'$, one can easily verify that $\mathbb{P}_\gamma(\mathcal{T}) \times \mathbb{P}_\gamma(\mathcal{T}) \cong \mathbb{P}_\gamma(\mathcal{T}) \ast \dot{\mathbb{P}}_\gamma(\mathcal{T}) \cong \mathbb{P}_{\gamma+\gamma}(\mathcal{T}')$. The lemma follows from [@Unger2015 Lemma 1.3].
The following definition appears in the literature under various names and notations. For an example in which the following concept is used extensively, see [@ShelahThomas1997].
Let $\langle \MPB_\alpha, \dot{\MQB}_\beta \mid \beta < \delta,\,\alpha \leq \delta\rangle$ be a $<\mu$-support iteration of forcing notions, and let $I \subseteq \delta$. We define $\MPB_I$, by induction on $\operatorname{otp}(I)$, to be the $<\mu$-support iteration $\MPB_I=\langle \MPB_{I \cap \alpha},\, \dot{\MQB}_{I \cap \beta} \mid \beta \in I,\, \alpha \in I \cup \{\sup(I) + 1\}\rangle$ of forcing notions, such that:
1. If $\dot{\MQB}_\beta$ is forced by the weakest condition of $\MPB_{\beta}$ to be equivalent to a specific $\MPB_{I \cap \beta}$-name, then $\dot{\MQB}_{I \cap \beta}$ is such a $\MPB_{I \cap \beta}$-name.
2. Otherwise $\Vdash_{\MPB_{I \cap \beta}}$“$\dot{\MQB}_{I \cap \beta}$ is the trivial forcing”.
We say that $\MPB_I$ is a sub-iteration of $\MPB$ if the second case does not occur.
Note that $\MPB_I$ is always a regular subforcing of $\MPB$.
\[lemma: not adding new branches by baumgartner forcing mod subiteration\] Let $\mathbb{P}_\delta(\mathcal{T})$ be an iteration of Baumgartner’s forcing as above, and let $I \subseteq \delta$ be a set of indices such that $\MPB_I$ is a subiteration of $\MPB_{\delta}$. Let $S$ be a tree of height $\omega_1$ in the generic extension by $\MPB_I$. Then the quotient forcing $\MPB_{\delta} / \MPB_I$ does not add a new branch to $S$.
The quotient forcing $\MPB_{\delta} / \MPB_I$ is equivalent to a finite support iteration of Baumgartner’s forcing, and thus we just need to verify that $\MPB_I$ did not add branches to Aronszajn trees. This follows from Lemma \[lemma: not adding new branches by baumgartner forcing\].
Specializing names for aleph2-Aronszajn trees {#Specializing names for trees}
---------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we define a forcing notion for specializing names of $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees.
Let $V$ be the ground model, $\kappa$ be an inaccessible cardinal in $V$ and suppose that $\MPB \ast \dot{\MQB}$ is a two step iterated forcing which is $\kappa$-c.c. and makes $\kappa=\aleph_2$. Let $\dot{T}$ be a $\MPB \ast \dot{\MQB}$-name for a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree. We may assume that $\dot{T}$ is forced to be a tree on $\kappa \times \omega_1$ and that the $\alpha$-th level of it is forced to be $\{\alpha\} \times \omega_1$. Let $\mathbb{B}_\MQB(\dot{T})$ be the following forcing notion as it is defined in $V[G_{\MPB}]$:
Conditions in $\mathbb{B}_\MQB(\dot{T})$ are partial functions $f: \kappa \times \omega_1 \to \omega_1$ such that:
1. $\operatorname{dom}(f) \subseteq \kappa \times \omega_1$ is countable.
2. If $s, t \in \operatorname{dom}(f)$ and $f(s) = f(t)$ then $\Vdash^{V[G_{\MPB}]}_{\MQB}$“$\check{s} \perp_{\dot{T}} \check{t}$”.
The ordering is reverse inclusion.
\[properties of generalized specializing forcing\] Work in $V[G_{\MPB}]$.
1. The forcing notion $\mathbb{B}_\MQB(\dot{T})$ is $\aleph_1$-closed.
2. In the generic extension by $\mathbb{B}_\MQB(\dot{T})$, there is a function $F: \kappa \times \omega_1 \to \omega_1$ which is a specializing function of every generic interpretation of $\dot{T}$ by a $\MQB$-generic filter over $V[G_{\MPB}]$.
In general, $\mathbb{B}_\MQB(\dot{T})$ may fail to satisfy the $\kappa$-c.c. However as we will see in the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\], under some suitable assumptions, $\mathbb{B}_\MQB(\dot{T})$ will satisfy the $\kappa$-c.c., which is the crucial part of the argument.
Definition of the main forcing {#Definition of the main forcing}
------------------------------
In this subsection, we define our main forcing notion, which will be used in the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\]. Assume that $\operatorname{GCH}$ holds and let $\kappa$ be a weakly compact cardinal. Let also $\delta > \kappa$ be a regular cardinal and fix a function $\Phi: \delta \rightarrow H(\delta)$ such that for each $x \in H(\delta), \Phi^{-1}(x)$ is unbounded in $\delta$.
For the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\], it suffices to take $\delta=\kappa^+$, but we present a more general result that will be used for the proof of Theorems \[main theorem3\] and \[main theorem\]
We define by induction on $\alpha \leq \delta$ two iterations of forcing notions $$\MPB^1_{\delta}=\langle \langle \MPB^1_\alpha \mid \alpha \leq \delta \rangle, \langle \dot{\MQB}^1_\alpha \mid \alpha < \delta \rangle \rangle$$ and $$\MPB^2_{\delta}=\langle \langle \MPB^2_\alpha \mid \alpha \leq \delta \rangle, \langle \dot{\MQB}^2_\alpha \mid \alpha < \delta \rangle \rangle.$$
Suppose that $\alpha < \delta$ and we have defined the forcing notions $\MPB^1_\beta$ and $\MPB^2_\beta$ for all $\beta < \alpha$. Let us define $\MPB^1_\alpha$ and $\MPB^2_\alpha$.
### Definition of P2 {#definition-of-p2 .unnumbered}
The forcing notion $\MPB^2_\alpha$ is defined in $V$ as follows.
Set $\MQB^2_0=\operatorname{Col}(\aleph_1, < \kappa)$.
If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal and $\operatorname{cf}(\alpha) > \omega$, let $\MPB^2_\alpha$ be the direct limit of the forcing notions $\MPB^2_\beta, \beta < \alpha$. If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal and $\operatorname{cf}(\alpha) = \omega$, let $\MPB^2_\alpha$ be the inverse limit of the forcing notions $\MPB^2_\beta, \beta < \alpha$.
Now suppose that $\alpha=\beta+1$ is a successor ordinal. If $\Phi(\beta)$ is a $\MPB^2_\beta \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\beta$-name for a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree, then let $\MQB^2_\beta$ be a $\MPB^2_\beta$-name such that $$\Vdash_{\MPB^2_\beta}\text{``}\dot{\MQB}^2_\beta = \mathbb{B}_{\MPB^1_\beta}(\Phi(\beta))\text{''}.$$ Otherwise, let $\MQB^2_\beta$ be a name for the trivial forcing notion.
### Definition of P1 {#definition-of-p1 .unnumbered}
The forcing notion $\MPB^1_\alpha$ is defined in the generic extension of $V$ by $\MPB^2_\alpha$. Let $V[G^2_\alpha]$ be the generic extension of $V$ by $\MPB^2_\alpha$ and work in it.
If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal, then let $\MPB^1_\alpha$ be the direct limit of the forcing notions $\MPB^1_\beta, \beta < \alpha$.
Let $\alpha=\beta+1$ be a successor ordinal. If $\Phi(\beta)$ is a $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\beta$-name for an $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn tree, then let $\MQB^1_\beta$ be such that $$\Vdash_{\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\beta}\text{``}\dot{\MQB}^1_\beta = \mathbb{B}(\Phi(\beta))\text{''}.$$ Otherwise, let $\MQB^1_\beta$ be the trivial forcing notion.
### Definition of the main forcing notion {#definition-of-the-main-forcing-notion .unnumbered}
Finally we define the main forcing notion that will be used in the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\]. For each $\alpha \leq \delta$ set $\MPB_\alpha = \MPB^2_\alpha \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$ and let $\MPB = \MPB_{\delta}$.
We will show that in the generic extension by $\MPB$, all Aronszajn trees on $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$ are special, and there is an $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree.
It is important to note that although $\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}$ and $\mathbb{P}^1_{\alpha}$ are defined recursively together, $\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}$ does not depend on the generic filter of $\mathbb{P}^1_{\alpha}$ and specializes any possible $\mathbb{P}^1_{\alpha}$-name for an Aronszajn tree, regardless of whether this tree happened to be special or non-special in the generic extension by $\mathbb{P}^1_{\alpha}$ (see Lemma \[properties of generalized specializing forcing\](b)).
Properties of the forcing notion P {#Properties of the forcing notion P}
----------------------------------
In this subsection we state and prove some basic properties of the forcing notions defined above.
\[closure of P\] For every $\alpha \leq \delta$, the forcing notion $\MPB^2_{\a}$ is $\aleph_1$-closed.
$\MPB^2_{\a}$ is a countable support iteration of $\aleph_1$-closed forcing notions, and hence is $\aleph_1$-closed.
Then next lemma resembles Lemma \[basic properties of B(T)\].
\[chain condition of P-1\]
1. For every $\alpha \leq \delta, \Vdash_{\MPB^2_\alpha}$“ $\dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$ is c.c.c.”.
2. For every $\alpha \leq \delta, \Vdash_{\MPB^2_{\delta}}$“ $\dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$ is c.c.c.”.
Let us show, by induction on $\alpha \leq \delta$, that $\MPB^1_\alpha$ is c.c.c. in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_\gamma$, for all $\gamma \in [\alpha, \delta]$.
For a limit ordinal $\alpha$, $\MPB^1_\alpha$ is the direct limit of the forcing notions $\MPB_{\beta}^1$, $\beta < \alpha$, and thus it is c.c.c.
Let $\alpha = \beta + 1$ be a successor ordinal.
Then either $\MPB^1_\alpha = \MPB^1_{\beta}$ and there is nothing to prove, or else, $\MPB^1_\alpha = \MPB^1_{\beta} \ast \mathbb{B}(\dot{T})$ where $\dot{T}=\Phi(\beta)$ is a $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\beta$-name for an $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn tree. We need to show that the forcing $\mathbb{B}(\dot{T})$ is c.c.c. in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_{\gamma}$, for $\gamma \in [\alpha, \kappa^+]$. Since the conditions in Baumgartner’s forcing are finite, this forcing is absolute between any model of set theory that contains the evaluation of the name $\dot{T}$. Thus, it is sufficient to show that the tree $T=\dot{T}[G_{\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\beta}]$, which is Aronszajn in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\beta$, remains Aronszajn in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_{\gamma} \ast \MPB^1_\beta$, for every $\gamma \in [\alpha, \delta]$.
Work in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_{\alpha}$ and let $\gamma \in [\alpha, \delta]$. In this model the tree $T$ is introduced by the forcing $\MPB^1_{\beta}$, which is c.c.c. (by the inductive assumption). Let $\mathbb{R}$ be the quotient forcing $\MPB^2_{\gamma} / \MPB^2_\alpha$. This forcing is $\aleph_1$-closed in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_\alpha$, as a countable support iteration of $\aleph_1$-closed forcing notions. By the induction hypothesis, $\MPB^1_\alpha$ is c.c.c. in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_\alpha$. Thus, we can apply [@Unger2012 Lemma 3.2] over the generic extension by $\MPB^2_\alpha$, and conclude that forcing with $\mathbb{R}$ over the larger generic extension by $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha$ does not introduce new branches to the $\aleph_1$-tree $T$. The lemma follows.
The next lemma is the main step towards completing the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\].
\[chain condition lemma of p-2\] $\MPB^2_{\alpha}$ is $\kappa$-Knaster for each $\alpha \leq \delta$. In particular, $\MPB^2_{\delta}$ satisfies the $\kappa$-c.c.
Before we dive into the details, let us sketch the main ideas of the proof.
The proof consists of two steps. First, we will show that for every $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree $T$, that appears in the iteration, for many $\lambda < \kappa$, the relation between elements above the $\lambda$-th level of $T$ and elements below the $\lambda$-th level of the tree is undetermined by the restriction of the forcing to some nicely chosen model $\mathcal{M}_\lambda$ (we will make this statement more precise in the proof ahead). From this, we will conclude that for densely many conditions $p$ and for many $\lambda < \kappa$, there are extensions of $p$ into two stronger conditions $p', p''$, such that the restrictions of $p'$ and $p''$ to $\mathcal{M}_\lambda$ are the same, i.e., $p' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda= p'' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$, and for every element $t$ in the domain of $p'$ or $p''$ above $\lambda$, $p'$ forces that $\sigma' \leq t$, $p''$ forces that $\sigma'' \leq t$ and $\sigma', \sigma''$ are incompatible. The witnesses $\sigma', \sigma''$, will depend also on $\MPB^1_{\delta}$. We call $p'$ and $p''$ a separating pair for $p$.
The second step is, given a sequence of $\kappa$ many conditions in $\mathbb{P}^2_{\delta}$, $\langle p_i \mid i < \kappa\rangle$, to extend each $p_i$ to a separating pair $p_i', p_i''$ as above and then, using a $\Delta$-System argument, to fix the incompatibility witnesses in some diagonal way. Then, we will show that every $p_i$ and $p_j$ are compatible and in fact, $p_i' \cup p_j''$ is a condition.
The proof imitates the proof of Laver-Shelah’s theorem for specializing all $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees [@laver-shelah], but with one additional difficulty - the separating pairs in our construction deal also with the conditions in $\mathbb{P}^1_{\delta}$.
Let us now return to the course of the proof.
We prove by induction on $\beta \leq \delta$ that $\MPB^2_\beta$ satisfies the $\kappa$-Knaster property. It is clear that $\MPB^2_1 \simeq \operatorname{Col}(\aleph_1, < \kappa)$ is $\kappa$-Knaster. Now suppose that $\beta \leq \delta$ and each $\MPB^2_\a, \a < \beta$, is $\kappa$-Knaster. We show that $\MPB^2_\beta$ is also $\kappa$-Knaster.
If $\operatorname{cf}(\beta) > \kappa$, then $\MPB^2_\beta$ is easily seen to be $\kappa$-Knaster, as any subset of $\MPB^2_{\beta}$ of size $\kappa$ is included in some $\MPB^2_\alpha$, for some $\alpha < \beta$, so, by the induction hypothesis, it contains a subset of size $\kappa$ of pairwise compatible elements in $\MPB^2_{\a}$ and hence each pair of elements in this subset will be compatible in $\MPB^2_{\beta}$ as well.
Now suppose that $\operatorname{cf}(\beta) \leq \kappa$ and let $\langle \beta_i \mid i < \operatorname{cf}(\beta) \rangle$ be an increasing sequence cofinal in $\beta$.
Let $\theta > \delta$ be a sufficiently large regular cardinal and let $\mathcal{M} \preceq H(\theta)$ be such that
- $|\mathcal{M}|=\kappa$ and $^{<\kappa}\mathcal{M} \subseteq \mathcal{M}$.
- $V_{\kappa} \cup \{\beta_i \mid i< \operatorname{cf}(\beta) \} \subseteq \mathcal{M}$.
- $\kappa, \Phi, \delta, \beta, \langle \beta_i \mid i < \operatorname{cf}(\beta) \rangle, \langle \MPB^1_\beta \mid \beta \leq \delta \rangle, \langle \MPB^2_\beta \mid \beta \leq \delta \rangle, \dots \in \mathcal{M}$.
Let $\bar{\mathcal{M}}$ be the transitive collapse of $\mathcal{M}$ with $\pi: \mathcal{M} \to \bar{\mathcal{M}}$ being the transitive collapse map. For each $x \in \mathcal{M}$ we write $x^*$ for $\pi(x)$. Note that since $\kappa + 1 \subseteq \mathcal{M}$, for $A \subseteq \kappa$, $A \in \bar{\mathcal{M}}$, if and only if $A \in \mathcal{M}$ and $A^* = A$.
By [@hauser], there exists a transitive model $\mathcal{N}$, closed under $< \kappa$-sequences, and an elementary embedding $j: \bar{\mathcal{M}} \to \mathcal{N}$ with critical point $\kappa$ such that $j, \bar{\mathcal{M}} \in \mathcal{N}$. Let $$\mathcal{F} = \{ A \subseteq \kappa \mid A \in \mathcal{M} \text{~and~}\kappa \in j(A)\}.$$ Then $\mathcal{F}$ is an $\mathcal{M}$-normal $\kappa$-complete $\mathcal{M}$-ultrafilter on $\kappa$. Let also $\mathcal{S}$ be the collection of $\mathcal{F}$-positive sets, i.e., $$\mathcal{S}=\{ D \subseteq \kappa \mid \forall A \in \mathcal{F},~ D \cap A \neq \emptyset \}.$$ Let us remark that every member of $\mathcal{F}$ is positive with respect to the weakly compact filter, which is a normal filter in $V$.
Let us define the sequence $\langle \mathcal{M}_\lambda \mid \lambda < \kappa \rangle$ as follows. Let $\phi: V_\kappa \leftrightarrow \mathcal{M}$ be a bijection and for each $\lambda < \kappa$ set: $$\mathcal{M}_\lambda = \phi[V_\lambda].$$ It is evident that $\{\lambda < \kappa \mid \mathcal{M}_\lambda \cap \kappa = \lambda \} \in \mathcal{F}$.
Since $\mathcal{M} \prec H(\theta)$, if $\MPB^2_\beta$ is not $\kappa$-Knaster, then $\mathcal{M} \models$“ $\MPB^2_\beta\text{ is not }\kappa\text{-Knaster}$”. In particular, there is a sequence of conditions $\langle p_\alpha \mid \alpha < \kappa\rangle \in \mathcal{M}$ witnessing it and since $\kappa \subseteq \mathcal{M}$, $p_\alpha \in \mathcal{M}$ for all $\alpha < \kappa$. We conclude that $\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$ is not $\kappa$-Knaster. Thus, let us concentrate in showing that $\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$ is $\kappa$-Knaster.
Let us assume that $\lambda < \kappa$ is an inaccessible cardinal, $^{<\lambda}\mathcal{M}_\lambda \subseteq \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ and that $\mathbb{P}^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ is a regular subforcing of $\mathbb{P}^2_\beta$ (later, during the proof, we will show that such $\lambda$’s exist). For such a cardinal $\lambda$ and $p\in \MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$, we denote by $p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda$, the following condition in $\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$. Let $p = \langle p_\alpha \mid \alpha < \beta\rangle$. Then $p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ is the condition $\langle p_\alpha' \mid \alpha < \beta\rangle$, where $p_\alpha'$ is the trivial condition is $\alpha \notin \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ and otherwise $p_\alpha' = p_\alpha \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda$. Namely, $p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ is obtained from $p$ by removing all coordinates which do not appear in $\mathcal{M}_\lambda$ and restricting the specialization functions to values from $\mathcal{M}_\lambda$. By the closure of $\mathcal{M}_\lambda$, $p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda \in \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
Let $G \subseteq \mathbb{P}^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$ be a generic filter. Then in $V[G]$ there is a natural generic filter, $$G \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda := \{p\restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda \mid p \in G\} = \{p\in G \mid p \in \MPB^2_\beta\cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \} \subseteq \mathbb{P}^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda.$$
Let us denote, temporarily, the quotient forcing $\left(\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}\right) / \left(G \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda\right)$ by $\mathbb{R}$. It is possible that for a condition $p\in\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$, $p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda \not\Vdash \text{``}p \in \mathbb{R}$”. Nevertheless, it is impossible that $p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda \Vdash \text{``}p \notin \mathbb{R}$”, and thus there is an extension $q \leq p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ for which $q \Vdash p \in \mathbb{R}$ or equivalently for every $r \leq q$ in $\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$, $r$ is compatible with $p$. By modifying $p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ we can ensure that $p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda \Vdash p \in \mathbb{R}$. This situation is denoted by $\ast_\lambda(p, p \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$ in [@laver-shelah]. In this paper, we will say in this case that $p$ is *$\lambda$-compatible*.
Before diving into the main technical lemma, let us use the following analysis of names of branches in the trees $\Phi(\alpha)$.
For forcing notions $\MPB$ and $\MQB$, we use $\MPB \lessdot \MQB$ to mean that $\MPB$ is a regular sub-forcing of $\MQB$.
\[claim: countably names for each element\] Let $\alpha \in \beta \cap \mathcal{M}$ be an ordinal such that $T_\alpha = \Phi(\alpha)$ is a $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha$-name for an Aronszajn tree. Let $\lambda < \kappa$ be an inaccessible cardinal such that:
1. $\mathcal{M}_\lambda \cap \kappa = \lambda$.
2. $^{<\lambda}\mathcal{M}_\lambda \subseteq \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
3. $\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \lessdot \MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}$.
4. \[requirement: baumgartner regular subforcing\] $\Vdash_{\MPB^2_\alpha} \MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \lessdot \MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}$ and moreover, it is a sub-iteration.
Then every cofinal branch in $T_\alpha \cap (\lambda\times \omega)$ in $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha$ exists in $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast (\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$.
The quotient $\left(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha \right) / (\MPB^2_\alpha \ast (\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda))$ is a finite support iteration of Baumgartner’s forcing, and in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast (\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$, $\lambda$ has cofinality $\omega_1$. Thus, by Lemma \[lemma: not adding new branches by baumgartner forcing\], no new cofinal branch to $T_\alpha \cap (\lambda\times \omega)$ is added by this forcing.
Let us remark that since Baumgartner’s forcing is c.c.c., requirement (\[requirement: baumgartner regular subforcing\]) in the lemma follows immediately from the other requirements. Moreover, since the forcing $\MPB^1_\alpha / (\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$ is c.c.c. in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast (\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$, for a given name for a branch $\dot{b}$, one can find in the ground model countably many $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast (\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$-names $\{\dot{b}_n \mid n < \omega\}$ for branches, such that the weakest condition of the quotient forcing, forces that $\dot{b}$ is evaluated as one of them.
The main technical tool is the following separation claim.
\[separation claim\] Assume $\alpha \in \beta \cap \mathcal{M}$, $\MPB^2_\alpha$ is $\kappa$-Knaster and $T_\alpha=\Phi(\alpha)$ is a $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$-name for a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree. Then there exists a measure one set $B \in \mathcal{F}$ such that for every $\lambda \in B$:
1. $\alpha \in \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
2. $\mathcal{M}_\lambda \cap \kappa = \lambda$ and $\lambda$ is inaccessible.
3. $\mathcal{M}_\lambda$ is closed under $<\lambda$-sequences.
4. $\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \lessdot \MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}$ and is $\lambda$-c.c.
5. $\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ is (equivalent to) an $\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$-name.
6. $\left(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha \right)\cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \lessdot \left(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha\right) \cap \mathcal{M}$. Moreover, $\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ is a sub-iteration of $\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}$.
7. $\left(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha \right)\cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ forces that $T_\alpha \cap (\lambda\times\omega_1)$ is an Aronszajn tree.
For every such $\lambda$ we have:
1. $\Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha^2} \MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \lessdot \MPB^1_\alpha$.
2. For every pair of $(\MPB_\alpha^2 \cap \mathcal{M}) \ast (\MPB_\alpha^1 \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$-names of cofinal branches $\dot{\tau}, \dot{\theta}$ in the first $\lambda$ levels of $T_\alpha$ and $p \in \MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$, and for every $\lambda$-compatible $q', q'' \in \MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$ with $p = q' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = q'' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$, there are $\lambda$-compatible conditions $p', p'' \in \MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$, and a countable sequence $\langle (\bar{p}_n, \xi_n, \theta_n, \tau_n) \mid n < \omega\rangle \in \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ such that:
1. $p' \leq q',\, p'' \leq q''$ and $p' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = p'' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
2. $p' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda \Vdash_{\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}$“ $\bar{p}_n \in \dot{\MPB}^1_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$”.
3. $\xi_n < \lambda$, $\theta_n, \tau_n \in \{\xi_n\} \times \omega_1$ and $\theta_n \neq \tau_n$.
4. $(p' \upharpoonright \alpha, \bar{p}_n \upharpoonright \alpha) \Vdash$“$~\check{\tau_n} \leq_{T_\alpha} \check{\tau}$” and $(p'' \upharpoonright \alpha, \bar{p}_n \upharpoonright \alpha) \Vdash$“$~\check{\theta_n} \leq_{T_\alpha} \check{\theta}$”.
5. $p' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda \Vdash_{\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}$“$\{\bar{p}_n \mid n < \omega\}$ is a maximal antichain in $\dot{\MPB}^1_\beta$”.
By the hypotheses of Claim \[separation claim\], $\MPB^2_\alpha$ has the $\kappa$-c.c. Let $B_\alpha$ be the set of all inaccessible cardinals $\lambda < \kappa$ that satisfy the requirements $(1)$-$(6)$ of the lemma.
Let us verify that $\kappa \in j(B_\alpha)$, and hence $B_\alpha \in \mathcal{F}$. First, note that since the sequence $\langle \mathcal{M}_\lambda \mid \lambda < \kappa\rangle$ is continuous, $j(\mathcal{M})_\kappa = \bigcup_{\lambda < \kappa} j(\mathcal{M}_\lambda) = j`` \mathcal{M}$.
1. $j(\alpha) \in j`` \mathcal{M}$, since $\alpha \in \mathcal{M}$ by the assumption of the lemma.
2. $j`` \mathcal{M} \cap j(\kappa) = \kappa$.
3. $j`` \mathcal{M}$ is closed under $<\kappa$-sequences. This is true since $\mathcal{M}$ is closed under $< \kappa$-sequences.
4. $j(\MPB^2_\alpha) \cap j`` \mathcal{M} = j``(\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M})$ and in particular, it is isomorphic to $\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}$ and is $\kappa$-c.c. From this fact, together with the closure of $j`` \mathcal{M}$ we conclude that it is a regular subforcing of $j(\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M})$.
5. This is the same as in the previous assertion.
6. Using the previous item and the chain condition of the forcing.
7. As in the previous assertion, $j(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap j`` \mathcal{M}$ is isomorphic to $(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap \mathcal{M}$. By the chain condition of the forcing $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha$, $(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap \mathcal{M} \lessdot \MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha$. Thus, we conclude that $j`` T_\alpha$ which is exactly the name of $j(T_\alpha) \cap (\kappa \times \omega_1)$, is a name with respect to the regular subforcing $j``\left( (\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap \mathcal{M}\right)$. Clearly, the subforcing forces it to be an Aronszajn tree.
Next, let us show that that the elements of $B_\alpha$ satisfy the clauses $(7)$ and $(8)$ of the lemma. Thus suppose that $\lambda \in B_\alpha$, and fix names $\dot\theta$ and $\dot\tau$ for branches, and conditions $p, q'$ and $q''$ as in the statement of the lemma.
It then follows from the choice of $\lambda$ that, for any $(\MPB_\alpha^2 \cap \mathcal{M}) \ast (\MPB_\alpha^1 \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$-generic filter $G$ over $V$, the branches $\dot{\theta}^G, \dot{\tau}^G \notin V[G_{(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}]$, where $G_{(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}= G \cap \left((\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \right)$.
We now claim that there are densely many pairs of conditions $(p', \bar p), (p'', \bar p) \in \MPB^2_\beta/ (\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda) \ast \left(\MPB^1_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda\right)$ such that $(p' \upharpoonright \alpha, \bar p \upharpoonright \alpha), (p''\upharpoonright \alpha, \bar p \upharpoonright \alpha) \in \MPB^2_\alpha \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$ force incompatible values for the branches below $\dot\theta$ and $\dot\tau$, $p'$ and $p''$ are $\lambda$-compatible and $p'\upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = p'' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
If not, we can find conditions $(p', \bar p), (p'', \bar p)$ so that for any extensions $q' \leq p'$ and $q'' \leq p''$ which are $\lambda$-compatible and $q' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = q'' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$, and any $\bar q \leq \bar p$, the conditions $(q' \upharpoonright \alpha, \bar q \upharpoonright \alpha), (q'' \upharpoonright \alpha, \bar q \upharpoonright \alpha) \in \MPB^2_\alpha \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$ can not force incompatible values for the branches $\dot\theta$ and $\dot\tau$.
Let $G = G_{(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}$ be $V$-generic for ${(\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha) \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}$, and let $H_1, H_2$ be mutually generic filters for the forcing $\MPB^2_\alpha/ (\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda) \ast \left(\MPB^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda\right)$ over the model $V[G]$. Let us assume that $(p' \upharpoonright \alpha) \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda \in G$, $p'\upharpoonright \alpha \in H_1$ and $p''\upharpoonright \alpha \in H_2$.
By the assumption, $\dot{\tau}^{G \ast H_1} = \dot{\theta}^{G \ast H_2}$. In particular, $$\dot{\tau}^{G \ast H_1} \in V[G][H_1] \cap V[G][H_2],$$ and by the mutual genericity of $H_1$ and $H_2$ - it is in $V[G]$, which is impossible.
Thus we can find a pair of conditions in the iteration $$(p'_0, \bar p_0), (p''_0, \bar p_0) \in \left((\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}) / (\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)\right) \ast \left(\dot{\MPB}^1_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda\right)$$ with $p'_0 \leq p', p''_0 \leq p''$ and $p'_0 \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = p''_0 \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ together with $\xi_0 < \lambda$ and elements in $\theta_0, \tau_0 \in \{\xi_0\} \times \omega_1$ such that
- $(p'_0\upharpoonright \alpha, \bar p_0\upharpoonright \alpha) \Vdash$“$\check\theta_0 \in \dot\theta$”.
- $(p''_0\upharpoonright \alpha, \bar p_0\upharpoonright \alpha) \Vdash$“$\check\tau_0 \in \dot\tau$”.
Let us repeat the process. Suppose that $\nu<\omega_1$ and we have defined the pairs $(p'_n, \bar p_n), (p''_n, \bar p_n) \in (\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M})/ (\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda) \ast \left(\dot{\MPB}^1_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda\right)$ together with $\xi_n$ and $\theta_n, \tau_n \in \lambda \times \omega_1$ such that
- The sequences $\langle p'_n \mid n < \nu\rangle$ and $\langle p''_n \mid n < \nu \rangle$ are decreasing and for each $n$, $p'_n$ and $p''_n$ are $\lambda$-compatible.
- $p'_n \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = p''_n \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
- $p'_n \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda \Vdash_{\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}$“ $\bar{p}_n \in \dot{\MPB}^1_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$”.
- For $m<n < \nu$, $p'_n \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda \Vdash_{\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}$“$\bar p_m$ and $\bar p_n$ are incompatible”.
- $\xi_n < \lambda, \theta_n, \tau_n \in \{\xi_n\} \times \omega_1$ and $\theta_n \neq \tau_n$.
- $(p'_n \restriction \alpha, \bar p_n \restriction \alpha) \Vdash$“$\check\theta_n \in \dot\theta$”.
- $(p''_n \restriction \alpha, \bar p_n \restriction \alpha) \Vdash$“$\check\tau_n \in \dot\tau$”.
Let $q'_\nu=\bigcup_{n<\nu}p'_n$ and $q''_\nu=\bigcup_{n<\nu}p''_n$. Then $q'_\nu, q''_\nu \in (\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}) / (\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$ and $q'_\nu \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = q''_\nu \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$. If
$q'_\nu \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda \Vdash$“$\{\bar p_n \mid n < \nu\}$ is a maximal antichain”,
then we stop the construction. Otherwise find a condition $\bar q_\nu$ which is forced to be incompatible with all $\bar p_n$’s, $n<\nu$, and let $(p'_\nu, \bar p_\nu), (p''_\nu, \bar p_\nu)$, $\xi_\nu < \lambda$ and $\theta_\nu, \tau_\nu \in \{\xi_\nu\} \times \omega_1$ be such that
- $(p'_\nu, \bar p_\nu), (p''_\nu, \bar p_\nu) \in \left((\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}) / (\MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)\right) \ast \left(\dot{\MPB}^1_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda\right)$.
- $(p'_\nu, \bar p_\nu) \leq (\bar q'_\nu, \bar q_\nu)$ and $(p''_\nu, \bar p_\nu) \leq (\bar q''_\nu, \bar q_\nu)$.
- $p'_\nu \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda= p''_\nu \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
- $(p'_\nu \restriction \alpha, \bar p_\nu \restriction \alpha) \Vdash$“$\check\theta_\nu \in \dot\theta$”.
- $(p''_\nu \restriction \alpha, \bar p_\nu \restriction \alpha) \Vdash$“$\check\tau_\nu \in \dot\tau$”.
By Lemmas \[chain condition of P-1\] and \[closure of P\], this process terminates after at most countably many steps. At the end of the process, we get a countable ordinal $\vartheta$, sequences $\langle p_n' \mid n < \vartheta \rangle$ and $\langle p_n'' \mid n< \vartheta\rangle$ of conditions in $(\MPB_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}) / (\MPB_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$, and sequences $\{\bar p_n \mid n < \vartheta\}$ and $\langle (\xi_n, \theta_n, \tau_n) \mid n < \vartheta\rangle$ such that
- The sequences $\langle p_n' \mid n < \vartheta \rangle$ and $\langle p_n'' \mid n< \vartheta \rangle$ are decreasing and $p_n' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = p_n'' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$. Let $p'=\bigcup_{n < \vartheta}p'_n$ and $p''=\bigcup_{n < \vartheta}p''_n$.
- $p' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda \Vdash_{\MPB^2_\beta\cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda}$“$\{\bar{p}_n \mid n < \omega\}$ is a maximal antichain in $\dot{\MPB}^1_\beta$”.
- For all $n < \vartheta, ~ \theta_n, \tau_n \in \{\xi_n\} \times \omega_1$ and $\theta_n \neq \tau_n$.
- For all $n < \vartheta$, $(p'_n \upharpoonright \alpha, \bar{p}_n \upharpoonright \alpha) \Vdash$“$~\check{\tau_n} \in \dot{\tau}$” and $(p''_n \upharpoonright \alpha, \bar{p}_n \upharpoonright \alpha) \Vdash$“$~\check{\theta_n} \in \dot{\theta}$”.
Then $p', p''$ together with the sequence $\langle (\bar p_n, \xi_n, \theta_n, \tau_n) \mid n < \vartheta \rangle$ are as required.
Let us call the sequence $\langle (\bar p_n, \xi_n, \theta_n, \tau_n) \mid n < \omega\rangle$ a *$\lambda$-separating witness* for the branches $\theta, \tau$ relative to $p', p''$.
Let $\lambda$ be as in the claim. Let $p', p'' \in \MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$ be arbitrary $\lambda$-compatible conditions, with $p' \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda = p''\restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda$. For every $\alpha \in \operatorname{dom}(p') \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ and every element $\theta \in \operatorname{dom}(p'(\alpha))$ above $\lambda$, there are at most countably $\left(\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}\right) \ast \left(\MPB^2_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \right)$-names for the branch $\{t \in T_\alpha \mid t \leq \theta,\, \operatorname{Lev}_{T_\alpha}(t) < \lambda\}$, by the Claim \[claim: countably names for each element\] and the discussion following it.
If $\theta, \tau$ are elements in the tree $T_\alpha$ with $\operatorname{Lev}_{T_\alpha}(\theta), \operatorname{Lev}_{T_\alpha}(\tau) \geq \lambda$, then we may apply Claim \[separation claim\] for the countably many possible pairs of names for the branches below $\lambda$ that $\theta$ and $\tau$ contributes, and obtain countably many separation pairs. Let us call this countable collection of separating witness, a *$\lambda$-separating witness* for $\theta$ and $\tau$.
Thus, by the repeated use of Claim \[separation claim\], countably many times, there is a measure one set $A\in \mathcal{F}$ such that for every condition $p \in \MPB^2_\beta \cap \mathcal{M}$, and every $\lambda \in A, ~ \mathcal{M}_\lambda \cap \kappa=\kappa$, there are conditions $p', p''\leq p$ such that
- $p' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = p'' \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
- For every $\alpha \in \beta \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$, any pair of elements above $\lambda$ in $\operatorname{dom}(p'(\alpha))\times \operatorname{dom}(p''(\alpha))$ has a $\lambda$-separating witness in $\mathcal{M}_\lambda$ relative to $p'\restriction \a, p''\restriction \a$.
We call this pair $(p', p'')$ a *$\lambda$-separating pair*. Note that $\operatorname{dom}(p)$ might contain elements from $\mathcal{M} \setminus \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ which are not treated.
Now let $\langle p_\lambda \mid \lambda < \kappa\rangle \in \mathcal{M}$ be a sequence of conditions in $\MPB^2_\beta$.[^3]
For every $\lambda\in A$, $p_\lambda$ can be extended to a $\lambda$-separating pair $(p'_\lambda, p''_\lambda) \in \mathcal{M}$. Let $s_\lambda \in \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ be the list of separating witnesses.
The function that sends $\lambda$ to $(s_\lambda, p' \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$ is regressive. By the normality of the weakly compact filter (recall that every member of $\mathcal{F}$ is positive with respect to the weakly compact filter), and by further shrinking if necessary, we may assume that on a positive set $D \in \mathcal{S}$, all $s_\lambda$ and $p' \restriction \mathcal{M}_\lambda, \lambda \in D$, are fixed.
Moreover, we may assume that for every $\lambda \in D$ and $\lambda' \in D$ above $\lambda$, $p'_\lambda, p''_\lambda \in \mathcal{M}_{\lambda'}$ (in particular, the domain of $p'_\lambda, p''_\lambda$ as well as the domain of $p'_\lambda(\alpha), p''_\lambda(\alpha)$ are subsets of $\mathcal{M}_{\lambda'}$). By additional shrinking of $D$, if needed, we may assume that the sets $\operatorname{supp}(p'_\lambda) \cup \operatorname{supp}(p''_\lambda)$ form a $\Delta$-system with root $\Lambda$, in the sense that, if $\lambda < \lambda'$ are in $D$, and $\alpha \in \left(\operatorname{supp}(p'_\lambda) \cup \operatorname{supp}(p''_\lambda)\right) \setminus \Lambda$, then $\alpha \notin \operatorname{supp}(p'_{\lambda'})
\cup \operatorname{supp}(p''_{\lambda'})$. Without loss of generality, $\Lambda \subseteq \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ for $\lambda = \min D$.
We claim that for any $\lambda < \lambda'$ in $D$, $p_\lambda$ is compatible with $p_{\lambda'}$, and moreover this compatibility is witnessed by the condition $q$, which is defined by $q(\a) = p'_\lambda(\a) \cup p''_{\lambda'}(\a)$ for every $\a < \beta$. It is enough to show that $q$ is a condition. Clearly, $\operatorname{dom}(q)$ is at most countable. Therefore, it is enough to show that $q\restriction \gamma$ forces that $q(\gamma)$ is a condition for all $\gamma < \beta$. We prove this by induction on $\gamma < \beta$.
For $\gamma = 0$, $q(0)\in \operatorname{Col}(\aleph_1, <\kappa)$, since it is the union of two conditions that have the same intersection with $\mathcal{M}_\lambda$, and have disjoint domains above it.
Assume that $q\restriction \gamma$ is a condition. We may assume that $T_\gamma=\Phi(\gamma)$ is a $\MPB^2_\gamma \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\gamma$-name for a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree, as otherwise the forcing at stage $\gamma$ is trivial. We may also assume that $\gamma \in \Lambda$, since otherwise either $\gamma \notin \operatorname{supp}(p'_\lambda)$ or $\gamma \notin \operatorname{supp}(p''_{\lambda'})$. In order to show that $q \restriction \gamma \Vdash$“ $q (\gamma)$ is a condition”, we have to show that if $t, t' \in \operatorname{dom}(q(\gamma))$ and $q(\gamma)(t)=q(\gamma)(t')$, then $q\restriction \gamma \Vdash_{\MPB^2_\gamma}$“$ 1_{\mathbb{P}^1_\gamma} \Vdash_{\mathbb{P}^1_\gamma} \check{t} \perp_{T_\gamma} \check{t'}$”.
We may suppose that both of $t$ and $t'$ are above $\lambda$, as otherwise we can use the fact $p'_\lambda \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda = p''_{\lambda'} \upharpoonright \mathcal{M}_\lambda'$ and the fact that $\gamma \in \mathcal{M}_\lambda$, to conclude the result.
Recall that $(p'_\lambda, p''_\lambda)$ is a separating pair. Let $\dot{b}_t$ be one of the countably many possible names for branches below $\lambda$ of elements below $t$ and let $\dot{b}_{t'}$ be a corresponding name for $t'$. The separating witness $\langle \bar{p}_n, \tau_n, \theta_n \mid n < \omega\rangle$ was stabilized for elements in $D$, and thus $(p'_\lambda \restriction \gamma, \bar p_n \restriction \gamma) \Vdash$“$\check{\tau_n} \in \dot{b}_t$” and $(p''_\lambda \restriction \gamma, \bar p_n \restriction \gamma) \Vdash$“$ \check{\theta}_n \in \dot{b}_{t^\prime}$”, where $\tau_n \neq \theta_n$. By the induction hypothesis, $q \restriction \gamma$ is a condition and it is stronger than $p'_\lambda\restriction \gamma$ and $p''_{\lambda'} \restriction \gamma$. Let us denote, temporarily by $\tilde{t}$ the element in the $\lambda$-th level of $T_\gamma$ above $\dot{b}_t$ and by $\tilde{t}'$ the element in the $\lambda'$-th level of $T_\gamma$ above $\dot{b}_{t'}$. We obtained that for all $n < \omega$, $(q \restriction \gamma, \bar p_n) \Vdash$“$\tilde{t}\perp_{T_\gamma} \tilde{t}'$ ”. Now if $q\restriction \gamma \not\Vdash_{\MPB^2_\gamma}$“$1_{\MPB^1_\gamma}\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}^1_\gamma} \check{t}\perp \check{t}' "$, then there is a condition $q^\prime \leq q\restriction \gamma$ and $\bar p\in \mathbb{P}^1_\gamma$ such that $(q^\prime, \bar p)\Vdash \tilde{t} = \tilde{t}^\prime$. But $\bar p$ is compatible with $\bar p_n$, for some $n < \omega$. As $q^\prime$ is stronger than $q \restriction \gamma$, $(q^\prime, \bar p_n \restriction \gamma)\Vdash$“$ \tilde{t} =\tilde{t}^\prime$”. It then follows that $$(q^\prime, \bar p_n \restriction \gamma)\Vdash \text{~``~} \check{\theta}_n \leq_{T_\gamma} \tilde{t}^\prime=\tilde{t}\text{~''~} ~~~\&~~~~ (q^\prime, \bar p_n \restriction \gamma)\Vdash \text{~``~} \check{\tau}_n \leq_{T_\gamma} \tilde{t}\text{~''.~}$$ This is in contradiction with the choice of $\theta_n$ and $\tau_n$. Since this is true for all possible $\tilde{t} \leq_{T_\gamma} t$ and $\tilde{t'} \leq_{T_\gamma} t'$, we conclude that they are forced to be incompatible.
If $\gamma$ is a limit ordinal and $q \restriction \bar\gamma$ is a condition for all $\bar\gamma < \gamma$, then $q \restriction \gamma$ is a condition as well. Lemma \[chain condition lemma of p-2\] follows.
The next lemma follows from Lemmas \[chain condition of P-1\] and \[chain condition lemma of p-2\]
\[chain condition for the main forcing\]
1. For every $\alpha \leq \delta, \MPB^2_\alpha \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$ satisfies the $\kappa$-c.c.
2. $\MPB= \MPB^2_{\delta} \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_{\delta}$ satisfies the $\kappa$-c.c.
Putting the above lemmas together, we obtain the following result.
\[summarizing cardinal structure in p extensions\] Suppose $G$ is $\MPB$-generic over $V$. Then
1. $\aleph_1^{V[G]}=\aleph_1$, $\aleph_2^{V[G]}=\kappa$ and $\aleph_3^{V[G]}=\kappa^+$.
2. $V[G] \models$“$2^{\aleph_0}=2^{\aleph_1}=\delta$”.
Completing the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\]. {#Completing the proof of Theorem main theorem2}
--------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we complete the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\]. The next lemma follows from Lemma \[chain condition for the main forcing\]
Suppose $X \in V[G_{\MPB}]$ and $X \subseteq \kappa$. Then $X \in V[G_{\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \MPB^1_\alpha}]$, for some $\alpha < \delta$.
We start by showing that the special Aronszajn tree property holds in $V[G_{\MPB}]$.
\[specializing N-1 trees\] $\MPB$ forces $\operatorname{SATP}(\aleph_1)$.
Let $T$ be an $\aleph_1$-Aronszajn tree and let $\dot{T}$ be a $\MPB$-name for it. Then for some $\alpha < \delta$ it is in fact a $\MPB_\alpha$-name and $\dot{T}=\Phi(\alpha)$. Then $$\Vdash_{\MPB^2_{\alpha+1} \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_{\alpha+1}} \text{``}\dot{T} \text{~is specialized'',~}$$ and hence there exists $F \in V[G_{\MPB^2_{\alpha+1} \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_{\alpha+1}}]$ which is a specializing function for $T$. As $V[G_{\MPB}] \supseteq V[G_{\MPB^2_{\alpha+1} \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_{\alpha+1}}]$ and these models have the same cardinals, $F$ is also a specializing function for $T$ in $V[G_{\MPB}]$.
In order to show that the forcing notion $\MPB$ specializes all $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn trees, we need the following lemma which is an analogue of Lemma \[properties of generalized specializing forcing\](b).
\[existence of specializing functions\] Suppose $\alpha < \delta$ and $\Phi(\alpha)$ is a $\MPB^2_\alpha \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$-name for a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree. Then in the extension by $\MPB^2_{\alpha+1}$, there exists a function $F: \kappa \times \omega_1 \to \omega_1$ which is a specializing function of every generic interpretation of $\Phi(\alpha)$ by a $\MPB^1_{\alpha}$-generic filter.
\[specializing N-2 trees\] $\MPB$ forces $\operatorname{SATP}(\kappa)$.
First, there is an $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree in the generic extension, as the forcing $\operatorname{Col}(\omega_1, < \kappa)$ adds a special $\aleph_2$-Aronszajn tree and cardinals are preserved in the rest of the iteration.
Let $T$ be a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree and let $\dot{T}$ be a $\MPB$-name for it. Then for some $\alpha < \delta$ it is in fact a $\MPB_\alpha$-name and $\dot{T}=\Phi(\alpha)$. By Lemma \[existence of specializing functions\], there exists $F \in V[G_{\MPB^2_{\alpha+1} \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha}]$ which specializes $T$. As $V[G_{\MPB}]$ is a cardinal preserving extension of $V[G_{\MPB^2_{\alpha+1} \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha}]$, $F$ also witnesses that $T$ is specialized in $V[G_{\MPB}]$. The lemma follows.
Specializing names of higher Aronszajn trees: An abstract approach {#section:abstract}
==================================================================
Let us note that in the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\], we did not use the way the forcing notions $\MPB^1_\alpha, \alpha \leq \delta$ were defined, but only the fact that they satisfy the $\text{c.c.c.}$ and that the forcing notions $\MPB^1_\alpha, \a \leq \delta$, do not add new branches to trees of height $\aleph_1$. In this section we present the above situation in an abstract way that will be used for the next sections of this paper.
Thus suppose that $\mu < \kappa < \delta$ are regular cardinals. Let $\Phi$ and $ \Psi$ be two functions such that:
- $\Phi: \delta \to H(\delta)$ is such that for each $x \in H(\delta), \Phi^{-1}(x)$ is unbounded in $\delta$.
- $\Psi: \delta \to H(\delta)$ is such that for each $\a<\delta, \Psi(\a)$ is a forcing notion.
Let $$\langle \langle \MPB^2_\alpha \mid \alpha \leq \delta\rangle, \langle \dot{\MQB}^2_\alpha \mid \alpha < \delta \rangle \rangle.$$ be a forcing iteration of length $\delta$, defined as follows:
Set $\MQB^2_0=\operatorname{Col}(\mu, < \kappa)$.
If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal and $\operatorname{cf}(\alpha) \geq \mu$, let $\MPB^2_\alpha$ be the direct limit of the forcing notions $\MPB^2_\beta, \beta < \alpha$. If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal and $\operatorname{cf}(\alpha) < \mu$, let $\MPB^2_\alpha$ be the inverse limit of the forcing notions $\MPB^2_\beta, \beta < \alpha$.
Now suppose that $\alpha=\beta+1$ is a successor ordinal. Let us assume that $\Psi(\beta)$ is such that $\Psi(\beta)=\MPB^2_\beta \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\beta$ for some $\MPB^2_\beta$-name $\dot{\MPB}^1_\beta$, where $\MPB^1_\beta$ is an iteration of length $\leq \beta$ with $<\zeta$-supports, for some $\zeta<\mu$, of forcing notions of size $<\kappa$. Moreover, let us assume that $\Phi(\beta)$ is a $\Psi(\beta)$-name for a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree with the universe $\kappa \times \mu$. Then let $\dot{\MQB}^2_\beta$ be a $\MPB^2_\beta$-name, such that in the generic extension $V[G_{\MPB^2_\beta}]$, the forcing notion $\MQB^2_\beta$ is defined as follows:
- Conditions in $\MQB^2_\beta$ are partial functions $f: \kappa \times \mu \to \mu$ such that:
1. $\operatorname{dom}(f) \subseteq \kappa \times \mu$ has size $< \mu$.
2. If $s, t \in \operatorname{dom}(f)$ and $f(s) = f(t)$ then $\Vdash_{\MPB^1_\beta}$“$\check{s} \perp_{\Phi(\beta)} \check{t}$”.
- For $f, g \in \MQB^2_\beta, f \leq g$ if and only if $f \supseteq g$.
Otherwise, let $\dot\MQB^2_\beta$ be a name for the trivial forcing notion.
It is obvious that the forcing notions $\MPB^2_\a, \a \leq \delta$ are $\mu$-directed closed.
Let us recall all of those properties which were used in the proof of Claim \[separation claim\].
We say that the triple $(\Phi, \Psi, \delta)$ is $(\mu, \kappa)$-suitable, if the following conditions hold. First, let $\MPB^2_\alpha, \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha$, be defined as above using $\Phi$ and $\Psi$. Also, let $\langle \mathcal{M}_\lambda \mid \lambda < \kappa\rangle$ be a continuous chain of elementary submodels of the universe of size $<\kappa$ which contain all the relevant information. Let $\mathcal{M} = \bigcup_{\lambda < \kappa} \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
1. $\mu < \kappa$ are regular cardinals and $\Phi, \Psi \colon \delta \to H(\delta)$ are as above.
2. For each $\a \leq \delta$ and $\gamma \in [\a, \delta], \Vdash_{\MPB^2_\gamma}$“$\dot{\MPB}^1_\a$ is $\mu$-c.c.”.
3. For each $\lambda < \kappa$ and $\a \in \mathcal{M}_\lambda \cap \delta$, if
1. $\MPB^2_\a \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \lessdot \MPB^2_\a \cap \mathcal{M}$.
2. $\Vdash_{\MPB^2_\a \cap \mathcal{M}}$“ $ \MPB^1_\a \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda \lessdot \MPB^1_\a \cap \mathcal{M}$ and moreover, it is a sub-iteration”.
3. $\Phi(\a)$ is a $\MPB^2_\a \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\a$-name for a $\kappa$-Aronszajn tree.
4. $\Phi(\a) \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$ is a $(\MPB^2_\a \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda) \ast (\dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$-name for a $\lambda$-Aronszajn tree.
Then forcing with $(\MPB^2_\a \cap \mathcal{M} \ast \dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha) / (\MPB^2_\a \cap \mathcal{M} \ast (\dot{\MPB}^1_\alpha \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda)$ does not add any new branches to $\Phi(\a) \cap \mathcal{M}_\lambda$.
\[generalized chain condition lemma\] Suppose that $(\Phi, \Psi, \delta)$ are $(\mu, \kappa)$-suitable and $\kappa$ is weakly compact. Then $\MPB^2_\a$ is $\kappa$-Knaster for every $\alpha \leq \delta$.
The following lemma is parallel to Lemma \[lemma: not adding new branches by baumgartner forcing mod subiteration\], but for the forcing $\MPB^2_\delta$, in the abstract context.
\[lemma: not adding branches - abstract\] Assume that $\MPB^2_\delta$ is derived from a $(\mu,\kappa)$-suitable triple $(\Phi,\Psi,\delta)$ and $\kappa$ is weakly compact. Let $I \subseteq \delta$ be a set of ordinals such that $\MPB^2_I$ is a sub-iteration. Let also $S$ be a tree of height $\kappa$ in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_I$. Then, $\MPB^2_\delta / \MPB^2_I$ does not add a new cofinal branch to $S$.
The forcing $\MPB^2_I \ast \left(\left(\MPB^2_\delta / \MPB^2_I \right) \times \left(\MPB^2_\delta / \MPB^2_I \right)\right)$ is forcing equivalent to $\MPB^2_\gamma$, for some ordinal $\gamma$, by modifying $\Phi$ and $\Psi$. Thus, it is $\kappa$-c.c. In particular, the forcing $\left(\MPB^2_\delta / \MPB^2_I \right) \times \left(\MPB^2_\delta / \MPB^2_I \right)$ is forced to be $\kappa$-c.c and thus by [@Unger2012], $\left(\MPB^2_\delta / \MPB^2_I \right)$ does not add cofinal branches to a tree of height $\kappa$.
In the next sections we will use the mechanism of this section in order to specialize trees at many cardinals simultaneously. Thus, we will need to verify that when using $\Psi$ to guess forcing notions that specialize trees, the rest of the iteration does not destroy their chain condition.
\[lemma: closed not adding branches\] Let $\mu < \kappa$ be regular cardinals and let $(\Phi,\Psi,\delta)$ be $(\mu,\kappa)$-suitable. Let $I\subseteq \delta$ be a set of ordinals such that $\MPB^2_I$ is a sub-iteration of $\MPB^2_\delta$. Let $S$ be a $\mu$-Aronszajn tree which is introduced by a $\mu$-c.c. forcing notion $\mathbb{R}$ in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_I$. Then $\MPB^2 / \MPB^2_I$ does not introduce new branches to $S$.
Note that $\MPB^2 / \MPB^2_I$ is $\mu$-closed in the generic extension by $\MPB^2_I$ and $2^\mu \geq \kappa$. Thus, we can apply [@Unger2012 Lemma 3.2] and conclude that it cannot add a cofinal branch to $S$.
We will use this lemma inductively in order to justify the preservation of the chain condition of the specialization forcings in generic extensions.
The Special Aronszajn Tree Property at omega-many successive cardinals {#section3}
======================================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[main theorem3\]. The proof is essentially based on a modification of the proof of Theorem \[main theorem2\], using the abstract approach as described in Section \[section:abstract\], where instead of considering two successive cardinals we consider $\omega$-many of them.
Thus let $\langle \kappa_n \mid n < \omega\rangle$ be an increasing sequence of supercompact cardinals, $\delta=(\sup_{n<\omega} \kappa_n)^{++}$ and let $\mu < \kappa_0$ be a regular cardinal [^4].
Let us recall Laver’s indestructibility supercompactness lemma, in the form that will be used in this paper.
\[extended laver forcing\] Assume $\eta$ is a regular cardinal and $\langle \kappa_n \mid n<\omega \rangle$ is an increasing sequence of supercompact cardinals above $\eta$. Then there exists an $\eta$-directed closed forcing notion $\mathbb{L}(\eta, \langle \kappa_n \mid n<\omega \rangle)$ which makes the supercompactness of each $\kappa_n$ indestructible under $\kappa_n$-directed closed forcing notions. Further, if $2^{\kappa_n}=\kappa^+_n$ in the ground model, then it holds in the generic extension by $\mathbb{L}(\eta, \langle \kappa_n \mid n<\omega \rangle)$.
By the above lemma, we may also assume that for each $n$, $\kappa_n$ is indestructible under $\kappa_n$-directed closed forcing notions and that $2^{\kappa_n}=\kappa_n^+$. For notational reasons, it is convenient to denote $\kappa_{-1} = \mu$.
For each regular cardinal $\eta < \delta$, set $S^\delta_\eta = \{\a < \delta \mid \operatorname{cf}(\a)=\eta \}$. Let also $\Phi: \delta \to H(\delta)$ be such that for each $x \in H(\delta)$ and $n<\omega$, $\Phi^{-1}(x) \cap S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+}$ is unbounded in $\delta$.
We define an iteration $$\MPB_\delta= \langle \langle \mathbb{P}_\alpha \mid \alpha \leq \delta, \rangle, \langle \dot{\mathbb{Q}}_\a \mid \a < \delta \rangle\rangle$$ of length $\delta$ as follows. During the iteration, we also define the auxiliary forcing notions $\mathbb{P}_\alpha(< \kappa_n), \mathbb{P}_\alpha(\kappa_n)$ and $\mathbb{P}_\alpha(> \kappa_n)$, for $n<\omega, \a \leq \delta$ in such a way that $$\MPB_\a \cong \MPB_\a(> \kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(\kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(< \kappa_n),$$ where
1. $\MPB_\alpha(>\kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_n$-directed closed.
2. $\Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha(>\kappa_n)}$“$\dot{\MPB}_\alpha(\kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_n$-c.c. and $\kappa_{n-1}$-directed closed”.
3. $\Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha(>\kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(\kappa_n)}$“$\dot{\MPB}_\alpha(<\kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_{n-1}$-c.c. and $\mu$-directed closed”.
Set $\MQB_0=\prod_{n < \omega} \operatorname{Col}(\kappa_{n-1}, < \kappa_n)$ be the full-support product of the forcing notions $\operatorname{Col}(\kappa_{n-1}, < \kappa_n), n < \omega$. Let also
1. $\mathbb{P}_1( <\kappa_n) = \prod_{m < n} \operatorname{Col}(\kappa_{m-1}, < \kappa_m)$.
2. $\mathbb{P}_1( \kappa_n) = \operatorname{Col}(\kappa_{n-1}, < \kappa_n)$.
3. $\mathbb{P}_1( >\kappa_n) = \prod_{m > n} \operatorname{Col}(\kappa_{m-1}, < \kappa_m)$.
Now suppose that $\alpha \leq \delta$, and that we have defined the forcing notions $\MPB_\beta$ and $\mathbb{P}_\beta(< \kappa_n), \mathbb{P}_\beta(\kappa_n), \mathbb{P}_\beta(> \kappa_n)$ for $n<\omega$ and $\beta < \alpha$. We define $\MPB_\a$, $\mathbb{P}_\alpha(< \kappa_n), \mathbb{P}_\alpha(\kappa_n)$ and $\mathbb{P}_\alpha(> \kappa_n)$ as follows. A condition $p$ is in $\MPB_\a$ if and only if
1. $p$ has domain $\alpha$ and $\operatorname{supp}(p) \subseteq \bigcup_{n<\omega}S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+}$, where $\operatorname{supp}(p)$ denotes the support of $p$.
2. For each $n<\omega$, $|\operatorname{supp}(p) \cap S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+}| < \kappa_{n-1}$.
3. If $\beta \in \operatorname{supp}(p) \cap S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+}$, then $\MPB_{\beta+1}( > \kappa_n)\cong \MPB_{\beta}( > \kappa_n)$”.
4. If $\beta \in \operatorname{supp}(p) \cap S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+}$ and $\Phi(\beta)$ is a $\MPB_{\beta+1}( > \kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\beta(\kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\beta(< \kappa_n) $-name for a $\kappa_n$-Aronszajn tree, then it is forced by $\MPB_{\beta+1}( > \kappa_n)$ that $\dot\MQB_\beta$ consists of those partial functions $f: \Phi(\beta) \to \kappa_{n-1}$ with domain of size $<\kappa_{n-1}$, such that for every $t, s\in \operatorname{dom}(f)$ with $f(t) = f(s)$, we have $\Vdash_{\MPB_\beta(<\kappa_n)} t \perp_{\Phi(\beta)} s$. Otherwise $\dot\MQB_\beta$ is forced to be the trivial forcing notion.
For $n<\omega$, $\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)$ is defined as $$\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n) =\{p \in \MPB_\a \mid \operatorname{supp}(p) \subseteq \bigcup_{m > n}S^\delta_{\kappa_m^+} \}.$$ It is then clear that $\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)$ is a regular subforcing of $\mathbb{P}_\alpha$. Working in $\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)$, the forcing notion $\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)$ is defined as $$\MPB_\a(\kappa_n) =\{p \in \MPB_\a \mid \operatorname{supp}(p) \subseteq S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+} \}.$$ Finally, the forcing notion $\MPB_\a(< \kappa_n)$ is defined in the generic extension by $\MPB_\a(>\kappa_n) \ast \dot\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)$ by $$\MPB_\a(< \kappa_n) =\{p \in \MPB_\a \mid \operatorname{supp}(p) \subseteq \bigcup_{m < n}S^\delta_{\kappa_m^+} \}.$$ Note that the map $$p \mapsto (p \upharpoonright \bigcup_{m > n}S^\delta_{\kappa_m^+}, p \upharpoonright S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+}, p \upharpoonright \bigcup_{m < n}S^\delta_{\kappa_m^+})$$ defines a dense embedding from $\MPB_\a$ to $\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(\kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(< \kappa_n)$ and hence $ \MPB_\a \cong \MPB_\a(> \kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(\kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(< \kappa_n)$.
Let us argue that clauses $($a$)$-$($c$)$ continue to hold at $\alpha$. Clause $($a$)$ is evident. Clauses $($b$)$ and $($c$)$ follow from the next lemma.
\[chain condition for P-alpha-kappa-n\] Work in the generic extension $V[G_{\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)}]$ by $\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)$. Then $\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_{n-1}$-directed closed and $\kappa_{n}$-c.c. and $\Vdash_{\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)}$“ $\MPB_\a(<\kappa_n)$ is $\mu$-closed and $\kappa_{n-1}$-c.c.”
Work in $V[G_{\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)}]$. It is clear that $\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_{n-1}$-directed closed and $\Vdash_{\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)}$“ $\MPB_\a(<\kappa_n)$ is $\mu$-closed”.
As the forcing notion $\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_n$-directed closed, the cardinals $\kappa_m, m \leq n$, remain supercompact in $V[G_{\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)}]$. Suppose also $G_{\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)}$ is $\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)$-generic over $V[G_{\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)}]$.
Working in $V[G_{\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)}][G_{\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)}]$, each $\kappa_m, m < n$, remains supercompact, and the forcing notion $\MPB_\a(<\kappa_n)$ can be seen as a finite iteration $$\MPB_\a(<\kappa_n) \cong \MPB_\a(\kappa_{n-1}) \ast \dots \ast \dot\MPB_\a(\kappa_0),$$ where for each $m<n$,
1. $\MPB_\a(\kappa_{n-1}) \ast \dots \ast \dot\MPB_\a(\kappa_{m+1})$ is $\kappa_m$-directed closed;
2. It is forced by $\MPB_\a(\kappa_{n-1}) \ast \dots \ast \dot\MPB_\a(\kappa_{m+1})$ that the forcing notion $\MPB_\a(\kappa_m)$ specializes $\MPB_\a(\kappa_{m-1}) \ast \dots \ast \dot\MPB_\a(\kappa_{0})$-names of $\kappa_m$-Aronszajn trees.
By (1), $\kappa_m$ remains supercompact and hence weakly compact in the generic extension by $\MPB_\a(\kappa_{n-1}) \ast \dots \dot\MPB_\a(\kappa_{m+1})$, so using Lemma \[generalized chain condition lemma\] and by induction on $m < n$,
$\Vdash_{\MPB_\a(\kappa_{n-1}) \ast \dots \dot\MPB_\a(\kappa_{m+1})}$“ $\MPB_\a(\kappa_m)$ is $\kappa_{m-1}$-directed closed and $\kappa_m$-c.c.”.
In particular $\Vdash_{\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)}$“ $\MPB_\a(<\kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_{n-1}$-c.c.”.
Note that in order to apply Lemma \[generalized chain condition lemma\], we had to make sure that whenever some name for a $\kappa_n$-Aronszajn tree is chosen in step $\gamma < \alpha$, then it is going to remain Aronszajn after forcing with $\MPB_\alpha(>\kappa_n) / \MPB_\gamma(>\kappa_n)$. This is true by the arguments of Lemma \[lemma: closed not adding branches\], working inductively to show that the chain condition requirements hold.
As $\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_n$-directed closed, $\kappa_n$ remains supercompact and hence weakly compact in $V[G_{\MPB_\a(> \kappa_n)}]$. So again by Lemma \[generalized chain condition lemma\] the forcing notion $\MPB_\a(\kappa_n)$ is $\kappa_{n}$-c.c.
Let $$\langle \langle G_\alpha \mid \alpha \leq \delta \rangle, \langle H_\alpha \mid \alpha < \delta \rangle\rangle$$ be $\MPB_\delta$-generic over $V$. Thus for each $\alpha \leq \delta, G_\alpha$ is $\MPB_\alpha$-generic over $V$, and if $\alpha < \delta$, then $H_\alpha$ is $\dot{\MQB}_\a[G_\a]$-generic over $V[G_\a]$.
It is clear that
\[first step extension\]
- $\Vdash_{\MPB_1}$“$\forall n<\omega, \kappa_n=\mu^{+n+1}\text{ and }2^{\kappa_n}=\kappa_{n}^+$”.
- $\Vdash_{\MPB_1}$“for all $n>0$, there are special $\kappa_n$-Aronszajn trees”.
We have $\MPB_1 \cong \MQB_0 = \prod_{n < \omega} \operatorname{Col}(\kappa_{n-1}, < \kappa_n)$, and by our assumption $2^{\kappa_n}=\kappa_{n}^+$, for $n< \omega$. Clause $($a$)$ follows immediately. Clause $($b$)$ follows from $($a$)$ and the Specker’s theorem [@specker].
The next lemma can be proved easily using a $\Delta$-System argument.
\[chain conditions lemma for P-delta\] For every $\alpha \leq \delta$, the forcing $\MPB_\a$ is $\delta$-c.c.
The next lemma follows from the above arguments.
\[cardinals by P-1 and P-delta\] The models $V[G_1]$ and $V[G_\delta]$ have the same cardinals and cofinalities. In particular, $V[G_\delta] \models$“ for each $n<\omega$, $\kappa_n=\mu^{+n+1}$ and $\delta = \mu^{+\omega+2}$”. Furthermore $$V[G_\delta] \models \text{~``}\forall n< \omega, 2^\mu = 2^{\kappa_n} =\delta\text{~''}.$$
By Lemmas \[first step extension\] and \[cardinals by P-1 and P-delta\], we can conclude that:
$V[G_\delta] \models$“ For each $n<\omega$, there are $\kappa_n$-Aronszajn trees”.
The next lemma completes the proof of Theorem \[main theorem3\].
\[A-trees are specialized in the extension\] In $V[G_\delta]$, and for each $n<\omega$, all $\kappa_n$-Aronszajn trees are special.
Suppose $n<\omega$ and $T$ is a $\kappa_n$-Aronszajn tree in $V[G_\delta]$. Let $\dot{T} \in H(\delta)$ be a name for $T$. Then by our choice of $\Phi$, the set $$\{\alpha \in S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+} \mid \Phi(\a)=\dot{T} \}$$ is unbounded in $\delta$, and hence by Lemma \[chain conditions lemma for P-delta\], we can find some $\alpha \in S^\delta_{\kappa_n^+}$ such that $\Phi(\a)=\dot{T}$, and $\Phi(\a)$ is a $\MPB_{\a+1}( > \kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(\kappa_n) \ast \dot{\MPB}_\a(< \kappa_n) $-name for a $\kappa_n$-Aronszajn tree. By our definition of the forcing at step $\alpha$, we can find a function $F: T \to \kappa_{n-1}$ which is a specializing function for $T$ in $V[G_{\alpha+1}]$. As the models $V[G_\delta] \supseteq V[G_{\alpha+1}]$ have the same cardinals, $F$ witnesses that $T$ is special in $V[G_{\delta}]$.
The Special Aronszajn Tree Property at successor of every regular cardinal {#section4}
==========================================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[main theorem\]. Recall from Section \[section3\], that we essentially proved the following lemma:
\[extended main theorem3\] Assume $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal and $\kappa_1 < \dots < \kappa_n < \dots$ are indestructible supercompact cardinals above $\aleph_\alpha$. Then there is an $\aleph_{\alpha+1}$-directed closed forcing notion $\MPB(\alpha, \langle \kappa_n \mid 1<n<\omega \rangle)$ of size $\delta=(\sup_{n<\omega} \kappa_n)^{++}$ such that the following hold in a generic extension by $\MPB(\alpha, \langle \kappa_n \mid 1< n<\omega \rangle)$:
- For each $1< n<\omega, \aleph_{\alpha+n}=\kappa_n$ and $\delta=\aleph_{\alpha+\omega+2}$.
- $\forall ~1 \leq n < \omega,~ 2^{\aleph_{\alpha+n}} = \delta$.
- The Special Aronszajn Tree Property holds at all $\aleph_{\alpha+n}$’s, $1 <n < \omega$.
Now suppose that $\langle \kappa_\xi \mid 0<\xi \in ON \rangle$ is an increasing and continuous sequence of cardinals, such that $\kappa_{\xi+1}$ is a supercompact cardinal, for every ordinal $\xi$, and set $\kappa_0=\aleph_0$. We also assume that no limit point of the sequence is an inaccessible cardinal. Let $$\langle \langle \MPB_\alpha \mid \alpha \in ON, \alpha=0 \text{~or~} \lim(\alpha) \rangle, \langle \dot{\MQB}_\alpha \mid \alpha \in ON, \alpha=0 \text{~or~}\lim(\alpha) \rangle\rangle$$ be the reverse Easton iteration of forcing notions such that
1. $\MPB_0= \{ 1_{\MPB_0} \}$ is the trivial forcing.
2. $\Vdash_{\MPB_0}$“ $\dot\MQB_0= \mathbb{L}(\aleph_1, \langle \kappa_{n} \mid 0< n<\omega \rangle) \ast \dot{\MPB}(0, \langle \kappa_n \mid 0<n<\omega \rangle)$.
3. For each limit ordinal $\alpha >0$,
$\Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha}$“ $\dot\MQB_\alpha = \mathbb{L}(\kappa_\alpha^+, \langle \kappa_{\alpha+n} \mid 0< n<\omega \rangle) \ast \dot{\MPB}(\alpha, \langle \kappa_{\alpha+n} \mid 0< n<\omega \rangle)$”.
Note that at each step $\alpha$, the forcing notion $\MPB_\alpha$ has size less than $\kappa_{\alpha+1}$, so cardinals $\kappa_{\alpha+n}, 0<n<\omega$, remain supercompact in the generic extension by $\MPB_\alpha$. Therefore, the forcing notion $\MQB_\alpha$ is well-defined in $V[G_{\MPB_\alpha}]$.
Finally let $\MPB$ be the direct limit of the above forcing construction and let $G$ be $\MPB$-generic over $V$.
The following hold in $V[G]$:
- $\forall \xi \in ON, \aleph_\xi=\kappa_\xi$.
- For each limit ordinal $\alpha$ and each $1<n<\omega$, $2^{\aleph_{\alpha+n}}= \kappa_{\alpha+\omega+2}= \aleph_{\alpha+\omega+2}$.
Let us show that in the generic extension by $\MPB$, the Special Aronszajn Tree Property holds at the successor of every regular cardinal. Thus assume $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal (the case $\alpha=0$ is similar). We can write the forcing notion $\MPB$ as $\MPB= \MPB_\alpha * \dot{\MQB}_\alpha * \dot{\MPB}_{(\a, \infty)}$, where, the forcing notion $\MPB_{(\a, \infty)}$ is defined in $V[G_{\MPB_\alpha * \dot{\MQB}_\alpha}]$, in the same way that we defined $\MPB$, using the forcing notions $\MPB_\beta, \dot{\MQB}_\beta$, where $\alpha < \beta$ is a limit ordinal. In particular, we have
$\Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha * \dot{\MQB}_\alpha}$“ $\dot{\MPB}_{(\a, \infty)}$ is $\kappa_{\alpha+\omega+1}$-closed”.
By Lemma \[extended main theorem3\],
$\Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha * \dot{\MQB}_\alpha}$“$\bigwedge_{1 <n<\omega} \operatorname{SATP}(\aleph_{\alpha+n})\text{''}$.
Since $\Vdash_{\MPB_\alpha * \dot{\MQB}_\alpha}$“the forcing notion $\MPB_{(\a, \infty)}$ does not add any new $\kappa_{\alpha+\omega}$-sequences”, we have
$\Vdash_{\MPB}$“$\bigwedge_{1 <n<\omega} \operatorname{SATP}(\aleph_{\alpha+n})$”.
The result follows immediately. $\Box$
We close the paper with the following question, which is an analogue of Magidor’s question regarding the Tree Property.
Is it consistent, relative to the existence of large cardinals, that Special Aronszajn Tree Property holds for all uncountable regular cardinals $?$
Let us also remark that the following question is still open:
Let $\lambda$ be successor of a singular cardinal. Is $\operatorname{SATP}(\lambda)$ consistent? I.e., is it consistent that there is a $\lambda$-Aronszajn tree, and every $\lambda$-Aronszajn tree is special?
Acknowledgments
===============
We would like to thank John Krueger for pointing us to an error in a previous version of the paper.
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for pointing us to some errors in a previous version of the paper and helping us to improve the readability of this paper. \[2\][ [\#2](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1) ]{} \[2\][\#2]{}
[10]{}
James Baumgartner, Jerome Malitz, and William Reinhardt, *Embedding trees in the rationals*, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences **67** (1970), no. 4, 1748–1753.
James E. Baumgartner, *Iterated forcing*, Surveys in set theory, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 87, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 1–59.
Samuel Coskey, *Special uncountable trees*, (2016).
Kai Hauser, *Indescribable cardinals and elementary embeddings*, J. Symbolic Logic **56** (1991), no. 2, 439–457.
Thomas Jech, *Set theory*, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003, The third millennium edition, revised and expanded.
Richard Laver, *Making the supercompactness of $\kappa$ indestructible under $\kappa$-directed closed forcing*, Israel Journal of Mathematics **29** (1978), no. 4, 385–388.
Richard Laver and Saharon Shelah, *The $\aleph_2$-souslin hypothesis*, Transections of the American Mathematical Society **264** (1981), no. 2, 411–417.
Saharon Shelah and Simon Thomas, *The cofinality spectrum of the infinite symmetric group*, J. Symbolic Logic **62** (1997), no. 3, 902–916.
E. Specker, *Sur un problème de [S]{}ikorski*, Colloquium Math. **2** (1949), 9–12.
Spencer Unger, *Fragility and indestructibility of the tree property*, Arch. Math. Logic **51** (2012), no. 5-6, 635–645.
, *Fragility and indestructibility [II]{}*, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic **166** (2015), no. 11, 1110–1122.
[^1]: The first author’s research has been supported by a grant from IPM (No. 971030417).
[^2]:
[^3]: Recall that if there exists a sequence of condition $\langle p_\lambda \mid \lambda < \kappa\rangle$ which contradicts the $\kappa$-Knaster property of $\MPB^2_\beta$, then there is such a sequence in $\mathcal{M}$ as well, by elementarity.
[^4]: For the proof of Theorem \[main theorem3\] it suffices to take $\mu=\aleph_0$, but here we will prove a stronger statement that will be used in the next section for the proof of Theorem \[main theorem\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- |
The Andrzej Sołtan Institute for Nuclear Studies; Hoża 69; 00-689 Warsaw, Poland\
E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]
- |
Institute of Physics, Świȩtokrzyska Academy; Konopnickiej 15; 25-405 Kielce, Poland\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'O.V.Utyuzh and G.Wilk'
- 'Z.WŁodarczyk'
title: Numerical modelling of correlations
---
Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) between identical bosons are supposed to provide information on space-time development of multiparticle production processes [@BEC]. The usual Monte Carlo event generators modelling such processes [@GEN], because their probabilistic structure, excludes [*a priori*]{} the genuine BEC, which are of purely quantum statistical origin. One can only [*model*]{} BEC by $(i)$ suitably changing output of these generators [@LS; @WE; @AFTER] or by $(ii)$ building generator, which properly incorporates the bosonic character of produced particles [@OMT]. In both cases the goal is to reproduce the experimental two-particle correlation function $C_2(Q=|p_i - p_j| ) = N_2(p_i,p_j)/N_1(p_i)
N_1(p_j)$. In $(i)$ this is achieved by suitable bunching of the finally produced identical particles in phase-space performed using special weights constructed from the output of the event generator. In $(ii)$ the particles are already being produced in properly bunched way by means of special generator constructed using specific statistical model (providing Bose-Einstein or geometrical distribution of particles in each bunch which is identified with a single emitting cell in phase space [@OMT]). Whereas $(i)$ can be applied only for all events and is (via weights) sensitive to the space-time structure of the production process provided by event generator, the $(ii)$ applies already on a single event level but its generator bears no a priori information on the space-time structure of the production process, it uses instead nonstatistical character of fluctuations it produces.
We propose generalization of the second approach to make it applicable also to other generators[^1]. To better understand our reasoning let us remind that classical weight method [@WE] amounts to multiplying each event by special weight, i.e., event is counted many times if it already possesses, by shear chance, traces of desired bunching. In terms of philosophy of [@OMT], which we shall follow, it could be seen as selecting events already possesing (to some degree, at least) a more bosonic character than other events (i.e., in which particles are already bunched in way resembling that of [@OMT]). What we propose is similar approach but performed already on a single event level. Namely we propose to search for the bosonic configurations of particles existing already in each event because of the internal nonstatistical fluctuations provided by event generator. Namely, there are groups of particles resembling those obtained in [@OMT], modulo only the fact that they usually have different charges allocated to them whereas particles in [@OMT] are of the same charge. We propose therefore to endow such bunches of particles with the same charge to an extent limited only by the overall charge conservation. This means that in cases where charge allocation has been already provided by event generator we shall neglect it and perform new charge allocation keeping, however, the total number of particles of each charge the same as given by this generator. Notice that we do it for each single event, keeping intact both the original energy-momentum pattern provided by event generator (i.e., conserve the energy-momentum) and all inclusive single particle distributions. Leaving those interested in more details to [@Tihany] we shall only say that to get desired result it is enough to select one of the produced particles, allocate to it some charge, and then allocate (in some prescribe way) the same charge to as many particles located near it in the phase space as possible. In this way one forms a cell in phase-space, which is occupied by particles of the same charge only. This process should then be repeated until all particles are used and it should be such that one gets geometrical (Bose-Einstein) distribution of particles in a given cell. This procedure changes the charge flow pattern provided by event generator[^2] retaining, however, both the initial charge of the system and its total multiplicity distribution. The procedure of formation of such cells is controlled by probability $P$ that given neighbor of the initially selected particle should be counted as another member of the newly created emmiting cell in phase space[^3].
Referring to [@Tihany] for more details we shall illustrate in Figs. 1a and 1b our attempts to describe (separately) $e^+e^-$ data by DELPHI on BEC [@Delphi] and intermittency [@DELPHI] using the so called CAS model [@CAS] (see also [@Tihany]) whereas Figs. 1c and 1d show the respective intermittency and BEC obtained when using parameters from the fits above. The results, although not totally satisfactory, are encouraging given the simplicity of CAS model used. Application of our method with other, more sophisticated event generators should answer the question of its final applicability.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Authors OU and GW would like to thank Wu Yuangfang and all Organizers of XXXI-th ISMD for their kind hospitality and GW acknowledges financial support received. The partial support of Polish Committee for Scientific Research (grants 2P03B 011 18, 5P03B 091 21 and 621/E-78/SPUB/CERN/P-03/DZ4/99) is acknowledged.
[99]{}
R.M.Weiner, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**327**]{}, 249 (2000); U.A.Wiedemann and U.Heinz, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**319**]{}, 145 (1999); T.Csörgő, in [*Particle Production Spanning MeV and TeV Energies*]{}, eds. W.Kittel et al., NATO Science Series C, Vol. 554, Kluwer Acad. Pub. (2000), p. 203 (see also: hep-ph/0001233).
Cf., K.J.Escola, [*On predictions of the first results from RHIC*]{}, hep-ph/0104058, to be published in Proc. of QM2001, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**A**]{} (2001).
L.Lönnblad and T.Sjöstrand, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C2**]{} (1998) 165.
A.Białas and A.Krzywicki, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B354**]{}, (1995) 134; T.Wibig, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D53**]{} (1996) 3586; K.Fiałkowski and R.Wit, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C2**]{}, 691 (1998) 691; B.Andersson and M.Ringnér, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B513**]{} (1998) 627.
J.P.Sullivan et al., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**70**]{}, (1993) 3000; K.Geiger, J.Ellis, U.Heinz and U.A.Wiedemann, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D61**]{} (2000) 054002.
T.Osada, M.Maruyama and F.Takagi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D59**]{} (1999) 014024 (cf. also M.Biyajima, N.Suzuki, G.Wilk and Z.Włodarczyk, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B386**]{} (1996)) 297).
O.V.Utyuzh, G.Wilk and Z.Włodarczyk, in the Proc. of the XXX ISMD, Tihany, Hungary, 9-13 October 2000, Eds. T.Csörgő et al., World Scientific 2001, p. 373 (hep-ph/0101161, cf. also hep-ph/0102275).
P.Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collab.), [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B286**]{} (1992) 201.
P.Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collab.), [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [ **B247**]{} (1990) 137.
O.V.Utyuzh, G.Wilk and Z.Włodarczyk, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D61**]{} (2000) 034007 and [*Czech J. Phys.*]{} [**50/S2**]{} (2000) 132 (hep-ph/9910355).
[^1]: Cf. [@Tihany] for more details, especially in what concerns the hadronization model CAS used in calculating results in Fig. 1.
[^2]: It amounts to allowing formation of multi-like-charged object on intermediate steps of hadronization process. Therefore this method works only when such possibility exists in a given generator.
[^3]: It is important to realize that, because we do not restrict [*a priori*]{} the number of particles which can be put in a given cell, we are automatically getting BEC of [*all orders*]{} (even if we use only two particle checking procedure at a given step in our algorithm). It means that $C_2(Q=0)$ calculated in such environment of the possible multiparticle BEC can exceed $2$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'vidStallRef.bib'
- 'allstorage.bib'
- 'Tian.bib'
- 'ref\_Tian2.bib'
- 'ref\_Tian3.bib'
- 'Vaneet\_cloud.bib'
- 'Tian\_rest.bib'
title: ' Optimized Video Streaming over Cloud: A Stall-Quality Trade-off '
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is shown that the spin-orbit and Zeeman interactions result in phase shifts of Andreev-reflected holes propagating at the surface of a topological insulator, or in Rashba spin-orbit-coupled two dimensional normal metals, which are in a contact with an s-wave superconductor. Due to interference of holes reflected through different paths of Andreev interferometer the electric current through external contacts varies depending on the strength and direction of the Zeeman field. It also depends on mutual orientations of Zeeman fields in different shoulders of the interferometer. Such a nonlocal effect is a result of the long-range coherency caused by the superconducting proximity effect. This current has been calculated within the semiclassical theory for Green functions in the diffusive regime, by assuming a strong disorder due to elastic scattering of electrons.'
author:
- 'A. G. Mal’shukov'
title: 'Long-range effect of a Zeeman field on the electric current through the helical metal-superconductor interface in Andreev interferometer.'
---
Introduction
============
Due to a combined effect of a Zeeman field and the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) the wave functions of Cooper pairs in s-wave superconductors acquire a phase dependent factor. This phase is responsible for the magnetoelectric effect [@Edelstein], which leads to a spontaneous supercurrent in the presence of a nonuniform static Zeeman field [@Malsh; @island; @Pershoguba; @Hals], so that the spatial distribution of this current depends in a peculiar way on coordinate variations of the field. A similar phase also characterizes the electron wave function of a normal metal placed in a contact with a superconductor, if the strong enough spin-orbit and Zeeman interactions are presented in this metal. For example, it results in a spontaneous current through a superconductor-normal metal-superconductor Josephson junction, the so called $\varphi$-junction [@Krive; @Reinoso; @Zazunov; @ISHE; @Liu; @Yokoyama; @Konschelle] which has been observed experimentally in Ref.. These physical phenomena provide important building blocks for low dissipative spintronic applications based on interaction of magnetic and superconducting systems.
It is natural to expect that in superconductor-normal metal proximity systems the phase shift, which is induced by the Zeeman field and SOC, may be observed in the Andreev reflection [@Andreev], where an electron scatters from a normal metal-superconductor interface as a hole. Interesting possibilities for studying the phase coherent phenomena are provided by Andreev interferometers [@Zaitsev; @Stoof; @Golubov; @Lambert]. These devices have several alternative paths for incident electrons and backscattered holes. In the previous studies a phase shift between interfering scattered waves has been provided by a magnetic flux. On the other hand, it is important to understand, if the Zeeman field can produce the phase shift that is strong enough to result in measurable effects on the electric current through the Andreev interferometer. This problem has not been addressed yet.
It is clear that a strong enough SOC is needed to produce a magnetoelectric effect which may be effective in a system of a micron size. Indeed, some two-dimensional (2D) systems have a strong intrinsic SOC [@Sakano; @Ast; @Lesne; @Song], which results in a considerable spin splitting of electron bands. In 2D systems these spin-split bands are characterized by opposite spin helicities. However, in the practically important semiclassical regime, when the Fermi energy (chemical potential) $\mu$ is larger than SOC, the magnetoelectric effect is reduced by a competition of bands with opposite helicities which cancel each other up to the terms $\sim h_F/\mu$, [@ISHE] where $h_F$ is the spin orbit splitting at the Fermi energy. On the other hand, this cancelation does not occur in Dirac systems, such as surface electrons in a three dimensional topological insulator (TI), because in TI only the odd number of surface helical bands cross the Fermi energy. Therefore, it is reasonable to take a TI wire as a basic component of the device. At the same time, it will be demonstrated that the results obtained for TI may also be extended to a conventional 2D wire having a very strong SOC $h_F\sim \mu$.
A simple interferometer is shown at Fig.1. Due to interference of paths through the upper and lower branches of the TI wire the electric current between the normal and superconducting leads can be varied by changing magnitudes or directions of Zeeman fields in the branches. For example, the current might be changed by flipping a magnetization direction in one of the branches. Such a nonlocal dependence of the conductance would demonstrate a long-range phase coherence created in the the TI wire by the proximity effect at low enough temperatures. The Zeeman field in TI is assumed to be directed parallel to the $x,y$ surface of the rectangular wire. It may be created by a ferromagnetic (antiferromagnetic) insulator deposited on top of TI, or by magnetic doping. Instead of fabricating TI wires, one could deposit superconducting and normal leads, as well as magnetic films on a TI flake. We will consider in detail the former setup, although qualitative results will be valid for both.
The electric current through the interferometer will be studied within the semiclassical theory for electron Green functions [@Eilenberger; @Larkin; @semiclass]. A strong elastic scattering on impurities will be assumed in the TI wire, so that the corresponding mean free path is much smaller than its dimensions. Also, the elastic scattering rate is much larger than the Zeeman splitting, but much less than the chemical potential. At the same time, for sufficiently short wires in the micrometer range, the low-temperature inelastic scattering of electrons will be ignored.
The article is organized in the following way. In Sec.II the Usadel equation and boundary conditions for the semiclassical Green function are derived for a TI wire. In Sec.III linearized Usadel equations are derived for the case of a weak proximity effect and the analytic expression for the current is found in the low-bias regime. A summary of the results is presented in Sec.IV.
![(Color online) Andreev interferometer. “N” and “S” denote the normal and superconducting leads, respectively. The topological insulator wire contains regions having finite Zeeman fields (red) which are parallel to the TI surface (shown by arrows). These fields create a phase shift between amplitudes of Andreev reflection through the upper (12) and lower (13) branches of the TI wire. As a result, the conductance of the device oscillates as a function of this shift. It also depends on the mutual orientations of the Zeeman fields in the branches. []{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="5cm"}
Usadel equations
================
The effective one-particle Hamiltonian of electrons on the surface of TI can be written in the form [@Qi; @RMP] $$\label{H}
H=\tau_3v\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{\hat{k}}\times\bm{\sigma})-\tau_3\mu+\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{r})\bm{\sigma}+V(\mathbf{r}),$$ where $\mathbf{\hat{k}}=-i\partial/\partial\mathbf{r}$ and the Pauli matrices $\tau_1,\tau_2,\tau_3$ operate in the Nambu space, so that the electron destruction operators in the chosen basis have the form $\psi_{\uparrow},\, \psi_{\downarrow},\, \psi^{+}_{\downarrow},\,-\psi^{+}_{\uparrow}$ with the arrows denoting spin directions. The third term in Eq.(\[H\]) represents the Zeeman interaction, where $\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{r})$ is parallel to the $xy$ plane (the coordinate axes are shown in Fig.1), and the last term is a random impurity potential. $\mathbf{e}$ is the unit vector which is parallel to the external normal to the wire surface. It is assumed that the wire width in the $y$-direction is much larger than its thickness in the $z$-direction. Therefore, electrons spend a relatively short time on flank surfaces. For this reason these surfaces are not taken into account in Eq.(\[H\]).
The semiclassical Eilenberger equations for electron Green functions are obtained by expanding the Dyson equation with respect to small Fermi wavelengths, in comparison with other characteristic lengths. These equations serve for calculation of the so called semiclassical Green functions. The latter are obtained from initial Green functions by integration over the particle energy at a fixed momentum direction, which is represented by the unit vector $\mathbf{n}$. These functions are combined into the 2$\times$2 matrix $\hat{g}_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{r})$ whose components are $g_{11}=g^r, g_{22}=g^a$, $g_{12}=g^K$ and $g_{21}=0$, where $g^r, g^a$ and $g^K$ are the retarded, advanced and Keldysh functions, respectively. These functions, in turn, are matrices in spin and Nambu spaces. The procedure for the derivation of the Eilenberger equations is well described in literature [@Rammer; @Kopnin]. As long as all characteristic energies are much less than the Fermi energy, transitions between bands with opposite helicities can be neglected within the semiclassical approximation. In this case the spin dependence of the Green functions is locked to a momentum direction. Therefore, the initial Eilenberger equations can be projected onto the electron or hole helical bands, depending on a location of the Fermi level. The semiclassical Green function, in turn, takes the form $\hat{g}_{\mathbf{n}}=\hat{g}_{\mathbf{n}0}(1\pm \mathbf{n}\times\bm{\sigma})/2$, where at $\mu>0$ the “+” sign must be chosen and vice versa. The function $\hat{g}_{\mathbf{n}0}$ does not depend on spin and satisfies the normalization condition $\hat{g}_{\mathbf{n}0}^2=1$. For a dirty system, where the mean free path is smaller than other lengths, the Eilenberger equations can be transformed into diffusive Usadel equations [@Usadel] for the matrix $\hat{g}_0(\mathbf{r})$, which is obtained from $\hat{g}_{\mathbf{n}0}(\mathbf{r})$ by averaging over $\mathbf{n}$. By this way the Usadel equation has been obtained in Ref. [@Zyuzin; @Bobkova; @Linder] for Dirac electrons and in Ref.[@Houzet] for a superconductor with Rashba SOC, which is larger than the elastic scattering rate. For the TI wire this equation can be written in the form $$\label{Usadel}
D_{t(b)}\tilde{\bm{\nabla}}(\hat{g}_0\tilde{\bm{\nabla}}\hat{g}_0)+i[\omega\tau_3,\hat{g}_0]=0 \,,$$ where $\tilde{\bm{\nabla}}*=\bm{\nabla}*+i[\tau_3\mathbf{F},*]$ and the gauge-field vector components are $\mathbf{F}=\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{r})\times\mathbf{e}_z/v$. The parameters $D_t$ and $D_b$ denote electron diffusion coefficients on the top and bottom surfaces of the wire, respectively. In general these coefficients are different, because environments and surface potentials vary at these interfaces. It is interesting to note that the Zeeman field enters Eq.(\[Usadel\]) in the same way as the vector potential of the magnetic field. An important difference is, however, that one can not change $\mathbf{F}$ by a gauge transformation. Therefore, it is impossible to eliminate the “longitudinal” part of $\mathbf{F}$ by such a transformation. In superconductors this part results in the so called helix phase with a spatially dependent order parameter, [@Edelstein; @Samokhin; @Kaur; @Agterberg; @Dimitrova; @Barzykin] as well as to spontaneous supercurrents around ferromagnetic islands. [@Malsh; @island; @Pershoguba; @Hals]
When the wire length is much larger than its width $w$ and $\nabla_x g_0$ is much smaller than $w^{-1}$, the Green function will tend to distribute uniformly over the wire width (in $y$-direction). If, in addition, $g_0$ is continuous on the wire flanks, it becomes constant around its perimeter. Let us consider the case when $\mathbf{F}$ is zero on the bottom surface. As shown in Appendix A, by averaging Eq.(\[Usadel\]) over $y$ it can be reduced to the one-dimensional equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Usadel2}
&&D\tilde{\nabla}_x(\hat{g}_0\tilde{\nabla}_x\hat{g}_0)+i[\omega\tau_3,\hat{g}_0]-\nonumber \\
&&D(\gamma_x F_x^2+\gamma_y F_y^2)(\tau_3\hat{g}_0\tau_3\hat{g}_0-\hat{g}_0\tau_3\hat{g}_0\tau_3)=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\nabla}_x*=\nabla_x* + i(D_t/2D)[\tau_3F_x,*]$, $D=(D_t+D_b)/2$, $\gamma_x=D_tD_b/4D^2$ and $\gamma_y=D_t/2D$. It should be noted that an equation of the same form may be obtained for a Rashba 2D electron gas with large SOC, such that $h_F\sim \mu$, by formal replacing the constants $\gamma$ and $D_t/D_b$ with parameters from Ref.\[\], which depend on the ratio between the Rashba constant and the Fermi velocity.
Let us consider a weak coupling of the TI wire to the superconducting lead through tunneling barriers, which are shown in Fig.1 at contact points 2 and 3. Therefore, Eq.(\[Usadel2\]) has to be supplemented by boundary conditions (BC) at these interfaces. For a 2D Dirac system the usual semiclassical BC [@Zaitsev; @BC; @Kupriyanov] must be modified, as shown in Ref. \[\]. The modified BC has the form $$\label{BC}
D\hat{g}_0\tilde{\nabla}_x\hat{g}_0=\Gamma_S[\hat{g}_0,\hat{g}_s],$$ where $\hat{g}_s$ is the Green function in the superconducting lead and $\Gamma_S$ is a tunneling parameter on the interface of TI with the superconducting lead. This parameter can be written in terms of the barrier resistance $R_b=\rho_{TI}D/2\Gamma$, where $\rho_{TI}$ is the wire resistance per unit length. [@Kupriyanov] The Green functions and $\mathbf{F}$ in Eq.(\[BC\]) should be taken near barriers. If the Zeeman interaction vanishes near these interfaces, then $\mathbf{F}=0$ and Eq.(\[BC\]) coincides with a conventional expression from Ref. [@Kupriyanov]. Since it is assumed that the Zeeman interaction is induced by magnetic layers on top of TI, it may vanish or not at the contacts, depending on sample preparation. It is expected that magnetization directions of the magnetic islands in the two interferometer arms may be varied independently of each other. Therefore, these islands must be separated to some extent in branching point 1.
A tunneling contact will be also assumed at the interface of the TI wire with the normal lead at point 1. At this point the Green functions of electrons in both TI branches coincide. One more BC is an evident generalization of Eq. (\[BC\]) that takes into account two branches which make a contact with the normal lead. We apply here the ideas of Refs. \[\] on how to write BC in branching points. By assuming that $\mathbf{F}=0$ at contact point 1, this BC can be written as $$\label{BC2}
D\hat{g}_0\nabla_{x_{2}}\hat{g}_0 +D\hat{g}_0\nabla_{x_{3}}\hat{g}_0=-\Gamma_N[\hat{g}_0,\hat{g}_N],$$ where $x_{2}$ and $x_{3}$ are coordinates in the branches. They are chosen so, that $x_{2}$ and $x_{3}$ are directed from contact 1 towards respective contacts 2 and 3 with the superconductor. The tunneling parameter $\Gamma_N$ may be expressed through the barrier resistance $R_{b1}=\rho_{TI}D/2\Gamma_N$, in the same way as for the TI-S contact. For the massive normal lead one may assume that its Green function is unperturbed by a contact with the TI wire. Therefore, $\hat{g}_N^{r/a}=\pm\tau_3$
Andreev reflection and electric current
=======================================
We consider the case of the low temperature $T$ and small bias voltage $V$, which are much less than the superconducting gap. Therefore, the electric current between the normal and superconducting leads is determined by the Andreev reflection. This current may be expressed via the conductance $G(\omega)$, according to the well known expression [@Zaitsev; @Volkov] $$\label{j}
j=\frac{1}{e}\int d\omega \left[\tanh\frac{\omega+eV}{2k_BT}-\tanh\frac{\omega-eV}{2k_BT}\right]G(\omega)\,.$$ Let us focus on the high barrier regime, when the barrier resistance $R_b$ at TI-S interface is much larger than the resistance of the TI wire and the barrier resistance $R_{b1}$ at the TI-N interface. In this case $G(\omega)$ is given by [@Zaitsev; @Volkov] $$\label{D}
G(\omega)=\frac{1}{8R_b}(M_2+M_3)\,,$$ where $$\label{M}
M_{2(3)}=\mathrm{Tr}[(g_{0}^r\tau_3-\tau_3g_{0}^a)(g_s^r\tau_3-\tau_3g_s^a)]|_{x_{2}=L_2(x_{3}=L_3)}\,.$$ The functions $g_{0}$ are taken in TI wires near contacts 2 and 3. $L_2$ and $L_3$ are the lengths of the wires between contact 1 and contacts 2 and 3, respectively. We assume a massive superconducting lead whose Green function is not perturbed by a proximity to TI wires. Therefore, at both contacts these functions have the form $g^r_s=g^a_s=(-i\tau_3\omega + \tau_2 \Delta)/\sqrt{\Delta^2-\omega^2}$ for $\Delta>\omega$. At high $R_b$ the Green functions in TI are weakly perturbed by the superconductor, so that they can be represented as sums of unperturbed functions and small corrections $\delta g^{r(a)}_{j}$, namely $$\label{deltaf}
g^{r(a)}_0(x_{j})=\pm\tau_3+\delta g^{r(a)}_{j}\,,$$ where $j=2,3$. The functions $\delta g^{r(a)}_{j} \ll 1$ are the anomalous Green functions which are nondiagonal in the Nambu variables. By linearizing Eq.(\[Usadel2\]) with respect to $\delta g^{r(a)}_{j}$ it can be transformed to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Usadel3}
&&D\left((-1)^j\nabla_{x_{j}}+2i\tau_3\tilde{F}_{xj}\right)^2\delta g^{r(a)}_{j} \pm 2 i\omega\delta g^{r(a)}_{j}-\nonumber \\
&&4D(\gamma_x F_x^2+\gamma_y F_y^2)\delta g^{r(a)}_{j}=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{F}_{xj}=F_x (x_j)D_t/(D_t+D_b)$. In turn, boundary conditions Eq.(\[BC\]) take the linearized form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BC3}
D\left(\nabla_{x_{j}}+2i\tau_3\tilde{F}_{xj}\right)\delta g^{r(a)}_{j}|_{x_{j}=L_j}=\Gamma_S\tau_3 [\tau_3,g_s^{r(a)}]\end{aligned}$$ At the same time, $M_2$ and $M_3$ become $$\label{M2}
M_{j}=\frac{2\Delta}{\sqrt{\Delta^2-\omega^2}}\mathrm{Tr}[(\delta g^{r}_{j}+\delta g^{a}_{j})\tau_2]|_{x_{j}=L_j}\,.$$
![Conductance as a function of the Zeeman field at $T=0$ and $\rho_{TI}L/R_{b1}=1$ ($G_0$ is the conductance at $Z=0$ at $T=0$), for parallel (solid) and antiparallel (dash) alignments of the Zeeman fields in TI wire branches. Curves from top to bottom : $D_b/D_t$=0, 0.1 and 0.5. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="6cm"}
The solutions of Eq.(\[Usadel3\]) contain the phase factors $\exp(\pm 2i\int dx_{j}\tilde{F}_{xj})$ which result in spatial oscillations of Green functions. Besides these oscillations, the Zeeman interaction leads to a suppression of the superconductor proximity effect. For instance, due to the third term in Eq.(\[Usadel3\]), $ \delta g_{2}$ and $ \delta g_{3}$ decrease with increasing distances from contacts 2 and 3, respectively. Therefore, the length $L_Z$ of the region where $\mathbf{Z}\neq 0$ should not be too long. The corresponding condition is $2L_Z(\gamma_x F_x^2+\gamma_y F_y^2)^{1/2} \lesssim 1$. By choosing the direction of $\mathbf{Z}$ perpendicular to $x$ ($F_y=0$), the suppression effect can be reduced in samples having the smaller ratio $D_b/D_t$ of the diffusion constants, as follows from the definition of $\gamma_x$. It is also possible to construct appropriate barriers at the flanks of the wire to guarantee a weak Klein tunneling between the top and bottom surfaces. By making the angular averaged tunneling rate much less than the Thouless energy $E_T=D/L^2$, where $L=$max$[L_2,L_3]$, the bottom surface of TI may almost completely be turned off, that will result in the small damping effect. It should be noted that the third term in Eq.(\[Usadel3\]) vanishes completely if the Zeeman fields are finite on both surfaces and are equal in magnitude and antiparallel (both are perpendicular to $x$). However, such a situation is probably difficult to realize in practice.
![Normalized difference of conductances for parallel and antiparallel alignments of the Zeeman fields in TI wire. From top to bottom : $D_b/D_t$=0, 0.1 and 0.5; $T=0$ and $\rho_{TI}L/R_{b1}=0.5$. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="6cm"}
Short wires, low bias regime
----------------------------
A simple analytic result may be obtained in the case of $V\ll k_BT$ at small enough $L_2$ and $L_3$, so that $k_BT\ll E_T$. In this case one may set $\omega=0$ in $G(\omega)$ in Eq.(\[j\]). Let us assume that $L_2=L_3=L$ and $L_Z$ is slightly less than $L$ [@comment]. Hence, the phase $\Phi(x_j)\equiv2(-1)^j\int_0^{x_j} dx_{j}\tilde{F}_{xj}\simeq 2(-1)^j\tilde{F}_{xj}x_j$. The solutions of Eq.(\[Usadel3\]) in both TI branches have the form $\delta g_{j}=\exp(i\tau_3\Phi_j)[A_j\exp(\kappa_{j} x_{j})+B_j\exp(-\kappa_{j} x_{j})]$, where $\kappa_{j}^2=4\gamma_x F_{xj}^2\pm 2i\omega$ at $F_y=0$ ($\pm$ for retarded and advanced functions, respectively). In a symmetric device, that will be assumed below for simplicity, $|F_{x2}|=|F_{x3}|$. The 2$\times$2 matrices $A$ and $B$ can be obtained from boundary conditions Eq.(\[BC2\]), Eq.(\[BC3\]) and the continuity of Green functions of the wire branches in contact point 1 . By substituting the so calculated $\delta g_{2}$ and $\delta g_{3}$ into Eq.(\[M2\]) we obtain the current from Eq.(\[j\]) in the form
$$\label{j2}
j=\frac{\rho_{TI}}{R_b^2}\mathrm{Re}[\beta(\alpha + \cos\Delta\Phi)]V\,,$$
where $\Delta\Phi=\Phi_2|_{x_2=L}-\Phi_3|_{x_3=L}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha=&2(1+\Lambda)\sinh^2\kappa_0 L+1\,, \nonumber \\
&\beta=&\frac{2}{\kappa_0(1+\Lambda)\sinh2\kappa_0 L} \,,\end{aligned}$$ $\Lambda=\rho_{TI}\coth\kappa_0 L/2\kappa_0 R_{b1}$ and $\kappa_0=\kappa|_{\omega=0}$. For more details of the calculation, see Appendix B. It follows from these expressions that the oscillating part of the current may be of the same order as the constant term, if $\kappa L \lesssim 1$ and $\Lambda \lesssim 1$. As can be seen from Fig.2, the current’s oscillations are strongest at $D_t/D_b=0 $ and they are strongly damped already at $D_t/D_b=0.1 $. The oscillations almost vanish at $D_t/D_b=0.5$. In the considered symmetric device the phase-dependent part of the current and the oscillations turn to zero when the Zeeman fields at two branches are antiparallel, so that in Eq.(\[j2\]) $\Delta\Phi=0$. The difference of conductances $\Delta G$ for the parallel and antiparallel alignments is shown in Fig.3 at various ratios $D_t/D_b$ and the zero temperature ($T\ll E_T$). An alignment switch can be performed by changing a magnetization in one of the magnetic islands. For example, one may adjust their hysteretic characteristics in such a way that an external magnetic field of a definite strength flips the magnetization of one of them, while the other island stays in its initial state.
It is important that the considered in this subsection short wire regime is valid at low enough temperatures which provide the sufficiently large coherence length $\xi=\sqrt{D/k_BT}$, such that $\xi \gg L$. Otherwise, one can not simply set $\omega=0$ in $G(\omega)$. Instead of that, the integral over $\omega$ in Eq.(\[j\]) must be taken.
![Normalized difference of conductances for parallel and antiparallel alignments of the Zeeman fields in TI wire. $G_{0T}$ is the temperature dependent conductance of the device in the absence of the Zeeman field. Curves from top to bottom : $k_BT/E_T$ =0.1, 1, 3 and 5; $\rho_{TI}L/R_{b1}=1$ and $D_b/D_t$= 0.1[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig4.eps){width="6cm"}
High temperatures
-----------------
In this subsection the numerical results are presented beyond the short wire regime, at $k_BT \gtrsim E_T$. $G(\omega)$ can be obtained from Eqs.(\[D\]) and (\[M2\]). In turn, the Green functions, that enter in Eqs.(\[M2\]), are calculated in Appendix B. Fig.4 shows differences of conductances for parallel and antiparallel alignments of Zeeman fields, at various ratios of $k_B T$ and $E_T$. These plots are normalized by the temperature dependent conductance $G_{0T}$ in the absence of the Zeeman field. Fig.4 shows that so normalized $\Delta G$ decreases in the considered temperature interval , but not dramatically, that makes it possible to observe the phase shift produced by the Zeeman field even at relatively high temperatures. Note, that the absolute reduction of $\Delta G$ is larger, considering almost a threefold decrease of $G_{0T}$ in the same temperature interval. In order to evaluate $E_T$, let us take the mean free path $l=10$ nm, as in Bi$_{1.5}$Sb$_{0.5}$Te$_{1.7}$Se$_{1.3}$ [@TIflake] and a typical Dirac velocity $v=$5 10$^5$ m/s, that gives the diffusion constant of a 2D gas $D=vl/2=$25 cm$^2/s$. With this constant the Thouless energies are $E_T=80$mK and 20mK for the interferometer shoulders $L=500$nm and 1000nm, respectively.
Now let us evaluate typical values of $Z$ which can provide the strong enough phase shift $\Phi =2ZLD_t/v(D_t+D_b)$. As can be seen from Figs.3 and 4, the maximum effect on $\Delta G$ is observed for $1\lesssim \Delta\Phi \lesssim 2$. For $D_t/(D_t+D_b) \simeq 1$, $v=5\cdot 10^5$m/sec and $L= 1\mu$m the phase $\Delta\Phi=2\Phi$ reaches 1.5 at $Z\simeq 0.1$meV. Such a field is well below the Fermi energy, that is in agreement with the semiclassical approximation used in this work. Note, that the above evaluation of the Zeeman field is valid only for a special case of the magnetic island which covers almost the entire TI wire. Therefore, the field must be stronger for smaller sizes of the islands.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, it is shown that due to a quantum interference of Andreev-scattered waves in wires made of three dimensional TI, the electric current through a TI-superconductor system can be varied by changing the mutual orientations of Zeeman fields in distant parts of the TI wire. This effect is a direct consequence of the long-range Cooper correlations created by the superconducting proximity effect and the Zeeman-field-induced phase shifts of the pairing functions. This effect is damped at strong Zeeman fields. The damping can be reduced by a special design of the interferometer. On the other hand, it is shown that the discussed interference effects may be observed even at weak fields, due to the strong spin-orbit coupling of TI surface states. With some modification of parameters the theory may be extended to ordinary two-dimensional electron systems with sufficiently strong Rashba interaction.
Acknowledgement. The work was supported by RAS Program “Actual problems of low-temperature physics”.
[99]{} V. M. Edelstein, Sov. Phys. JETP **68**, 1244 (1989) A.G. Mal’shukov, Phys. Rev. B **93**, 054511 (2016). S. S. Pershoguba, K. Björnson, A. M. Black-Schaffer, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 116602 (2015). Kjetil M. D. Hals, Phys. Rev. B **95**, 134504 (2017) I. V. Krive, A. M. Kadigrobov, R. I. Shekhter and M. Jonson, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 214516 (2005) A. Reynoso, G.Usaj, C.A. Balseiro, D. Feinberg, M.Avignon, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 107001 (2008) A. Zazunov, R. Egger, T. Martin, and T. Jonckheere, Phys.Rev. Lett. **103**, 147004 (2009) A. G. Mal’shukov, S. Sadjina, and A. Brataas, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 060502 (2010) J.-F. Liu and K. Chan, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 125305 (2010) T. Yokoyama, M. Eto, Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B **89**, 195407 (2014) F. Konschelle, I. V. Tokatly and F. S. Bergeret, Phys. Rev. B **92**,125443 (2015) D. B. Szombati, S. Nadj-Perge, D. Car, S. R. Plissard, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, Nat. Phys. **2**, 568 (2016). M. Sakano, M. S. Bahramy, A. Katayama, T. Shimojima, H. Murakawa, Y. Kaneko, W. Malaeb, S. Shin, K. Ono, H. Kumigashira, R. Arita, N. Nagaosa, H.Y. Hwang, Y. Tokura, and K. Ishizaka, Phys.Rev. Lett. **110**, 107204 (2013) C. R. Ast, J. Henk, A. Ernst, L. Moreschini, M. C. Falub, D. Pacilé, P. Bruno, K. Kern, and M. Grioni, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 186807 (2007). E. Lesne,Y. Fu, S. Oyarzun, J.C. Rojas-Sanchez, D.C. Vaz, H. Naganuma, G. Sicoli, J.-P. Attane, M. Jamet, E. Jacquet, J.-M. George, A. Barthelemy, H. Jaffres, A. Fert, M. Bibes and L. Vila, Nature Materials (2016); doi:10.1038/nmat4726 Qi Song, Hongrui Zhang, Tang Su, Wei Yuan, Yangyang Chen, Wenyu Xing, Jing Shi, Ji Rong Sun, and Wei Han, arXiv:1609.06207 A. F. Andreev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 46, 1823 (1964) \[JETP 19, 1228 (1964)\]. A. V. Zaitsev, Physica B **203**, 274 (1994) T. H. Stoof, Yu. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B **53**, 14496 (1996); Yu. V. Nazarov and T. H. Stoof, Phys. Rev. Lett **76**, 823 (1996) A. A. Golubov, F. K. Wilhelm, A. D. Zaikin, Phys. Rev. B **55**, 1123 (1997) C.J. Lambert and R. Raimondi, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **10**, 901 (1998) G. Eilenberger, Z.Phys. **214**, 195 (1968) A. I. Larkin, and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **55**, 2262 (1968) \[Sov. Phys. JETP **28**, 1200 (1965)\].
K.D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **25**, 507 (1970) X. L. Qi and S. C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**83**]{}, 1057
J. Rammer, H. Smith, Rev. Mod. Phys. **58**, 323 (1985) N. Kopnin, Theory of Nonequilibrium Superconductivity (Oxford Science, London, 2001).
A. Zyuzin, M. Alidoust, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B **93**, 214502 (2016). I. V. Bobkova, A. M. Bobkov, A. A. Zyuzin, and M.Alidoust, Phys. Rev. B **94**, 134506 (2016) Henning G. Hugdal, Jacob Linder, and Sol H. Jacobsen, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235403 (2017) Manuel Houzet and Julia S. Meyer, Phys. Rev. B **92**, 014509 (2015).
V. P. Mineev and K. V. Samokhin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **105**, 747 (1994) \[Sov. Phys. JETP 78, 401 (1994)\] R. P. Kaur, D. F. Agterberg, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 137002 (2005) D. F. Agterberg, Physica C **387**, 13 (2003) O. Dimitrova and M.V. Feigel’man, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 014522 (2007) V. Barzykin and L. P. Gor’kov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 227002 (2002)
A. V. Zaitsev, Sov. Phys. JETP 59, 1015 (1984). M. Y. Kuprianov and V. F. Lukichev, Sov. Phys. JETP **67**, 1163 (1988). A.F.Volkov, A.V.Zaitsev, and T.M.Klapwijk, Physica C **210** , 21 (1993). As long as characteristic lengths of $Z$ gradients near magnetic island edges, as well as distances from the island edges to contacts are much less than the coherence length $\sqrt{D/k_BT}$ and $L$, one may represent the spacial dependence of $Z$ as a stepwise function. AE.S. Tikhonov, D.V. Shovkun, V.S. Khrapai, M. Snelder, M.P. Stehno, A. Brinkman, Y. Huang, M.S. Golden, A.A. Golubov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **117**, 147001 (2016)
Averaging over a wire perimeter
===============================
Let us assume that the wire has a rectangular cross section and the coordinate $l$ runs along its perimeter, so that it coincides with $y$ and $-y$ on the top and bottom surfaces, respectively. Then, the part of Eq.(\[Usadel\]), which is associated with the derivative over $l$, can be represented in the form: $$\label{nablal}
\nabla_l\left(D(l)\hat{g}_0\tilde{\nabla_l}\hat{g}_0\right)+ iD(l)\left[F_l\tau_3,\hat{g}_0 \tilde{\nabla_l}\hat{g}_0\right] \,,$$ where $\tilde{\nabla_l}*=\nabla_l*+i[\tau_3F_l,*]$ and $F_l$ represents a projection of the field $\mathbf{F}$ onto the $l$ coordinate. For completeness, the lateral surfaces of the wire ($l \parallel z$) are also taken into account in Eq.(\[nablal\]). $D(l)$ denotes the $l$-dependent diffusion constant.
We will denote the average over the perimeter as $\overline{(...)}=\oint (...)dl/\oint dl$ and assume that $\hat{g}_0$ is constant as a function of $l$. For a diffusive transport the latter assumption is valid if the perimeter is much smaller than the characteristic lengths which characterize variations of Green functions along the wire. Therefore, $\nabla_l\hat{g}_0=0$. Hence, $\tilde{\nabla_l}\hat{g}_0=i[\tau_3F_l,\hat{g}_0]$ in Eq.(\[nablal\]). Further, since $F_l$ and $D(l)$ are periodic functions of $l$, the average of the first term in Eq.(\[nablal\]) is 0. Therefore, the averaging of Eq.(\[nablal\]) yields $$\label{nablal2}
-\overline{D(l)F_l^2}\left[\tau_3,\hat{g}_0\left[\tau_3,\hat{g}_0\right]\right] \,.$$
By averaging the remaining terms in Eq.(\[Usadel\]) over the perimeter we arrive to the one-dimensional equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nablal3}
\overline{D}\tilde{\nabla}_x\left(\hat{g}_0\tilde{\nabla}_x\hat{g}_0\right)+i[\omega\tau_3,\hat{g}_0]+\nonumber \\
\left(\frac{ \overline{DF_x}^2}{ \overline{D}}-\overline{DF_x^2}-\overline{DF_l^2}\right)\left[\tau_3,\hat{g}_0\left[\tau_3,\hat{g}_0\right]\right] =0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ By assuming that the thickness of the wire is much smaller than its width one may neglect the contribution of the lateral surfaces into the average. If $F_x$ and $F_y$ are finite only on the top surface, Eq.(\[nablal3\]) reduces to Eq.(\[Usadel2\])
Derivation of Eq.(\[j2\])
=========================
In each shoulder $j$ the substitution $\delta g_j=e^{i\Phi(x_j)}f_j$ , where $\Phi(x_j)\equiv2(-1)^j\int_0^{x_j} dx_{j}\tilde{F}_{xj}$, allows to transform Eq.(\[Usadel3\]) to the form $$\label{fj}
\nabla_{x_{j}}^2 f^{r(a)}_{j} +\kappa_j^2f^{r(a)}_{j}=0\,,$$ where $\kappa^2_{j}=4\gamma_xF^2_{xj} \pm 2i(\omega/D)$ at $F_y=0$. The “$\pm$” signs in $\kappa^2$ correspond to retarded and advanced functions, respectively. Due to coordinate dependence of $F^2_{xj}$ the parameter $\kappa$ varies with $x_j$. If $F^2_{xj}$ is a step-function, the wire can be divided into several parts, so that in each of them $\kappa^2$ is a constant. The function $f$ and its derivative must be continuous at boundaries between these parts, as it follows from Eq.(\[fj\]). Let us consider a simple case where the homogeneous magnetic islands in each shoulder occupy almost the entire wire, except for small regions near contacts with the leads. When the lengths of these regions is much smaller than the coherence length $\sqrt{D/2|\omega|}\sim \sqrt{D/ k_BT}$, the function $f$ and its derivative are almost constant there. Therefore, by neglecting their weak spacial variation one may replace in BC (\[BC2\]) and (\[BC3\]) the function $f$ and $\nabla_x f$ with corresponding values in an adjacent magnetic domain. By this way it is possible to skip the small nonmagnetic regions of the wire.
The solutions $\delta g_{2}$ and $\delta g_{3}$ of in TI branches 12 and 13, respectively, have the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deltag12}
\delta g_{2}&=&e^{i\tau_3\Phi(x_2)}[A_2e^{\kappa x_{2}}+B_2e^{-\kappa x_{2}}], \nonumber \\
\delta g_{3}&=&e^{i\tau_3\Phi(x_3)}[A_3e^{\kappa x_{3}}+B_3e^{-\kappa x_{3}}]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the labels $r$ and $a$ are skipped for a wile. They will be restored later, where necessary. In the assumed symmetric case there is a common factor $\kappa$ in both branches. The four coefficients $A_j$ and $B_j$ anticommute with $\tau_3$ and can be found from the boundary conditions. According to the definition of the phase $\Phi$, we have $\Phi(0)=0$ and $\Phi(x_j)|_{x_j=L}\equiv \Phi_j$ at contacts $j=2$ and $j=3$, respectively, where $\Phi_j\simeq 2(-1)^j\tilde{F}_jL$. From the boundary conditions Eq.(\[BC2\]), Eq.(\[BC3\]) and the continuity of the Green functions in branches 2 and 3 at contact 1, it is easy to obtain the following equations near contact 1 $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ABN}
(A_2+B_2)&-&(A_3+B_3)=0 \nonumber \\
(A_2-B_2)&+&(A_3-B_3)=\Lambda_N\delta g(0)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda_N=\rho_{TI}/R_{b1}\kappa$ and $\delta g(0)=A_2+B_2=A_3+B_3$ is the Green function at contact 1. At contacts 2 and 3 the boundary conditions have the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ABS}
A_2e^{\kappa L}-B_2e^{-\kappa L}&=&e^{-i\tau_3\Phi_2}\tau_2\Lambda_S, \nonumber \\
A_3e^{\kappa L}-B_3e^{-\kappa L}&=&e^{-i\tau_3\Phi_3}\tau_2\Lambda_S\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda_S=(\Delta/\sqrt{\Delta^2-\omega^2})(\rho_{TI}/R_{b}\kappa)$. From equations Eq.(\[ABN\]), Eq.(\[ABS\]) the factors $A$ and $B$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AB}
&&A_j=\left(\frac{\Phi_+}{\sinh\kappa L}-(-1)^j\frac{\Phi_-}{\cosh\kappa L}\right)\frac{\tau_2\Lambda_S}{4}- \nonumber \\
&&\Lambda_N\delta g(0)\frac{ e^{-\kappa L}}{4\sinh\kappa L}\,,\nonumber \\
&&B_j=\left(\frac{\Phi_+}{\sinh\kappa L}+(-1)^j\frac{\Phi_-}{\cosh\kappa L}\right)\frac{\tau_2\Lambda_S}{4}- \nonumber \\
&&\Lambda_N\delta g(0)\frac{ e^{\kappa L}}{4\sinh\kappa L}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi_{\pm}=\exp(-i\tau_3\Phi_3)\pm \exp(-i\tau_3\Phi_2)$.
By calculating $\delta g(0)=A_2+B_2$ from Eq.\[AB\] we obtain the expression for $\delta g(0)$ in the form $$\label{deltag}
\delta g(0)=\Phi_+ \frac{\tau_2\Lambda_S}{2\sinh\kappa L+\Lambda_N \cosh\kappa L}\,.$$ According to Eq.(\[D\]), the spectral conductance $G(\omega)$ is proportional to $(M_2+M_3)$. The latter may be expressed from Eq.(\[M2\]) through the sum $\delta g^{r(a)}_2(L)+\delta g^{r(a)}_3(L)$. By substituting coefficients $A$ and $B$, that are given by Eq.(\[deltag\]), into Eq.(\[deltag12\]) at $x_2=x_3=L$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2plus3}
&&\delta g^{r}_2(L)+\delta g^{r}_3(L)+\delta g^{a}_2(L)+\delta g^{a}_3(L)=\tau_2\Lambda_S \times\nonumber \\
&&\mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{|\Phi_+|^2(\coth\kappa L+\frac{\Lambda_N}{2})}{1+\frac{\Lambda_N}{2}\coth\kappa L}+|\Phi_-|^2\tanh\kappa L\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that in this expression only the phase difference $\Phi_2-\Phi_3$ enters, as it should be. Eq.(\[2plus3\]) finally gives the result Eq.(\[j2\]) in the low-bias regime where $\omega$ may be set to zero.
It is instructive to see how the phase dependence of the current vanishes in the case when only one of the two interferometer arms is conducting. Let us, for example, turn off branch 3. In this case only the second lines should be left in BC Eqs.(\[ABN\]) and (\[ABS\]), where $A_3=B_3=0$. It is easy to see that the solutions of these equations at $x_2=L$ have the form $A_2=\exp(-i\tau_3\Phi_2)f_a(\kappa)$ and $B_2=\exp(-i\tau_3\Phi_2)f_b(\kappa)$, where the functions $f_{a/b}(\kappa)$ do not depend on the phase $\Phi_2$. They depend only on $\kappa$. Therefore, the function $\delta g_{2}(L)$, which is given by Eq.(\[deltag12\]), does not depend on $\Phi_2$, as well as the conductance $G$, as can be seen from Eqs.(\[D\]) and (\[M2\]) at $\delta g_{3}=0$. Therefore, the only effect of the Zeeman field is a suppression of the proximity effect by the damping factor $\kappa$. It produces only a monotonous decreasing of the current at higher Zeeman fields and does not depend on its sign.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a two term formula for the Möbius function of intervals in the poset of all permutations, ordered by pattern containment. The first term in this formula is the number of so called normal occurrences of one permutation in another. Our definition of normal occurrences is similar to those that have appeared in several variations in the literature on the Möbius function of this and other posets, but simpler than most of them. The second term in the formula is complicated, but we conjecture that it equals zero for a significant proportion of intervals. We present some cases where the second term vanishes and others where it is nonzero. Computing the Möbius function recursively from its definition has exponential complexity, whereas the computation of the first term in our formula is polynomial and the exponential part is isolated to the second term, which seems to often vanish. We also present a result on the Möbius function of posets connected by a poset fibration.'
address: |
Department of Computer and Information Sciences\
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
author:
- Jason P Smith
title: A Formula for the Möbius function of the Permutation Poset Based on a Topological Decomposition
---
Introduction
============
Let $\sigma$ and $\pi$ be permutations of positive integers. We define an *occurrence* of $\sigma$ in $\pi$ to be a subsequence of $\pi$ with the same relative order of size as the letters in $\sigma$. For example, $132$ occurs twice in $23541$, as the subsequences 254 and 354. The *permutation poset* $\mathcal{P}$ consists of all permutations with the partial order $\sigma\le\pi$ if there is an occurrence of $\sigma$ in $\pi$. An *interval* $[\sigma,\pi]$ in $\mathcal{P}$ is the subposet $\{z\in\mathcal{P}\,|\,\sigma\le z\le\pi\}$. The *Möbius function* for a poset is defined recursively as: $\mu(a,b)=0$ if $a\not\le b$, $\mu(a,a)=1$ for all $a$ and, for $a<b$: $$\mu(a,b)=-\sum_{a\le z< b}\mu(a,z).$$
The first systematic study of the Möbius function of general posets appeared in [@Rota64] and the first result pertaining to the Möbius function of intervals of $\mathcal{P}$ appeared in [@SagVat06], where a formula for intervals of *layered* permutations was presented. A layered permutation is the direct sum of decreasing permutations, where the *direct sum* $\sigma\oplus\pi$ of two permutations $\sigma$ and $\pi$ is obtained by appending $\pi$ to $\sigma$ after adding the length of $\sigma$ to each letter of $\pi$. For example, $312\oplus213=312546$. There is an analogous *skew sum* $\sigma\ominus\pi$ where $\pi$ is appended to $\sigma$ after the length of $\pi$ is added to each element of $\sigma$. In [@BJJS11] a formula for the Möbius function is presented for intervals of *decomposable* permutations, that is, permutations that can be written as the direct sum of two or more non-empty permutations. This formula, however, is recursive and bottoms out in intervals bounded by indecomposable permutations, for which there is no general formula for the Möbius function.
Furthermore, in [@BJJS11] a formula is presented for intervals of *separable* permutations, that is, permutations that avoid 2413 and 3142, or equivalently, permutations that can be written using only direct sums, skew sums and the singleton permutation 1. A formula for the Möbius function of intervals of permutations with a fixed number of descents is given in [@Smith14], where a *descent* occurs at position $i$ in a permutation $\pi=\pi_1\ldots\pi_n$ if $\pi_i>\pi_{i+1}$. Further results have been presented in [@McSt13; @Smith13; @SteTen10]. However, the proportion of intervals $[\sigma,\pi]$ which satisfy any of these properties approaches zero as the length of $\pi$ increases. There are indications that the formula we present here reduces the computation of the Möbius function to polynomial time for a significant proportion of intervals.
Many of the results on the Möbius function of intervals of $\mathcal{P}$, and also of some posets of words, are linked to the number of what have been termed *normal occurrences*, or *normal embeddings*, in the literature, see [@Bjo90; @Bjo93; @BJJS11; @SagVat06; @Smith14]. The first appearance of normal occurrences is in Björner’s paper [@Bjo90] where a formula for the Möbius function of intervals of words with subword order is presented. The definition of a normal occurrence has varied in these papers, but all follow a similar theme.
Our definition of normal occurrences, which is simpler than most previous ones, is based upon the *adjacencies* of a permutation, where an adjacency in a permutation is a maximal sequence of increasing or decreasing consecutively valued letters in consecutive positions and the *tail* of an adjacency is all but its first letter. A *normal occurrence* of $\sigma$ in $\pi$, in our definition, is any occurrence that includes all the tails of all the adjacencies of $\pi$. This definition of normal occurrences based on adjacencies does not seem to have been considered previously, but in [@Smith14] we presented a slightly different version.
We present a formula, in Theorem \[thm:main\], that shows the Möbius function of $[\sigma,\pi]$ is, up to a sign, equal to the number of normal occurrences of $\sigma$ in $\pi$ plus an extra term that seems to vanish for a significant proportion of intervals. For example, we know this extra term vanishes if $\sigma$ and $\pi$ have the same number of descents, which is a consequence of the result in [@Smith14]. Using *interval blocks*, which appear in [@SteTen10], we prove that if for all permutations $\lambda\in[\sigma,\pi)$ there is a singleton interval block, that is, a letter of $\pi$ which belongs to no occurrence of $\lambda$, the second term of the formula vanishes. The above mentioned cases are of zero proportion when the length of $\pi$ goes to infinity, but computer tests indicate that for a substantial proportion of intervals the second term of our formula vanishes. Why that is the case is still a mystery, but this suggests that many more families of intervals than are now known may turn out to have a tractable Möbius function.
It is shown in [@McSt13] that if $\pi$ is decomposable and has equal consecutive components then for any subpermutation $\sigma$ obtained by removing $k>1$ of the equal components, the interval $[\sigma,\pi]$ contains a disconnected subinterval. Many of the definitions of normal occurrences have an extra condition for the case when $\pi$ has this property. We prove a result that indicates the second term of our formula for the Möbius function is often non-zero in this case. Exactly what the connection is between this second term and the topology of such intervals is another mystery.
Computing the Möbius function using the original recursive formula has exponential complexity, whereas our formula splits the computation into two parts. The first part, that is, computing the number of normal occurrences, can be done in polynomial time and the second part has exponential complexity in the general case, but computational evidence suggests that in a significant proportion of cases this second term vanishes. Our formula here is the first formula for arbitrary intervals of permutations that seems to have polynomial time complexity for a significant proportion of intervals.
In Section \[sec:defn\] we introduce some definitions, give a brief introduction to the topology of posets and present a poset fibration of $[\sigma,\pi]$ that we later use to compute $\mu(\sigma,\pi)$. In Section \[sec:result\] we present and prove our main result, that the Möbius function of intervals of $\mathcal{P}$ equals the number of normal occurrences plus an extra term that we define. In Section \[sec:fibration\] we present a result that links the Möbius function of two posets connected by a poset fibration satisfying a certain condition. This indicates there is possibly a more general condition for the main result of Björner, Wachs and Welker in [@Bjo05]. In Section \[sec:app\] we apply our formula to show that the Möbius function of $[\sigma,\pi]$ equals the number of normal occurrences of $\sigma$ in $\pi$ if for each $\lambda\in[\sigma,\pi)$ there is at least one letter of $\pi$ which is not in any occurrence of $\lambda$. We also show that the value of the second term of our formula for the Möbius function of $[\sigma,\pi]$ is often nonzero when $\pi$ has a decomposition into a direct sum with consecutive equal components. Furthermore, we consider for which permutations all occurrences are normal.
Definitions and Preliminaries {#sec:defn}
=============================
In this section we introduce some definitions required to present our main result. We begin with an important property of permutations that is fundamental to our results:
\[defn:emb\] An *adjacency* in a permutation is a maximal sequence, of length $\ell\ge1$, of increasing or decreasing consecutively valued letters in consecutive order. The *tail* of an adjacency of length at least 2 is all but the first letter of the adjacency. An adjacency of length 1 does not have a tail.
The permutation $\pi=2314765$ has adjacencies 23, 1, 4 and 765 and the tails are 3 and 65.
Next we define embeddings and our version of normal embeddings. Embeddings are in one-to-one correspondence with occurrences, and we use embeddings instead of occurrences throughout the rest of the paper because they allow for easier presentation of the required definitions.
\[defn:normal\] Consider permutations $\sigma\le\pi$. An *embedding* $\eta$ of $\sigma$ in $\pi$ is a sequence of the same length as $\pi$ such that the nonzero letters in $\eta$ are the letters of an occurrence of $\sigma$ in $\pi$ and in the same positions in $\eta$ as in $\pi$.
An embedding $\eta$ of $\sigma$ in $\pi$ is *normal* if the positions of all the letters in all the tails of the adjacencies in $\pi$ are nonzero in $\eta$. We denote the number of normal embeddings of $\sigma$ in $\pi$ as $\operatorname{\text{\rm NE}}(\sigma,\pi)$.
For $\sigma=132$ and $\pi=2314765$ the sequence $0300065$ is the only normal embedding of $\sigma$ in $\pi$, so $\operatorname{\text{\rm NE}}(\sigma,\pi)=1$.
\[prop:complexity\] Computing $\operatorname{\text{\rm NE}}(\sigma,\pi)$ for a fixed $\sigma$ can be done in time polynomial in the length of $\pi$.
Counting the number of occurrences of $\sigma$ in $\pi$, of lengths $k$ and $n$, respectively, can be done in polynomial time $\mathcal{O}(n^k)$ by exhaustive search, and testing for normality is linear.
We use the adjacencies of a permutation to break down the permutation and embeddings into smaller components.
Consider permutations $\sigma\le\pi$ and an embedding $\eta$ of $\sigma$ in $\pi$. Let $\hat{\pi}=(\hat{\pi}_1,\ldots,\hat{\pi}_t)$ be the decomposition of $\pi$ into its adjacencies, that is, $\hat{\pi}_i$ is a maximal increasing or decreasing permutation corresponding to the $i$’th adjacency of $\pi$.
Define $\hat{\eta}:=(\hat{\eta}_1,\ldots,\hat{\eta}_t)$ where $\hat{\eta}_i$ is the permutation obtained from the nonzero letters that $\eta$ embeds in the $i$’th adjacency of $\pi$. If $\eta$ does not embed in any letters of the $i$’th adjacency then $\hat{\eta}_i=\emptyset$.
If $\sigma=132$ and $\pi=2314765$ then $\hat{\pi}=(12,1,1,321)$ and the embedding $\eta=0010760$ gives $\hat{\eta}=(\emptyset,1,\emptyset,21)$.
When considering embeddings the selection of letters within an adjacency is usually irrelevant. This is made formal by the following equivalence relation.
Let $E^{\sigma,\pi}$ be the set of embeddings of $\sigma$ in $\pi$. Define an equivalence relation on embeddings where $\eta\sim\psi$ if the only differences between $\eta$ and $\psi$ occur within adjacencies of $\pi$. Define $\widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$ as the set containing the rightmost embedding, that is, the embedding where the nonzero letters are the furthest right, of each equivalence class of $E^{\sigma,\pi}\slash\sim$.
Consider $\eta\in \widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$ and define the zero set of $\eta$ as $Z(\eta)=\{i\,|\, \eta_i=0\}$. Define $EZ^{\sigma,\pi}$ to be the set of sets of embeddings in $\widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$ such that for each set $S\in EZ^{\sigma,\pi}$ we have $\bigcap_{\eta\in S}Z(\eta)=\emptyset$.
When defining $\widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$ we choose the rightmost embedding to ensure that all normal embeddings are in $\widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$. Note that if $\eta\sim\psi$ then $\hat{\eta}=\hat{\psi}$, which can be used as an equivalent definition of the equivalence relation. The set $EZ^{\sigma,\pi}$ is upwards closed under containment because if we take any set $S\in EZ^{\sigma,\pi}$ adding a new embedding to $S$ will result in a set that still has empty intersection of zero sets.
\[ex:3\] If $\sigma=132$ and $\pi=413265$ then the embedding $013200$ has zero set $Z(013200)=\{1,5,6\}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
E^{\sigma,\pi}=&\{013200,\,400065,\,010065,\,003065,\,000265\},\\ \widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}=&\{013200,\,400065,\,010065,\,000265\}, \\EZ^{\sigma,\pi}=&\{\{013200,\,400065\},\{013200,\,400065,\,010065\},\\ &\{013200,\,400065,\,000265\},\{013200,\,400065,\,010065,\,000265\}\}.\end{aligned}$$
Using our decomposition we build posets from embeddings in the following way:
Given an embedding $\eta\in E^{\sigma,\pi}$ define the poset $P(\eta):=[\hat{\eta}_1,\hat{\pi}_1]\times\cdots\times[\hat{\eta}_t,\hat{\pi}_t]$ and $$A^{\sigma,\pi}:=\bigcup_{\eta\in \widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}}P(\eta)^o,$$ where $P(\eta)^o$ denotes the interior of $P(\eta)$, that is, $P(\eta)$ with the top and bottom elements removed.
Consider $[132,413265]$ and let $\eta_1,\eta_2,\eta_3$ and $\eta_4$ be the embeddings listed in $\widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$ in Example \[ex:3\]. Then $\hat{\pi}=(1,1,21,21)$ and $\hat{\eta}_1=(\emptyset,1,21,\emptyset)$, $\hat{\eta}_2=(1,\emptyset,\emptyset,21)$, $\hat{\eta}_3=(\emptyset,1,\emptyset,21)$ and $\hat{\eta}_4=(\emptyset,\emptyset,1,21)$. See Figure \[fig:exA\] for $P(\eta_i)$ and $A^{132,413265}$.
The poset $A^{\sigma,\pi}$ consists of the elements $\hat{\eta}$ for all $\eta\in\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}$ and all $\lambda\in(\sigma,\pi)$. Therefore, we define a surjective poset map $f$ from $A^{\sigma,\pi}$ to $(\sigma,\pi)$ in the following way:
\[defn:map\] Let $f:A^{\sigma,\pi}\rightarrow(\sigma,\pi)$ be the map which maps all elements $\hat{\eta}$, where $\eta\in\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}$, to $\lambda$.
If $[132,413265]$ and $\hat{\eta}=(1,\emptyset,1,21)$ then $\eta=400265\in \widehat{E}^{2143,\pi}$, so $f(\hat{\eta})=2143$.
The Topology of a Poset
-----------------------
We study the topology of a poset by constructing a simplicial complex from the poset in the following way:
Let $P$ be a poset. A *chain* in $P$ is a totally ordered subset $\{z_1<\cdots<z_t\}$. The *order complex* of $P$, denoted $\Delta(P)$, is the simplicial complex whose vertices are the elements of $P$ and whose faces are the chains of $P$.
When we refer to the order complex of an interval $[\sigma,\pi]$ we mean the order complex of the interior $(\sigma,\pi)$, which we denote $\Delta(\sigma,\pi)$.
Consider the interval $I=[123,4567123]$. An example of a chain in $(123,4567123)$ is $4123<456123$. The order complex and Hasse diagram of $I$ are given in Figure \[fig:ordercomplex\].
We refer to a poset and its order complex interchangeably, so a topological property of a poset refers to that property of its order complex. For further background on order complexes and poset topology in general see [@Wac07].
We can use the order complex of $[\sigma,\pi]$ to calculate $\mu(\sigma,\pi)$ due to the following formula, which is an application of the Philip Hall Theorem and the Euler-Poincaré formula for the reduced Euler characteristic, see [@Wac07 Section 1.2]: $$\label{eq:Euler}
\mu(\sigma,\pi)=\tilde{\chi}(\Delta(\sigma,\pi))=\sum_{i=-1}^{|\pi|-|\sigma|}(-1)^i \tilde{\beta}_i(\Delta(\sigma,\pi)),$$ where $\tilde{\chi}$ is the reduced Euler characteristic and $\tilde{\beta}_i$ is the $i$’th reduced Betti number, that is, the rank of the $i$’th reduced homology group. Therefore, by calculating the homology of $[\sigma,\pi]$ we can compute the Möbius function. For example, if we can show that $\Delta(\sigma,\pi)$ is contractible this implies $\mu(\sigma,\pi)=0$, and if $\Delta(\sigma,\pi)$ and $\Delta(\alpha,\beta)$ are homotopically equivalent then $\mu(\sigma,\pi)=\mu(\alpha,\beta)$.
The first explicit results on the topology of intervals of permutations appear in [@McSt13] and [@Smith13].
(-2,0) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (-2,0) node\[left\] [4123]{}; (0,0) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (0,0) node\[left\] [2341]{}; (2,0) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (2,0) node\[right\] [1234]{}; (-2,2) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (-2,2) node\[left\] [45123]{}; (0,2) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (0,2) node\[left\] [34512]{}; (2,2) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (2,2) node\[right\] [23451]{}; (-1,4) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (-1,4) node\[left\] [456123]{}; (1,4) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (1,4) node\[right\] [345612]{}; (-2,0) – (-2,2) – (-1,4) – (0,2) – (0,0) – (2,2) – (1,4) – (0,2); (2,2) – (2,0); (5,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (5,1) node\[below\] [4123]{}; (5,4) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (5,4) node\[above\] [45123]{}; (7,2.5) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (7,1.7) node [456123]{}; (9,4) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (9,4) node\[above\] [34512]{}; (9,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (8.7,1) node\[below\] [2341]{}; (11,2.5) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (11.75,2.5) node\[above\] [345612]{}; (11,0) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (11,0) node\[below\] [23451]{}; (13,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (13,1) node\[right\] [1234]{}; (7,2.5) – (5,1) – (5,4) – (7,2.5) – (9,4) – (9,1) – (7,2.5); (9,1) – (9,4) – (11,2.5) – (9,1) – (11,0) – (11,2.5) – (9,1); (11,0) – (13,1) – (11,2.5) – (11,0);
The Main Result {#sec:result}
===============
We use the map $f$ in Definition \[defn:map\] to calculate the Möbius function of $[\sigma,\pi]$ by calculating $\mu(A^{\sigma,\pi})$ and the effect on the Möbius function when applying $f$. First we compute $\mu(A^{\sigma,\pi})$. Given a set $A$ of posets the Möbius function of the union of $A$ can be calculated using the following inclusion-exclusion formula, which can be seen as a consequence of the inclusion-exclusion formula for the Euler characteristic and Equation : $$\label{eq:incexGen}\mu\left(\bigcup_{a\in A}a\right)=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq A\\S\not=\emptyset}}(-1)^{|S|-1}\mu\left(\bigcap_{a\in S}a\right),$$ For more background on this see [@Nar74]. Applying Equation to $A^{\sigma,\pi}$ gives: $$\label{eq:incex}\mu(A^{\sigma,\pi})=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq \widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}\\S\not=\emptyset}}(-1)^{|S|-1}\,\mu(\bigcap_{\eta\in S}P(\eta)^o).$$ To calculate this we need to know the Möbius function of the intersections $\cap_{\eta\in S} P(\eta)^o$. Note that when calculating the Möbius function of a poset we add a top and bottom element. Therefore, a contractible intersection has Möbius function 0, an empty intersection has Möbius function $-1$ and $\mu(P(\eta)^o)=~\mu(\hat{\eta},\hat{\pi})$.
\[lem:inter\] If $S\subseteq \widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$ and $|S|>1$ then: $$\mu(\bigcap_{\eta\in S}P(\eta)^o)=\begin{cases}-1,&\mbox{ if } S\in EZ^{\sigma,\pi}\\0,&\mbox{ otherwise }\end{cases}.$$
Let $\hat{\pi}=(\hat{\pi}_1,\ldots,\hat{\pi}_t)$ and define the *join* of $S$ to be $\vee S=(\max_{\eta\in S}(\hat{\eta}_1),\\\ldots,\max_{\eta\in S}(\hat{\eta}_t))$. The join is well defined because for each $i$ the set $\{\hat{\eta}_i\,|\,\eta\in S\}$ forms a chain, so there is an $\hat{\eta}_i$ that contains all others. The join of $S$ is the smallest element containing every embedding in $S$, so it is the bottom element of the intersection $I=\bigcap_{\eta\in S}P(\eta)^o$. Therefore, if $\vee S<\hat{\pi}$ then $I$ is contractible and so has Möbius function $0$, otherwise $\vee S=\hat{\pi}$ so $I$ is empty and thus has Möbius function $-1$. If $\vee S=\hat{\pi}$ this implies that every letter of $\pi$ is non-zero for some $\eta\in S$, that is, $S$ has empty intersection of zero sets, so $S\in EZ^{\sigma,\pi}$.
Consider our running example of $[132,413265]$. If $S^1=\{013200,\\010065\}$ then $013200$ decomposes to $(\emptyset,1,21,\emptyset)$ and $010065$ decomposes to $\\(\emptyset,1,\emptyset,21)$, so the join is: $$\vee S^1=(\max(\emptyset,\emptyset),\max(1,1),\max(21,\emptyset),\max(\emptyset,21))=(\emptyset,1,21,21).$$ Therefore, $\vee S^1<\hat{\pi}$ so the intersection is contractible. We can check this by looking at Figure \[fig:exA\] where we can see that the intersection $P(013200)\cap P(010065)$ is the single point $(\emptyset,1,21,21)$, which is contractible.
Now that we know the Möbius function of the intersections we can compute $\mu(A^{\sigma,\pi})$:
\[lem:muA\] $$\mu(A^{\sigma,\pi})=(-1)^{|\pi|-|\sigma|}\operatorname{\text{\rm NE}}(\sigma,\pi)+\sum_{S\in EZ^{\sigma,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}.$$
We can split Equation into two parts: $$\label{eq:incex2}\mu(A^{\sigma,\pi})=\sum_{\eta\in \widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}}\mu(P(\eta)^o)+\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq \widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}\\|S|>1}}(-1)^{|S|-1}\mu(\bigcap_{\eta\in S}P(\eta)^o).$$ By Lemma \[lem:inter\] the second part of the right hand side of Equation equals $\displaystyle\sum_{S\in EZ^{\sigma,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}$.
By the definition of $P(\eta)$, and the identity $\mu(A\times B)=\mu(A)\mu(B)$, we know $$\mu(P(\eta)^o)=\prod_{1\le i \le t} \mu(\hat{\eta}_i,\hat{\pi}_i).$$ We know that $[\hat{\eta}_i,\hat{\pi}_i]$ is always a chain, so by the definition of normality if $\eta$ is not normal there is some $i$ such that $|\hat{\eta}_i|\le|\hat{\pi}_i|-2$, so $\mu(\hat{\eta}_i,\hat{\pi}_i)=0$, which implies $\mu(P(\eta)^o)=0$. If $\eta$ is normal then $|\hat{\pi}_i|-|\hat{\eta}_i|=0$ or $1$, so $\mu(\hat{\eta}_i,\hat{\pi}_i)=1$ or $-1$, for all $i$. There are $|\pi|-|\sigma|$ parts $[\hat{\eta}_i,\hat{\pi}_i]$ with $\mu(\hat{\eta}_i,\hat{\pi}_i)=-1$, one for each zero in $\eta$, and the remaining have $\mu(\hat{\eta}_i,\hat{\pi}_i)=1$. Therefore, $\mu(P(\eta)^o)=(-1)^{|\pi|-|\sigma|}$ for each normal embedding, so the first term in the right hand side of Equation equals $(-1)^{|\pi|-|\sigma|}\operatorname{\text{\rm NE}}(\sigma,\pi)$.
We now present our formula for the Möbius function that applies to any interval of permutations:
\[thm:main\] For any permutations $\sigma$ and $\pi$: $$\label{eq:main}\mu(\sigma,\pi)=(-1)^{|\pi|-|\sigma|}\operatorname{\text{\rm NE}}(\sigma,\pi)+\sum_{\lambda\in[\sigma,\pi)}\mu(\sigma,\lambda)\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}.$$
We take the poset $A^{\sigma,\pi}$ and for each $\lambda\in(\sigma,\pi)$ we retract $\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}$ to a point we denote $\lambda$. This transforms $A^{\sigma,\pi}$ into the interval $(\sigma,\pi)$. We need to know what effect this has on the Möbius function of $A^{\sigma,\pi}$.
We work our way from the bottom to the top so we can assume that all elements below the elements of $\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}$ have already been retracted and all elements above have not. Define the poset $W(\lambda):=\{\tau\in A^{\sigma,\pi}\,|\,\tau\le\eta\text{ or } \tau\ge\eta\text{ for some } \eta\in\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}\}$. When we retract the elements of $\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}$ to $\lambda$ we retract $W(\lambda)$ onto a contractible poset, since in that poset the element $\lambda$ is comparable to all other elements and thus represents a cone point in the corresponding order complex. This implies the change to the Möbius function is $-\mu(W(\lambda))$.
To compute $\mu(W(\lambda))$ we split $W(\lambda)$ into two disjoint parts $$\begin{aligned}
W(\lambda)^<&:=\{\tau\in W(\lambda)\,|\,\tau<\eta\text{ for some } \eta\in\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}\},\\W(\lambda)^\ge&:=\{\tau\in W(\lambda)\,|\,\tau\ge\eta\text{ for some } \eta\in\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}\}.\end{aligned}$$ The poset $W(\lambda)^<$ is isomorphic to $(\sigma,\lambda)$ because all points below $\lambda$ have already been retracted. The poset $W(\lambda)^\ge$ is equal to $\bigcup_{\eta\in\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}}(P(\eta)\setminus\hat{\pi})$ which has Möbius function $-\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}$, by Lemma \[lem:inter\] and the inclusion-exclusion formula (this also follows from the Crosscut Theorem, see Proposition \[prop:crosscut\]).
Because every element of $\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}$ lies above every element of $(\sigma,\lambda)$ this implies $W(\lambda)=W(\lambda)^<\star W(\lambda)^\ge$, where $\star$ denotes the topological join,so $\mu(W(\lambda))=-\mu(W(\lambda)^<)\star\mu( W(\lambda)^\ge)$ by [@Koz08 Theorem 10.23(2)]. Therefore, $$-\mu(W(\lambda))=\mu(\sigma,\lambda)\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}.$$ So we start with $\mu(A^{\sigma,\pi})$, given by Lemma \[lem:muA\], and then subtract $\mu(W(\lambda))$ for each $\lambda\in (\sigma,\pi)$, which gives the desired formula.
\[rem:tests\] Computer tests[^1] indicate that $~95\%$ of intervals $[\sigma,\pi]$, where $|\pi|<9$, satisfy $\mu(\sigma,\pi)=(-1)^{|\pi|-|\sigma|}\operatorname{\text{\rm NE}}(\sigma,\pi)$. Thus, for these intervals the latter term in Equation is zero.
The complexity of counting the number of normal embeddings is polynomial so in the cases where we can show that the latter term of Equation equals zero we have a polynomial time formula for the Möbius function. This is a dramatic improvement over the original recursive formula that has exponential complexity. However, computing the latter term of Equation also has exponential complexity.
Tests show that using Equation is often much quicker than computing the Möbius function using the recursive formula. When computing the Möbius function of the rank $15$ interval $$[54123, 9\, 7\, 10\, 4\, 8\, 1\, 2\, 6\, 5\, 3\, 19 \,17\, 20\, 14 \,18\, 11\, 12 \,16\, 15\, 13],$$ the formula in Equation took 1.75 minutes and the recursive formula took 13.5 hours. Note that this interval has Möbius function $-3$ but no normal embeddings so the latter term of Equation is nonzero in this case. Furthermore, using Equation we were able to compute the Möbius function of a rank 16 interval in 1 hour and a rank 17 interval in 6 hours. However, if $\sigma$ has a large number of occurrences in $\pi$ then using Equation can be quite slow. For example, if $\sigma=2413$ and $\pi= 2\, 4\, 6\, 8\, 10\, 1\, 3\, 5\, 7\, 9$ then there are 35 occurrences of $\sigma$ in $\pi$ and $\mu(\sigma,\pi)$ can be computed in 0.06 seconds using the recursive formula but takes 15.5 hours using Equation .
Poset Fibration {#sec:fibration}
---------------
In this subsection we present a generalisation of the argument used to prove Theorem \[thm:main\]. We can view the pair $((\sigma,\pi),\{\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}\}_{\lambda\in(\sigma,\pi)})$ as a poset fibration which makes $f$ the projection map and $A^{\sigma,\pi}$ the total space. In [@Bjo05] various theorems are presented which relate two posets $P$ and $Q$ linked by a poset fibration $f$ satisfying a certain condition, see Theorem 2.5 of [@Bjo05] for the most general form of this condition. However, our poset fibration does not always satisfy this condition, for example the condition is not true on the interval $[1,456123]$. We present a result with a different condition on the poset fibration that generalises the argument in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], this result can be seen as an application of [@Wal81 Corollary 3.2]. We let $f^*$ and $f^{-1}$ denote the image and preimage of $f$, respectively.
\[prop:mob2.5\] Let $f:P\rightarrow Q$ be a surjective poset map such that $f^*(P_{<p})=Q_{<q}$, for any $q\in Q$ and $p\in f^{-1}(q)$. Then $$\mu(Q)=\mu(P)+\sum_{q\in Q}\mu(Q_{<q})\mu(f^{-1}(Q_{\ge q})).$$
We begin with $P$ and for each $q\in Q$ we retract $f^{-1}(q)$ to a single point and observe the effect this retraction has on the Möbius function of $P$. We do this inductively from the bottom to the top, so when considering $q\in Q$ we assume all points in $P_{<p}$, for all $p\in f^{-1}(q)$, have been retracted.
To calculate the effect the retraction has on the Möbius function of the poset we consider $$W(q):=\{p\in P\,|\, p<\lambda\text{ or }p\ge\lambda\text{ for some }\lambda\in f^{-1}(q)\}.$$ When we retract $f^{-1}(q)$ to a point we retract $W(q)$ to a contractible poset, which implies the change to the Möbius function is $-\mu(W(q))$. We can rewrite $W(q)$ in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
W(q)&=\bigcup_{p\in f^{-1}(q)}P_{<p}\star P_{\ge p}=\bigcup_{p\in f^{-1}(q)}Q_{<q}\star P_{\ge p}\\&=Q_{<q}\star\bigcup_{p\in f^{-1}(q)} P_{\ge p}=Q_{<q}\star f^{-1}(Q_{\ge q}).\end{aligned}$$ We can replace $P_{<p}$ with $Q_{<q}$ because our induction assumption is that $P_{<p}$ has been retracted and our condition of the proposition is $f^*(P_{<p})=Q_{<q}$. Therefore, $-\mu(W(q))=\mu(Q_{<q})\mu(f^{-1}(Q_{\ge q}))$ and summing over all $q\in Q$ completes the proof.
An interesting question is whether Proposition \[prop:mob2.5\] can be generalised to show homotopy equivalence. Also, is there a more general condition that encompasses the conditions of both Proposition \[prop:mob2.5\] and Theorem 2.5 of [@Bjo05]?
Applications {#sec:app}
============
By Theorem \[thm:main\] we know the Möbius function is linked to the number of normal embeddings, which depend on the adjacencies.
\[lem:adj\] The average total number of letters in the tails of adjacencies in a permutation of length $n$ is $2(\frac{n-1}{n})$. In particular, when $n$ tends to infinity the average number of letters in the tails of adjacencies tends to 2.
Note first that $k=1$ cannot be in the tail of an increasing adjacency and $n$ cannot be in the tail of a decreasing adjacency. For $k>1$ the number of permutations of length $n$ in which $k$ is in the tail of an increasing adjacency is $(n-1)!$, because these are precisely all permutations of the letters $1,2,\ldots,n$ where $(k-1)k$ is regarded as a single letter. So the probability that a letter $k>1$ is in the tail of an increasing adjacency is $(n-1)!/n!=1/n$. Likewise, the probability that a letter $k<n$ is in the tail of a decreasing adjacency is $1/n$. Therefore, the probability that $k$ is in the tail of an adjacency is $$\label{eq:tail}\begin{cases}\frac{1}{n},&\mbox{ if } k=1 \mbox{ or } n\\\frac{2}{n},&\mbox{ otherwise}\end{cases}.\nonumber$$ Summing over all letters $k=1,\ldots,n$ completes the proof.
An embedding in a permutation $\pi$ is likely to be normal if there is only a small proportion of letters in the tails of the adjacencies of $\pi$. Therefore, Lemma \[lem:adj\] indicates that the proportion of embeddings of $\lambda$ in a random permutation $\pi$ that are normal increases as the length of $\pi$ increases. If a permutation has no adjacencies of size $\ell>1$ then all embeddings will be normal, the proportion of such permutations tends to $1/e^2$ as the length of the permutations increase, see [@OEISA002464].
By Remark \[rem:tests\] we suspect that the second part of Equation vanishes for a significant proportion of intervals. A consequence of Proposition 3.3 in [@Smith14] is that if $\sigma$ and $\pi$ have the same number of descents then the second part of Equation vanishes. Note that although the definition of normal embeddings in [@Smith14] does not consider decreasing adjacencies, it is equivalent to Definition \[defn:normal\] when the number of descents is fixed. To see this note that if $\sigma$ and $\pi$ have the same number of descents then any letters in $\pi$ that form a decreasing adjacency, and thus a descent, must be nonzero in all embeddings otherwise that descent would not be in $\sigma$, contradicting the assumption that $\sigma$ and $\pi$ have the same number of descents.
One route to simplifying Equation is answering the following question:
\[que:sum\] Given an interval $[\sigma,\pi]$, for which $\lambda\in[\sigma,\pi)$ is the following sum nonzero?: $$\label{eq:sum}\displaystyle\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}.$$
One case where the sum in equals zero is when $EZ^{\lambda,\pi}$ is always empty, which leads us to the following definition and proposition:
We say an interval $[\sigma,\pi]$ has a *single block* if there exists some $i$ such that $\eta_i=0$ for any $\eta\in \widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$. That is, there is a letter in $\pi$ that is not contained in any of the occurrences in $\widehat{E}^{\sigma,\pi}$.
We say an interval is *single* if for all $\lambda\in[\sigma,\pi)$ the interval $[\lambda,\pi]$ has a single block.
Our notation here follows from the idea of interval blocks in [@SteTen10]. Computer tests show that $78.6\%$ of intervals $[\sigma,\pi]$, where $|\pi|<9$, are single and we found that $39\%$ of $48300$ random rank 10 intervals, where $|\sigma|=5$ and $|\pi|=15$, are single. We suspect that the proportion of intervals that are single approaches zero as the rank tends to infinity, because the likelihood that there exists some $\lambda\in[\sigma,\pi]$ such that $[\lambda,\pi]$ does not have a single block increases as the rank of the interval increases.
\[prop:single\] If $[\sigma,\pi]$ is single then $\mu(\sigma,\pi)=(-1)^{|\pi|-|\sigma|}\operatorname{\text{\rm NE}}(\sigma,\pi)$.
If $[\lambda,\pi]$ has a single block then $EZ^{\lambda,\pi}$ must be empty which implies $\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}=~0$. Therefore, if $[\sigma,\pi]$ is single then $\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}=0$ for all $\lambda\in[\sigma,\pi)$, combining this with Equation completes the proof.
Intervals that contain a disconnected subinterval of rank at least 3 are non-shellable, as shown by Björner in [@Bjo80], and thus not amenable to some of the elegant methods of topological combinatorics, see [@McSt13] for further background. In the rest of the paper we consider a particular type of interval that is known to be disconnected and show that the sum in is nonzero for these intervals. Whether there is a topological “reason" for being nonzero in these cases we don’t know.
We consider decomposable permutations and write them in the form $\pi_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\pi_n$ where each $\pi_i$, which we call a *component* of $\pi$, is indecomposable. Consider a permutation $\pi$, with a sequence of $\ell\ge2$ equal consecutive components, and $\lambda\le\pi$ obtained from $\pi$ by removing $k$ of the components from this sequence, where $\ell>k\ge1$. The interval $[\lambda,\pi]$ is disconnected, which follows from results in [@McSt13], specifically Lemma 4.2 and Theorem 5.6. These intervals are the cause of the extra conditions in the formulas for the Möbius function that appear in [@BJJS11] and [@McSt13].
The simplest permutations with equal consecutive components are the following:
Given an indecomposable permutation $\lambda$ let $$\lambda^n:=\underbrace{\lambda\oplus\cdots\oplus\lambda}_{\times n}.$$
Before we continue let us introduce a very useful result for computing the Möbius function of lattices known as the Crosscut Theorem. We denote the join of $A\subseteq X$ as $\vee A:=\min\{x\in X\,|\,x\ge a\text{ for all } a\in A\}$:
\[prop:crosscut\](Crosscut Theorem, see [@Sta97 Corollary 3.9.4]) Let $L$ be a finite lattice with top element $\hat{1}$ and bottom element $\hat{0}$. Let $X$ be a subset of $L$ such that $\hat{0}\not\in X$ and for all $s\in L$, $s\not=\hat{0}$, there is some $t\in X$ such that $s\ge t$. Then $$\mu(\hat{0},\hat{1})=\sum_{\substack{A\subseteq X\\\vee A=\hat{1}}}(-1)^{|A|}.$$
The Crosscut theorem is traditionally used to compute the Möbius function of a lattice, but we can use it in reverse if we can represent our problem as a lattice for which we already know the Möbius function.
Consider the interval $[\lambda^m,\lambda^n]$, for some indecomposable permutation $\lambda$, the embeddings of $\lambda^m$ in $\lambda^n$ can be considered as subsets of $[n]:=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ of size $m$. So we can regard our problem as that of computing the Möbius function of a sublattice of the Boolean lattice:
The *Boolean lattice* $B_n$ is the poset of subsets of $[n]$ with the partial order given by inclusion.
Define the *truncated Boolean lattice* $B_{n}^{\ge k}$ as the subposet of $B_n$ where all elements $a\in B_n$ such that $|a|< k$ are retracted to a single point $\hat{0}$. Similarly, define $B_{n}^{\le k}$ as the subposet of $B_n$ where all elements $a\in B_n$ such that $|a|> k$ are retracted to a single point $\hat{1}$.
(0,0) – (-3,1) – (-2,2) – (0,3); (0,0) – (-1.75,1) – (-2,2) – (0,3); (0,0) – (0.5,1) – (-0.5,2) – (0,3); (0,0) – (-0.5,1) – (-2,2) – (0,3); (0,0) – (1.75,1) – (2,2) – (0,3); (0,0) – (3,1) – (0.5,2) – (0,3); (3,1) – (2,2); (1.75,1) – (-0.5,2); (-0.5,1) – (2,2); (0.5,1) – (0.5,2); (-1.75,1) – (0.5,2); (-3,1) – (-0.5,2); (0,3) node\[above\] [$1234$]{}; (0,3) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (-2,2.1) node\[left\] [$123$]{}; (-2,2) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (-0.5,2.1) node\[left\] [$124$]{}; (-0.5,2) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (0.5,2.1) node\[right\] [$134$]{}; (0.5,2) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (2,2.1) node\[right\] [$234$]{}; (2,2) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (-3,.95) node\[left\] [$12$]{}; (-3,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (-1.75,.95) node\[left\] [$13$]{}; (-1.75,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (-0.5,.95) node\[left\] [$23$]{}; (-0.5,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (0.5,.95) node\[right\] [$14$]{}; (0.5,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (1.75,.95) node\[right\] [$24$]{}; (1.75,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (3,.95) node\[right\] [$34$]{}; (3,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (0,0) node\[below\] [$\hat{0}$]{}; (0,0) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (6,0) – (4.5,1) – (6,2); (6,0) – (5.5,1) – (6,2); (6,0) – (6.5,1) – (6,2); (6,0) – (7.5,1) – (6,2); (6,2) node\[above\] [$\hat{1}$]{}; (6,2) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (4.5,1) node\[left\] [$1$]{}; (4.5,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (5.5,1) node\[left\] [$2$]{}; (5.5,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (6.5,1) node\[right\] [$3$]{}; (6.5,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (7.5,1) node\[right\] [$4$]{}; (7.5,1) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\]; (6,0) node\[below\] [$\emptyset$]{}; (6,0) node\[fill,circle,scale=0.5pt\];
We take the notation for a truncated Boolean lattice from [@Wac07 Section 3.2.1]. See Figure \[fig:partialboolean\] for examples of truncated Boolean lattices. The embeddings of $\lambda^m$ in $\lambda^n$ can be viewed as the atoms of the truncated Boolean lattice $B_n^{\ge m}$, so using the Crosscut theorem we can compute the sum in for $[\lambda^m,\lambda^n]$ by computing $\mu(B_n^{\ge m})$. The Möbius function of a Boolean lattice is given by $\mu(B_n)=(-1)^n$, see [@Rota64 Section 3]. We can use this to compute the Möbius function of the truncated Boolean lattice.
\[lem:parBool\] The Möbius function of a truncated Boolean lattice is given by: $$\mu(B_{n}^{\le k})=(-1)^{k-1}\dbinom{n-1}{k} \hskip30pt \text{ and }\hskip30pt\mu(B_n^{\ge k})=(-1)^{n-k-1}\dbinom{n-1}{k-1}.$$
First consider $B_{n}^{\le k}$. For each element $\lambda\in B_{n}^{\le k}$, with $|\lambda|=\ell$, the interval $[\emptyset,\lambda]$ is isomorphic to the boolean lattice $B_\ell$, therefore $\mu(\emptyset,\lambda)=(-1)^\ell$. There are $\binom{n}{\ell}$ elements in $B_{n}^{\le k}$ with size $\ell$, for $0\le\ell\le k$. To compute $\mu(B_{n}^{\le k})$ we need to sum all elements and negate, we do this by summing over $\ell$. We can then apply an identity on the alternating sum of binomial coefficients, a proof of which can be found in Section 0 of [@Kle63], this gives: $$\mu(B_{n}^{\le k})=-\sum_{\ell=0}^{k}(-1)^{\ell}\binom{n}{\ell}=(-1)^{k}\binom{n-1}{k}.$$ Note that the lattice $B_n^{\ge k}$ is isomorphic to $(B_{n}^{\le n-k})^*$, the dual of $B_{n}^{\le n-k}$, that is, the lattice with the partial order reversed. Therefore, $\mu(B_n^{\ge k})=\mu((B_{n}^{\le n-k})^*)=\mu(B_{n}^{\le n-k})$ which completes the proof.
We can now present our result for the interval $[\lambda^m,\lambda^n]$:
\[prop:countEmb\] Let $\lambda$ be an indecomposable permutation, of length $\ell>1$, and consider the interval $[\lambda^m,\lambda^n]$. Then: $$\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda^m,\lambda^n}}(-1)^{|S|}=(-1)^{n-m-1}\dbinom{n-1}{m-1}.$$
We can consider each embedding of $\lambda^m$ in $\lambda^n$ as a subset $a\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with $|a|=m$. Therefore, the embeddings correspond to the atoms of the lattice $B_n^{\ge m}$. So we can apply the Crosscut theorem and Lemma \[lem:parBool\] to complete the proof.
We can generalise this result by adding in other components to the permutations to get the following proposition:
\[prop:conSeq\] Consider a decomposable permutation $\pi=\pi_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\pi_n$ with a sequence of consecutive components $\pi_{i+1}=\cdots=\pi_{i+\alpha}$, with $\alpha>1$. Let $\lambda=\lambda_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\lambda_m$ be the subpermutation of $\pi$ obtained by reducing the sequence of equal components to length $\ell$, where $0\le \ell\le \alpha$. Then: $$\label{eq:conSeq}\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}=(-1)^{\alpha-\ell-1}\dbinom{\alpha-1}{\ell-1}.$$
Consider $W(\lambda,\pi):=\bigcup_{\eta\in\widehat{E}^{\lambda,\pi}}(P(\eta)\setminus\hat{\pi})$. The proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] shows that $\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}=\mu(W(\lambda,\pi))$. We show that $W(\lambda,\pi)$ is homotopy equivalent to $W(\pi_{i+1}^\ell,\pi_{i+1}^\alpha)$, which along with Proposition \[prop:countEmb\] implies the result.
To show that $W(\lambda,\pi)$ and $W(\pi_{i+1}^\ell,\pi_{i+1}^\alpha)$ are homotopy equivalent we use the Quillen Fiber Lemma, see [@Koz08 Theorem 15.28]. To do this we use the map $g:W(\lambda,\pi)\rightarrow W(\pi_{i+1}^\ell,\pi_{i+1}^\alpha)$, defined in the following way. Consider $\hat{\eta}\in W(\lambda,\pi)$, then $\hat{\eta}$ is a decomposition of an embedding $\eta$ of a permutation of the form $\tau=\pi_1\oplus\cdots\pi_i\oplus\tilde{\tau}\oplus\pi_{i+\alpha+1}\oplus\cdots\oplus\pi_n$ and let $g(\hat{\eta})$ be the decomposition of the embedding of $\tilde{\tau}$ in $\pi_{i+1}\oplus\cdots\oplus\pi_{i+\alpha}$.
To apply the Quillen Fiber Lemma we need to show that $D(x):=\Delta(g^{-1}(W(\pi_{i+1}^\ell,\pi_{i+1}^\alpha)_{\ge x}))$ is contractible for all $x\in W(\pi_{i+1}^\ell,\pi_{i+1}^\alpha)$. Let $\hat{\phi}^1,\ldots,\hat{\phi}^k$ be the minimal elements of $D(x)$. The posets $W(\lambda,\pi)_{\ge\hat{\phi}^i}$ are contractible, for all $i=1,\ldots,k$, because each has a unique minimal element $\hat{\phi}^i$. So if we can show that their intersection is also contractible that implies $D(x)$ is contractible.
All the minimal elements $\hat{\phi}^i$ have $g(\hat{\phi}^i)=x$, so there is a set $\{j_1,\ldots,j_r\}\subset\{i+1,\ldots,i+\alpha\}$ such that $\hat{\phi}^i_{j_p}=\hat{\pi}_{j_p}$, for all $1\le i\le k$ and $1\le p\le r$. If $j_1=i+1$ and $j_r=i+\alpha$, then there is exactly one minimal element in $D(x)$, so it is contractible. So assume $j_1\not=i+1$, then $\hat{\phi}^i_{j_1-1}\not=\hat{\pi}_{j_1-1}$, for all $1\le~i\le~k$, because $\hat{\phi}^i_{j_1-1}$ cannot be larger than $\hat{\pi}_{i}$ if $\hat{\pi}_i<\hat{\pi}_{i+1}$ or $\emptyset$ if $\hat{\pi}_i>\hat{\pi}_{i+1}$. An analogous argument implies $\hat{\phi}^i_{j_r+1}\not=\hat{\pi}_{j_1-1}$ if $j_r\not=i+\alpha$. Therefore, the join $\bigvee_{j=1,\ldots,k}\hat{\phi}^j$ is strictly less than $\hat{\pi}$. So the intersection $\bigcap_{j=1,\ldots,k}W(\lambda,\pi)_{\ge\hat{\phi}^j}$ has a unique minimal element and so is contractible, which implies $D(x)$ is contractible for all $x\in W(\pi_{i+1}^\ell,\pi_{i+1}^\alpha)$. Therefore, by the Quillen Fiber Lemma, $W(\lambda,\pi)$ and $W(\pi_{i+1}^\ell,\pi_{i+1}^\alpha)$ are homotopy equivalent.
\[ex:conSeq\] Consider the interval $[\lambda,\pi]$, where:
------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
$\lambda$ $=2\,\,1\,\,5\,\,3\,\,4\,\,8\,\,6\,\,7\,\,10\,\,9 $ $=21\oplus312\oplus312\oplus21,$
$\pi$ $=2\,\,1\,\,5\,\,3\,\,4\,\,8\,\,6\,\,7\,\,11\,\,9\,\,10\,\,13\,\,12 $ $=21\oplus312\oplus312\oplus312\oplus21,$
$\hat{\pi}$ $=(21,1,12,1,12,1,12,21).$
------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
So we have a sequence of equal components $\pi_2=\pi_3=\pi_4=312$ of length $\alpha=3$ and $\ell=2$.
Given an element $\hat{\eta}\in W(\lambda,\pi)$, which is the decomposition of an embedding $\eta$ of a permutation $\tau$ in $\pi$, we apply the the map $g$ from the proof of Proposition \[prop:conSeq\] in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\eta}&=(0,1,1,1,12,1,12,21)\\
\eta&=0\,\,0\,\,5\,\,0\,\,4\,\,8\,\,6\,\,7\,\,11\,\,9\,\,10\,\,13\,\,12\\
\tau&=\sigma\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\tilde{\tau}=312\oplus312\end{aligned}$$ The letters of $\tilde{\tau}$ in $\eta$ are those embedded in $8\,6\,7\,11\,9\,10$ so we get the embedding $0\,0\,0\,8\,6\,7\,11\,9\,10$, which gives $g(\hat{\eta})=(0,0,1,12,1,12)$.
Applying Proposition \[prop:conSeq\] to $[\lambda,\pi]$ gives: $$\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}=(-1)^{3-2-1}\dbinom{3-1}{2-1}=2.$$
We conjecture that we can generalise this further by removing elements from more than one sequence of equal components:
\[conj:genRepeat\] Consider a decomposable permutation $\pi=\pi_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\pi_n$ which has $t$ sequences of equal components $\pi_{s_i+1}=\ldots=\pi_{s_i+\alpha_i}\not=1$ of respective lengths $\alpha_i$, for $1\le i\le t$. Let $\lambda=\lambda_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\lambda_m$ be the permutation obtained from $\pi$ by, for each $i$, reducing the $i$-th sequence to length $\ell_i$, with $0\le \ell_i\le \alpha_i$. Then: $$\sum_{S\in EZ^{\lambda,\pi}}(-1)^{|S|}=(-1)^{\alpha-\ell-1}\prod_{i=1}^t\dbinom{\alpha_i-1}{\ell_i-1},$$ where $\alpha=\alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_t$ and $\ell=\ell_1+\cdots+\ell_t$.
Consider the permutation $\pi=2\,1\,4\,3\,7\,5\,6\,10\,8\,9\,13\,11\,12$ which has the decomposition $21\oplus21\oplus312\oplus312\oplus312$ so has 2 sequences of equal components $21,\,21$ and $312,\,312,\,312$ of lengths $\alpha_1=2$ and $\alpha_2=3$. If $\lambda=21\oplus312\oplus312=21534867$, so $\ell_1=1$ and $\ell_2=2$, the sum in equals $-2$, this agrees with the formula in Conjecture \[conj:genRepeat\]: $$(-1)^{5-3-1}\dbinom{2-1}{1-1}\dbinom{3-1}{2-1}=-2.$$
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank the anonymous referee for their extremely useful comments which greatly improved the paper.
Bibliography {#bibliography .unnumbered}
============
[18]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Bj[ö]{}rner, A., 1980. Shellable and [C]{}ohen-[M]{}acaulay partially ordered sets. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 260 (1), 159–183.
Bj[ö]{}rner, A., 1990. The [M]{}[ö]{}bius function of subword order. Institute for Mathematics and its Applications 19, 118.
Bj[ö]{}rner, A., 1993. The [M]{}[ö]{}bius function of factor order. Theoretical Computer Science 117 (1), 91–98.
Bj[ö]{}rner, A., Wachs, M., Welker, V., 2005. Poset fiber theorems. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 357 (5), 1877–1899.
Burstein, A., Jel[í]{}nek, V., Jel[í]{}nkov[á]{}, E., Steingr[í]{}msson, E., 2011. The [M]{}öbius function of separable and decomposable permutations. Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series A 118 (8), 2346–2364.
Klee, V., 1963. The [E]{}uler characteristic in combinatorial geometry. American Mathematical Monthly, 119–127.
Kozlov, D., 2008. Combinatorial Algebraic Topology. Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics. Springer.
McNamara, P. R. W., Steingr[í]{}msson, E., 2015. On the topology of the permutation pattern poset. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 134, 1–35.
Narushima, H., 1974. Principle of inclusion-exclusion on semilattices. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 17 (2), 196–203.
Rota, G.-C., 1964. On the foundations of combinatorial theory [I]{}. [T]{}heory of [M]{}[ö]{}bius functions. Probability Theory and Related Fields 2 (4), 340–368.
Sagan, B. E., Vatter, V., 2006. The [M]{}öbius function of a composition poset. Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics 24 (2), 117–136.
Sloane, N. J. A., 1991. The [O]{}n-[L]{}ine [E]{}ncyclopedia of [I]{}nteger [S]{}equences. Published electronically at <http://oeis.org>, sequence [A002464](http://oeis.org/A002464).
Smith, J. P., 2014. On the [M]{}öbius function of permutations with one descent. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 21, 2.11.
Smith, J. P., 2016. Intervals of permutations with a fixed number of descents are shellable. Discrete Mathematics 339 (1), 118 – 126.
Stanley, R. P., 2012. Enumerative Combinatorics. [V]{}ol. 1, 2nd Edition. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press.
Steingr[í]{}msson, E., Tenner, B. E., 2010. The [M]{}öbius function of the permutation pattern poset. Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1), 39–52.
Wachs, M. L., 2007. Poset topology: [T]{}ools and applications. In: Geometric Combinatorics. Vol. 13 of IAS/Park City Math. Ser. Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 497–615.
Walker, J. W., 1981. Homotopy type and euler characteristic of partially ordered sets. European Journal of Combinatorics 2 (4), 373–384.
[^1]: The programs used are available at <https://github.com/JasonPSmith/perm> and the data can be provided upon request by emailing the author at [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.